s. y. agnon and the revival of modern hebrew...aaron bar-adon s. y. agnon and the revival of modern...

AARON BAR-ADON

S. Y. Agnon and the Revival of Modern Hebrew*

I

THE REVIVAL OF MODERN HEBREW AS A LIVING, SPOKEN LANGUAGE

has generated a great deal of discussion in Hebrew scholarly literature. One will find interesting references to it in Hebrew belles-lettres as well. The works of S. Y. Agnon provide an excellent example.

S. Y. (Shemuel Yosef) Agnon (1888-1970), the late Israeli winner of the 1966 Nobel Prize in Literature, has included in his novels significant observations and comments on this topic - some overtly, some covertly. In fact, he had a keen interest in that revival and held certain firm and consistent opinions with regard to its history and historical significance, as well as to personalities and processes involved. Yet, most, if not all, of his critics seem to have so far overlooked those important aspects in their zealous search for other themes and motifs or for more allegorical, often speculative, interpretations of his works.1

I am in full agreement with those critics of Agnon who view his entire work as one artistic unity, as one integrated entity.2 A reader is

* This study was supported in part by a Research Fellowship from the American Council for Learned Societies and a grant from The University of Texas Arts and Sciences Foundation, for which I wish to express my gratitude here. I also wish to thank my colleagues Professors Winfred P. Lehmann and Archibald A. Hill for their valuable comments on the manuscript. Special thanks of Professor Shelomo Morag.

1 The list of motifs and themes in the literature on Agnon is enormous. Here are but a few of them; first, those pertaining to Temol shilshom : religion, causa- tion, sin and remorse, repentance and repairing, the generation, dog and man as dog, madness, paint, the soul, family (see Arnold J. Band, Nostalgia and Night- mare [Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968], pp. 421-441). Among others: the home (leaving the home, homelessness and return), life and death, clothes, Jewish holidays, names, allegory and symbolism, Jews and Gentiles, Israelis and Arabs, religious and secular, tragedy and fatalism, society and the individual, reality vs. dream, the key with its symbolism, sound Jewish tradition vs. the new world, generation gap, Jerusalem vs. Buchach (Agnon's hometown), social criticism, the Haskalah (Enlightenment) Period to the present, Agnon as an epic-writer, stability and breakdown, and a host of other topics. Only the present topic does not seem to have been treated.

2 See, for instance, Baruch Kurzweil, Massot 'al sippurey òhay 'Agnon (Assays on S. Y. Agnon's Stories), Tel-Aviv, 1962, p. 37, where he speaks of the internal unity in Agnon's writings. See also pp. 98 f., et passim. See, however, the develop- mental analysis in Band, especially pp. 54 ff. and 448-451. For a "cultural, biog- raphy" of Agnon in English, see Band, pp. 1-28 et passim. Texas Studies in Literature and Language

XIV.l (Spring, 1972)

This content downloaded from 128.146.23.50 on Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:33:00 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

1 48 AARON B AR-ADON

inevitably drawn to this conclusion when he sees numerous stories, re- lating to different themes and periods in Agnon's long literary life, linked together through various unifying elements. Not too rarely do some heroes of one novel reappear quite naturally, as "familiar faces," in others; for example, Reb Yudil Hassid, Hemdat, Shammay, Ya'el Hayyot, and 'Arzaf . Figures and ideas, images and themes are carried over from one story to another. Indeed, one such theme is that of the revival of modern Hebrew as a spoken language.

This theme is not marginal at all in several of Agnon's major novels and short stories. As a matter of fact, it occupies a central place in his major works Temol shilshom (Only Yesterday), "Bin'aréynu uviz- kenéynu" (With Our Youth and with Our Aged) , as well as in "Hush ha-réah" (The Sense of Smell), and is important to some extent in "Bilvav yamim" (In the Heart of Seas), "Shevu'at 'emunim" (The Betrothal Oath) , and elsewhere.8

Even his latest book, Shira, published in full posthumously, includes quite a few interesting notes concerning the revival of the language.4 Moreover, a character's attitude toward Hebrew in a story appears to be a major criterion for Agnon's own "attitude" toward him: for instance, if a hero's attitude toward Hebrew is positive, he will be presented in a positive light; if it is negative, his image will be negative too. The negative figures will therefore include culturally assimilated Jews, both in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora, defenders of Yiddish, and proponents of the teaching of foreign languages. Among these are included both fictitious (f.) and historical (h.) figures, such as Mr. Dayksil (f.), the president of the Zionist Students' Organization (who is actually a culturally assimilated young Jew!) ; Miss Landau (h.), the principal of the English Evelyn de Rothschild School in Jerusalem; the nameless principal of the French Alliance School in Jerusalem; Mr. Ephraim Cohen (h.), the head of the German Ezrah school system in Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine. For the same reason, and in spite of his apparent general positive attitude toward religion, Agnon attacks the religious fanatics of the Old City and Me'ah She'arim quarter in Jerusalem, who are opponents of the secular Hebrew revival. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda is in a category by himself, as will be detailed below.

Even the name of one of Agnon's most puzzling figures, Balak, the

8 1 am using here the 1966 revised printing of the 1953 eight-volume second Hebrew edition of Kol sip pur av shel Shemuel Yosef 'Agnon (All the Stories of Shemuel Yosef Agnon), Tel-Aviv: Schocken Publishing House. All references to Agnon stories and novels except Shira, are to this edition andare cited in the text by page numbers of the appropriate volumes. All translations included in this paper were done by the present author.

éShira (Tel-Aviv: Schocken Publishing House, 1971).


Agnon and the Revival of Modern Hebrew 149

demonic dog in Temol shilshom, is closely connected with the controversy about the Hebrew revival, or the struggle of the revived living Hebrew with its opponents, with people who treated it with neglect and contempt, like the aforementioned Alliance principal (and see sections III and IV below) ♦ This finding may, in turn, provide some meaningful clues for the understanding of certain aspects of the complex Balak puzzle itself.

One will easily notice an interesting correlation in the names of Agnon's heroes between language and character - the linguistic identity of a hero's name may make the difference. Quite often (perhaps generally), a hero with a positive character, a meaningful life, bears a Hebrew name, while his negative counterpart bears a foreign name.5

A few examples from Temol shilshom may suffice: Yitzhak's modest wife, Shifra, has a Hebrew name, while his former deceiving girl friend, Sonya, has a foreign name; the Hebrew poetic idealist, who drowned while saving the life of an Arab in Lake Kinneret (Tiberias), has the full Hebrew name of Naftoli Zamir (the last name Hebraized from the Slavic Spivak) , while his most direct opponent, the Yiddish protagonist, Falk Schpaltleder, is obviously completely foreign. We might mention also the balanced, well-rooted, almost saintly idealist, who is endowed with the Hebrew name of Menahem, as compared with another friend of Kumer's, Rabinowitz (non-Hebrew), who is an earthly, somewhat rootless and not too serious person. We might even mention here the difference between the two images of the author himself - Hemdat vs. Yitzhak Kumer: Hemdat, the portrait of the author as a young, charm- ing, well-balanced poet, is Hebrew only, while the tragic,6 ill-balanced figure Yitzhak Kumer, being a mixture of light and shadow, of positive and negative, happens to be half Hebrew (Yitzhak) and half Yiddish (Kumer) .7 Apparently this is no coincidence.

Agnon will seldom, if ever, give a complete detailed picture of any- thing in one place. He usually gives only a few strokes, then provides elsewhere another occasion in which he may add a few more strokes. If one adds up all the scattered details of such a "jig-saw puzzle," he may

5Y. Bahat has already noticed a correlation between such names and the destinies of their bearers in Agnon's story "Bidmi yaméha" (In the Prime of Her Life) , but he did not go beyond that. See Y. Bahat, S. Y. Agnon and Hayyim Hazaz (Haifa, 1962), pp. 48-49.

6 Band emphasizes his comic character, p. 449. 7 This observation must naturally be limited to fictitious names that Agnon

invented for his heroes. It can hardly apply to real, authentic names of various, historical figures that are often mentioned in his writings alongside the former. This combination of real and fictitious represents a blend of realism and fiction; one might say that it results in a kind of "idealized realism." His methods and "tricks" in giving names to his heroes constitute an interesting topic by themselves»


1 50 AARON BAR-ADON

come up with a more complete picture. The same applies to views and comments concerning the revival of Hebrew.

Indeed, careful study of his writings will reveal that Agnon deliber- ately provides us, although in small installments, with his version of the history of the revival of Hebrew as a spoken language and its central role in the national, Zionist, revival. He deals with a variety of topics, such as the antecedents to Eliezer Ben- Yehuda (who is often referred to by others as the "Reviver of Hebrew Speech" ) ; the real role of Ben- Yehuda and other contemporaries in the revival; the struggle of He- brew with the foreign languages; and the problem of selecting one common pronunciation (from the Ashkenazi and Sephardi traditional pro- nounciations). He also speaks about Hebrew as an intercommunity, unifying means of communication, about Hebrew in the various schools, about the Hebrew Language Committee in Jerusalem, about stylistic differences between Jerusalem and Jaffa; and he even refers to some peculiar pronunciations (for example, the Galilean dialect).8 He also addresses himself to the role of the po' dim (the workers, or the labor movement) in the revival of the language, as in the building of the new country; to the role of the teachers and students in the Hebrew revival, and to other related topics.9 While practically all of the above-mentioned topics, including the Balak puzzle, appear in his writings, Ag- non's oral statements in a personal interview (recorded on January 9, 1969)10 will be further help in clarifying certain points and in providing clues to solving some controversial issues.

Needless to say, this analysis covers a wide range of linguistically or sociolinguistically oriented topics, and although Agnon is far from being a linguist, some of his treatments reflect interesting insights of an intui- tive "sociolinguist,"u and provide valuable data for the student of the

8 For details, see A. Bar-Adon, The Rise and Decline of a Dialect: A Study in the Revival of Modern Hebrew, The Hague : Mouton (in press) .

9 One of his favonte topics is the teaching of Hebrew to newcomers: Memdat teaches Ya'el Hayyot Hebrew, in "Giv'at hahol" (The Sand Hill); Tamara teaches Hebrew' to consumptive girls in Shira (pp. 281, 371) ; in "Bidmi yaméha" Mazzal teaches Hebrew to Le'ah, while still in the Diaspora, as does Segal to Tirtsah (Kol sippurav, III, 23, 25. See also p. 11). Similarly, in Temol shilshom, etc.

10 Through the kind intervention of Professor Shelomo Morag, of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, I was privileged to interview S. Y. Agnon (on January 9, 1969) in connection with his views about the Hebrew revival. Herewith I wish to express my gratitude to Professor Morag. The transcript of this interview will appear as an appendix to my forthcoming book (in Hebrew) on Shay (=Shemuel Yosef) Agnon and the Revival of Hebrew, Tel-Aviv: Schocken. A few selections in English appear in the present essay.

11 See especially his "Hush ha-réah, which is actually an essay on the virtues of the Hebrew language and the significance of its revival.



revival of modern Hebrew. By the same token, although Agnon is not a historian or a sociologist, his works include, often in some disguise, a wealth of historical (especially cultural history) and sociological material - information as well as interesting interpretations thereof. In an article, published during the final revision of the present paper, Isaac Barzilay pointed out Agnon's great competence ("expertise") in the geography of his literary world (in particular, of Jerusalem and the rest of Israel, and of Buchach and the rest of Galicia), and in the sociology and economy of the Jews in recent generations, as well as in their cultural history; for example, trends and figures in the Hassidic movement, the history of families and individuals, books and manuscripts. Barzilay did not use the opportunity to touch on our topic. Band pointed out already in 1968 that "the truth is that Agnon intuitively grasps reality and human situations, as a writer of fiction and not as an essayist or polemicist," and one can not argue with that.12

The sociolinguistic material can be arranged, perhaps, as follows: the background for the revival of the language; differences in the pronunciation traditions of the different communities and the problem of selecting a uniform pronunciation; personality conflicts among the leaders of the revival, with Eliezer Ben-Yehuda in the center; the role of the po'alim (workers) in the linguistic revival, as in the national one; the struggle with the foreign languages and the champions of the "foreignization" as a social phenomenon (especially with the heads of the Alliance school system, Ezrah, etc.) , and so on.

Here follow a few examples of Agnon's views concerning the Hebrew revival and a brief introduction to the complex Balak puzzle.13

II

The study of the struggle between Hebrew and Yiddish may begin with the story "Bincaréynu uvizkenéynu" (originally published in 1920) .14 Thé background for it is the beginning of Zionism in Galicia,

12 Band, p. 450. See I. Barzilay, "Beyn metsi'ut ledimyon" (Between Reality and Fantasy), Hadoar: Hebrew Weekly, New York, No. 2227, April 30, 1971, pp. 424-425. See also A. Y. Brawer, "On the Need for Historical and Geographical Introductions to Agnon's Writings" (in Hebrew) , in Y uval shay, ed. B. Kurzweil (Ramat-Gan, 1958), pp. 35-38.

13 A more detailed treatment of the subject will be,included in my forthcoming book (in Hebrew) Shay (=Shemuel Yosef) Agnon and the Revival of Hebrew.

14 Agnon, probably more than any other author, kept changing the text from one edition to the other, often involving various linguistic aspects. For some details, see J. Mansour, Iyyunim bilshono Shel Shay 'Agnon (Studies in S. Y. Agnon's Language), Tel-Aviv, 1968. Also, D. Saddan; Band; M. Tochner, Pesher 'Agnon (Israel, 1968) ; and others.


152 AARON BAR-ADON

Poland, especially in Agnon's hometown "Shibush" (Buchach). It is permeated by social criticism, via satire and irony, especially about the inefficient local leaders, who are portrayed as despicable demagogues, while being totally ignorant of Hebrew culture. Paradoxically, they are those who determine not only the fate of Zionism, but also the fate of Hebrew education and of the revival of Hebrew as well.

Agnon concerns himself here with two aspects of the Hebrew revival: the struggle with Yiddish and the controversy over the selection of a uniform pronunciation for the revived language. In a grotesque way he stages a mock debate between Yiddish and Hebrew proponents, Mr. Gold and Mr. Silber, putting ridiculous arguments in the mouth of the Yiddish fan, Mr. Gold, while providing the Hebrew proponent, Mr. Silber, with serious, valid arguments. It is clear with whom Agnon sides. A few lines from that debate will suffice.

Gold argued that "the Yiddish literature is the principal element of Zionism, because if it were not for Morris Rosenfeld and Shalom Asch, whose words are translated into German, no cultural person would have paid attention to Yiddish. Now that their words are translated into German, all the mouths of the West turn to Yiddish, hence a Jew is not ashamed to speak Yiddish. Thus, Yiddish is strengthening the nationalism and draws the hearts nearer." And he adds: "Moreover, since Yiddish is a new language, and does not have the strange tradition of the holy tongue, it is possible to make it progressive, so that no one will say that Jews are reactionaries. Hence, our entire revival is dependent on Yiddish.3515

However, Silber, the new patron of Hebrew, argued : "Since Hebrew is not a living language like all other languages but a language of the future, it constitutes a kind of symbol of our entire revival which (by itself) is a praise song for the future, for the day that we will be a living people, like all living peoples." And he concludes: "Therefore, we must strengthen the Hebrew language, because the language is an important element in the life of every nation, even more so Hebrew which is like a bridge between the brilliant future and the exalted past. This is the exalted past which gave us Moisés [sic] and Aron [sic] and Yehudah ben [sic] Halevi in whose honor the poet Heine made a great poem, and thus is written in his poem : 'My beloved, leave the theaters and the concerts and learn Hebrew' " (p. 306 ).16 Even Silber's speech is not very learned or sophisticated, but quite coherent and appealing, which cannot be said for Gold's speech for Yiddish.

« "Bin'aréynu uvizkenéyniu" in Kol sippurav, III, 305-306. 16 Silber still makes errors in quoting the names!



As for the pronunciation, Agnon regrets the controversy which is about to destroy the local Hebrew school: "The teachers want the Sephardi pronunciation while the parents want the Ashkenazi pronunciation, and the entire city is in a tumult" (p. 310). Yet Agnon seems quite unhappy with the imposition of the Sephardi pronunciation. As he told me orally, if he had the choice, he would have preferred the Yemenite pronunciation. But evidently while still in Galicia, in the period that constitutes the background for this story, he did not see yet any compelling reason for abolishing his Ashkenazi pronunciation in favor of the Sephardi. As we shall see later, he changed his view upon his arrival in the Land of Israel.

The weapons of satire and irony are used here, too. The defense of the Sephardi pronunciation is vested in the hands of the "Director" of that Hebrew school. Agnon refers to him with the foreign term "director" rather than the Hebrew menahel, which he used even for the hated principal of the Alliance School in Temol shilshom. This gentleman is portrayed as a shallow person who confuses the Ga'on (Genius) Yaabetz (the famous Rabbi Yaakov Emden of the eighteenth century and a favorite of Agnon in several stories ) 1T with Ze'ev Yaabetz, the Hebrew teacher and writer of the First 'Aliyah (Wave of Immi- grants) to Palestine in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The occasion was as follows : The controversy about the pronunciations resulted in an enormous gathering of the community to determine the fate of the pronunciation in the torn Hebrew school. Dayksil was invited to be the speaker, and he arrived there together with the author who, minutes before the assembly was to begin, was asked by Dayksil, "Tell me what is the difference between this pronunciation and the other, and we'll go to the assembly" (p. 310).18 But time ran out on them. When they arrived at the assembly, an "old, enlightened, erudite layman from among the founders of the school was standing upon the stage, his eyes closed, and was explaining the entire business of the pronunciations. Said the old man: 'The Ga'on Yaabetz said . . / The Director interrupted him, shouting: 'Please, Mr. So-and-So, your words are but the words of a reactionary. From whom are you bringing evidence, from Ze'ev Yaabetz who is already known as an orthodox and a conservative, whose name is a disgrace, for a progressive institute like the Hebrew school, to mention it' " (p. 31 1 ) .19 The old man, who was

17 For example, "Hush ha-rêah" in Kol sippurav, II, 300. 18 This is a cynical description of Dayksil's "sources" for making decisions and

another instance of his superficiality. The 1920 edition differs here in several details.

19 Ridicule of thatpseudo-progressiveness, too.


154 AARON BAR-ADON

obviously more learned than his audience, including the Director of the school, realized that the latter was not aware that the original Ga'on Yaabetz?s name is an abbreviation of Ya'akov Emden Ben Tzevi, an4 that the Director confused him with Ze'ev Yaabetz, his own contemporary. Therefore, he tried to repeat his statement, using the fuller name of the original Yaabetz, saying, " 'Even the Ga'on Rabbi Ya'akov Emden, may his memory be for a blessing, who praises the Sephardi pronunciation, disagrees with it for several reasons. First, says the Ga'on Yaabetz . . •' But at that time, Weichsel whispered to the Chairman that Dayksil had arrived," and the old man was ignored and Dayksil was called to the podium (p. 311).

Agnon intentionally puts in the Director's mouth utterly ridiculous, demagogical "proofs" of the superiority of the Sephardi pronunciation; for example,. the quotation (from his chrestomathy) hadoktor salah r-ts-pt (/r c p t/) le-ha-aptik, in which others read ratséfet (ratséfes?), while he meant retsept, "receipt (recipe or prescription),"20 or "The doctor sent a receipt (recipe, prescription) to the apothecary." By the way, he used here a four-word sentence, three words of which are actually foreign words. The members of the committee failed to see in that sentence any evidence that "only the Sephardi pronunciation is correct," as any reader would.21 But they were soon "convinced" by the Director's loud shoutings, his gestures of scorn for them, and such actions, and the audience applauded ( pp. 3 1 2-3 13).

20 It should be remembered that the Hebrew texts are normally not vocalized; in other words, they consist of the consonantal skeleton plus the "crutch" of partial use of the so-called matres lectionis, which provide only a vague approximation of the necessary vowels. The experienced reader of Hebrew will usually find no difficulty in reading the text, using his morphological and syntatic and semantic clues, but he will quite often be at a loss, and jump to false conclusions, when he is confronted with a foreign word in Hebrew disguise or foreign names in this Hebrew spelling, as we are experiencing here. Agnon took the trouble to vocalize only this word /r c p t/ twelve times, but whereas it is fully vocalized and consistent in the first edition (Hatkufa, VI [1920], 23-94), it is not in the present (1966) edition, so that one cannot tell for sure when the letter Pé* represents the allophone [p] and when it represents that of [f], and whether the letter Tav (which appears there all the time without the dagesh diacritic which is used to indicate the plosive allophone [t]) is meant to be actualized as the continuant allophone in the Ashkenazi pronunciation [s] or whether the [t] realization is included too. The same applies to the reading of the letters Pe} and Tav in the last word of the sentence, which is vocalized twice, but inconclusively. The reading of [t] would, of course, fit better, but that Tav is "dageshless" in both cases, while the Pe9 is once with and once without the dagesh. At any rate, one thing is apparent - Agnon used here ironically a trivial instance for "proving" the superiority of the Sephardi pronunciation, for the sake of ridicule.

21 This sentence appears twice. In one occurrence, Agnon used the word nakhon (naxon) for "correct," whereas in the other he used kosher (kosher), probably to lend to it a flavor of irony, although kasher may otherwise mean "fit, proper," too.



So this was his decisive "proof" for the superior adequacy of the Sephardi pronunciation. This, of course, amounts to a claim that the promotion of the Sephardi pronunciation there was accomplished by a small minority through the use of inappropriate, demagogical means. Even with the disguise of comedy and irony, no one can deny that this is a sociological (sociolinguistic) analysis by Agnon of one segment of the Hebrew revival - the selection of a pronunciation in Galicia prior to Agnon's encounter with the linguistic reality in Palestine (see section III below) 1 .

The ultimate decision in favor of the Sephardi pronunciation was made (even before the last "show") by Mr. Zigmund (Sigmund) Dayksil,22 the head of the student Zionists, who admitted in public that although he knew quite a few languages, he had no knowledge of Hebrew. He opened his pseudo-modest speech: "You called me, so I came. But who am I to give my opinion about such an exalted matter. To my shame and disgrace I directed all my attention only to foreign languages, Polish and German and Latin, and Greek and French . . . and if you wish also the language of Great Britain" (p. 3 1 1 ) .

Later he added: "My vineyard I did not watch. But as an outsider who knows the ways of the enlightened peoples with their languages, I will declare aloud that the teacher won at Sedan . . . indeed ... the teacher has won, because only the teacher will win. Therefore, we ought to rely upon the opinion of our dear (honored) teacher (the principal blushed and whispered into his ear: the director)/ director of the Hebrew school" (p. 312).

Such were the decision makers, and thus were the decisions made. It is obvious that Agnon did not write all of this for our amusement only, but that he wanted to convey to us some important sociological and sociolinguistic message concerning the Hebrew revival (within the national revival) , as we shall see on other occasions.

We also find another satirical comment concerning some of the new words, which were evidently objectionable to Agnon. The narrator tries to persuade Mr. 'Ani Ve'afsi cOd (I and None Other), who is a veteran writer in German, to try his pen in Hebrew. On that occasion he says: "I gave him also all the modern words which were invented in their school, such as retsinut (seriousness), littuf (stroking), millón (diction-

22 I suspect that Agnon meant for this "German"-sounding name to be com- posed of the following Hebrew components: day k(e)sil, i.e., "foolish enough"; it is quite common for Agnon to play such "tricks" with names. By the same token, another student there is called Weichsel or Vayksil. The latter reading may be a combination of [vay-k(e) sil], i.e., "woe-fool," but it is not our aim to elaborate here on the naming aspects, even linguistic.


I56 AARON.BAR-ADON

ary) for a Hebrew 'word-book/ and € melon for a foreign word-book,28 and the like - words which our earlier writers, who were immersed in the Bible, the Talmud, Rashi Commentary, the Tosafot, and in the scholarly books, were not privileged to know" (p. 340). (Of course, Agnon is ironical here. For him, the sources of all Hebrew idiom are all those recognized and established "Sources" that he listed here and in several other pUces.) See also section III below, where "the compiler of the dictionary" (i.e., Ben-Yehuda) is ridiculed for erring in the interpretation of the word for "fruit jam," calling it by a new word, ribba (which Ben-Yehuda borrowed from Arabic) , instead of mirkáhat.

Ill

Temol shilshom is indeed pregnant with information, views, and comments concerning the revival of Hebrew. This novel, which uses the days of the Second cAliyah as its background (Kurzweil, however, calls it "The Epos of the Second 'Aliyah"), is considered a social criticism, too.24 It deals with various aspects of life and letters in the first decade of this century, opening with the sentence "Like our other brethren, the people of our redemption, the members of the Second 'Aliyah, Yitzhak left his ... native land and his city, and immigrated to the Land of Israel to rebuild it ... and to be built by it" (p. 7) . This is the basis for the story.

The hero, Yitzhak Kumer, encounters on the boat to Erets Yisra'el, the Land of Israel, some Sephardi Jews, and he is unable to communicate with them even in Hebrew, because he was speaking Hebrew in the Ashkenazi pronunciation while they were speaking in the Sephardi pronunciation (p. 37). This description seems somewhat exaggerated, especially in view of the fact that in Agnon's lovely story "Bilvav yamim"

2Z<Arelon is obviously a mock-innovation of Agnon himself, who derived it from (arel "uncircumcised, Gentile," in order to make fun of the neologisms of Eliezer Ben- Yehuda and his colleagues. Note also the sting toward the end of the sentence, where he points out the rich sources of the Hebrew language upon which the great former writers used to draw! Regarding 'arelon, see Brawer, p. 36.

As for retsinut, he evidently was not too happy with it to the end of his life, but when he found it necessary he used it in an apologetic way in Shira, while describing an expression on Shira's face, that it was "sealed," adding "or let us say as they say in modern Hebrew: pané ha retsiniyot hayu 'her face was serious' " (Shira, p. 27).

24 Temol shilshom, vol. V of Kol sippurav. It is not our task to delve here into details of literary criticism. I will only mention S. Tsemah's strong criticism of Temol shilshom and his objection to conceiving of it as "the novel of the Second 'Aliyah" (originally published in a series of articles "Massekhot u-terafim" in Davar, December 12, 26, 1958; January 9, 16, 1959. Reprinted in his Shtey hamezuzot, 1965, pp. 122-141), and M. Tochner's defense of Agnon, Pesher 4 Agnon, pp. 81-93.



the communication in Hebrew between Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews in Istanbul and on the boat from there to Israel was rather smooth, even

at an earlier period. In emphasizing the difficulty in Terhol shilshom, Agnon may have

wanted to show us the need for a uniform pronunciation. Indeed, upon finding later, on his arrival in Palestine, that the Sephardi pronunciation is a reality there, he resigns himself to it and accepts it as a fact. Beyond that point he no longer speaks about any further struggles between the pronunciations.

Agnon even describes in Temol shilshom how he (or Yitzhak) was mocked when he used his Ashkenazi pronunciation on his arrival, giving a sort of impressionistic "phonetic transcription5525 ofthat pronunciation with certain exaggerated "twists,'5 somewhat inaccurate, somewhat inconsistent (mainly because of the inherent difficulty in giving an accu- rate pronunciation by means of the unvocalized Hebrew spelling, rather than the vocalized ) : 26

ró'e adóyni suro Sel ilónoys yaróykim. 5im keyn,2r yifne no adóyni klápey óysom ho'ilónoys ha-yaróykim, vasom yimtso adóyni es ho'algóloys Se- 'adóyni mavákeyS. heyn óison Se-hóylxoys te-péysax tikve v3-heyn . . . (p.43)

[You see, sir (literally, My lord sees) , a row of green trees. If so, let milord turn toward those green trees, and there will milord find the coaches which milord is looking for, both those that go to Petakh-Tikvah and . . .]

In "General Israeli Hebrew55 this passage would read as follows. (Words unmarked for stress have the stress in the ultimate syllable. Thus, only penultimate stress will be marked. )

ro'e adoni sura Sel ilanot yarukim. 5im ken, yifne na adoni klape(y) otam

25 Again, while only a fully vocalized spelling in Hebrew can provide an approximation to a phonetic transcription, the use of extra letters such as Yud after Vav to denote the dipthong [oy] as a realization of /o/, double Yud after an implied /e/ to signal [ey], the spelling of Samekh for (the allophone) dageshless Tav to indicate the Ashkenazi realization as [s], and the like, give us a fairly good idea of that pronunication, although it is inconsistent in the second word, which is spelled as /ro'eh/, etc. See notes 20 above and 26 below.

20 Among the inaccuracies and inconsistencies we might mention, the first word, which should read, consistent with the rest, roye9 i.e., with a dipthong oy, while [y^róykim] has a redundant diphthongization, i.e., oy instead of u [ysrukim]. This perhaps is a result of an analogy to the singular [yoroyk], apparently for the comic effect. And there are a few more of that kind. Those deficiencies should be related to the speaker, who tries to imitate Yitzhak Kumer, without consistency, rather than to Agnon.

27 In Agnon's original Galician pronunciation /ey/ -» [ay] and in certain posi- tions /o/ -» [uy], etc., but this does not seem to be represented in his "impressionistic" (but unvocalized) semi-"plene" Hebrew spelling.


I58 AARON BAR-ADON

ha-'ilanot ha-ysrukim, vd-sam yimtsa adoni et ha-'agalot Se-'adoni mdvakeS, hen otan se-hol (a) xot le-pétax tîkva va-hen . . •

We then see how Yitzhak adapted himself to prevalent linguistic habits, especially phonological and stylistic, including the admixture of Russian and Arabic words, "like all our friends in Palestine/' as he adopted secularization of life and neglect of religion : "And by the same token that he adjusted to the climate of the country, he adapted himself to its language, and would flavor his conversation with Arabic and Russian words, whether he was speaking Yiddish or Hebrew, like all the rest of our comrades [of the Second 'Aliyah] in the country" (p. 82 ) . As a matter of fact, the same adjustment took place in his religious behavior at that time : "Also in the rest of the things he would behave like most of our friends: He did not go to the Synagogue, did not put on his phylacteries, nor did he observe the Sabbath • . . and . . . the holidays . . . not as a result of thorough thinking about faith and religion, but because he was living with people who reached the conclusion that religion, etc., was not important, and since they did not see any need for the religion, they saw no need for [observing] its commandments" (p. 82).

Thus, under the pressure of the behavior of the new society (in the making) , Yitzhak Kumer (or Agnon) adjusted his behavior in various respects, including the linguistic one. Yet he did not assimilate completely. All those who have heard Agnon speak know that he had a peculiar pronunciation, the result of his retaining, at least in part, his Ashkenazi(Galician) stress system, which is predominantly penultimate, while the Sephardi is predominantly ultimate. Evidently, he was aware of it, too, as he says : "They [i.e., his friends] no longer mention his vice, that he is a Galician, although his pronunciation gives away his origin. And he is not enchanted with his friends5 pronunciation either, because it demonstrates the impact of the Russian pronunciation5' (p. 1 3 7 ; my emphasis ) ,28

Agnon gives in Temol shilshom several social and cultural contrastive analyses of Jerusalem and Jaffa, and a linguistic-stylistic one: in Jaffa they speak a "simple Hebrew,5' while in Jerusalem "they insert in their speech new words which were accepted by the Language Committee5'

28 Agnon was evidently very sensitive to the Russian impact. He seems to have resented the interference of Russian in the pronunciation of Hebrew to the end of his life. When I mentioned to him at the end of our recording that I was going to record one of the oldest and most appreciated Israeli actors, he told me very bluntly that he was not enchanted with him at all - because of his Russian accent! See section IV and note 42 below. There is no doubt that such descriptions and statements as those quoted above from Temol shilshom have a strong autobio- graphical background.



(p. 238), Then Sonya, Yitzhak's girl, complains about the Jerusalem speakers: "When they talk to you, they don't call you by your name, nor say to you cyou/ but they say hi' hagdveret, kdvodah [i.e., 'she/ 'madam,5 'her honor5]." She adds, "And when you call someone by his name and say to him 'you,5 he stares at you disturbed, as if you had broken the code of ethics" (pp. 156-157). So, she left Jerusalem and returned to Jaffa.

Apropos the Hebrew Language Committee, which Agnon mentions several times, he speaks with good humor about two of its members, Dr. A. M. Mazia (the famous physician-lexicographer of that period) and Abraham M. Luncz (the great student of Palestine geography and history) , who even when they bump into each other in the street in Jerusalem continue a former semantic debate on a certain word which had already occupied the Language Committee several nights (p. 506) . However, Agnon does not refrain from making fun of its president, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, on several occasions.

He also makes fun of teachers of both cities, but speaks with great passion of the students of the Teachers' Seminary in Jerusalem, which belonged to the German-oriented society Ezrah (Hilfsverein der Deut- schen Juden).29 They are dear to him because of their devotion to Israel and to their Hebrew studies, and, above all, because they speak Hebrew: "There dwell the students of the Teachers' Seminary, the modest young people of Israel, seekers of knowledge and speakers of Hebrew" (p. 237) ; "They did not come like Yitzhak to plough and

29 At that time, this was the only teachers' seminary in the country. It was supposed to be a "Hebrew Seminary" (see p. 393, and refer to section III below), but being part of the German Hilfsverein der Deutschen Juden (in Hebrew "Ezrah") school system, all attempts were made by the administration to main- tain the dominance of German. With the progress of the Hebrew revival, the dissatisfaction with the excessive German influence grew larger and larger until it "exploded" in 1913-1914, at the so-called Language Struggle. It came to the open, as a fight for life or death, when the Ezrah Society insisted on introducing German as the language of instruction in the projected higher technical school in Haifa - the Technikum. But this took place beyond the time limit of Temol shilshom, which is roughly the end of the first decade of this century. Therefore, when Agnon speaks of "the language struggle" or "the struggle of Hebrew" (e.g., on p. 461), he obviously refers to the basic struggle of Hebrew with the foreign languages, including the ideological struggle with the proponents of Yiddish in general, and with the Jerusalem fanatics in particular. As for the teachers, Agnon says that each of the Jaffa teachers considers himself an author and therefore puts his picture among the pictures of the authors in Blaukopfs wooden frames. At the same time, the teachers of Jerusalem, who consider themselves scholars, set their own pictures within the framework of the pictures of our greatest scholars (p. 209) . His greatest satire on teachers, and on the Hebrew University, is included, of course, in his latest book, Shir a.


1 60 AARON BAR-ADON

sow, but to learn Torah and wisdom on the Holy Land in the Holy City on the purity of holiness and in the Holy Tongue" (p. 238) .

For Agnon, the love of the Torah (which symbolizes the learning of all the basic Judaic sources) , the love of the Holy Land, and the love of the Holy Tongue (Hebrew) are but one unity. And this idea is repeated, like a motto, in his various writings. This idea was shared by many of his contemporaries, as it was by his predecessors, for whom Hebrew was indeed the Holy Tongue, and in some way, a religious symbol. Thus, objection to reviving it amounts to desecration. God created the world in Hebrew, and the Torah was given in Hebrew, and He will rebuild Jerusalem and engather the Diasporas into it in He- brew, and when the Messiah comes soon, Hebrew will be the language of communication between him and his Jewish people. Therefore it is imperative that all of them learn to use Hebrew properly and accur- ately, speak Hebrew, and write Hebrew. For "those who write their words in other languages and do not write in the Holy Tongue - even a Gentile who writes in the Holy Tongue is preferable to them" ("Hush ha-réáh," Kol sippurav, II, 296-297). As proof, he brings the case of the most wicked Balaam, who is responsible for so much trouble for the Jews, "in reward for his speaking the Holy Tongue ... a portion of the Torah is named after him." Agnon may have been ironical about all other things, but not about the love of Hebrew (or the Torah or the Land).

To return to those Hebrew students, they came with the desire to speak Hebrew and learn both their religious and secular studies in He- brew, but ironically they are prevented from it by the Ezrah administration, headed by Ephraim Cohen: they are stuffed with German literature, etc., and are even forbidden from going to the Hebrew Beyt- ha'am culture center. Agnon does not conceal his attitude toward these phenomena, but gives his interpretation of the events that took place at that time (the first decade) and thus writes his history of the revival of modern Hebrew. For example, there is a controversy still going on as to the evaluation of the real role of Ephraim Cohen: he was condemned and rejected by most of his contemporaries; however, later and recently there has been some reversal in that trend. But in Agnon's book Ephraim Cohen is clearly a negative factor, in as much as the revival of Hebrew was concerned.

The most important thing in the realization of the Zionist dream, after fulfilling the basic duty of living in the Holy Land (not to speak of loving it) , is undoubtedly to work the land. This is emphasized over and over again by Agnon. Yitzhak regrets leaving the soil, and he feels



guilty about it (which gives rise to some hints that this betrayal brought about his tragic death) . The next best thing to do in the Land of Israel is to speak Hebrew ! And this theme is repeated in many variations.

Even Osip, the Russian anarchist, realizes the sociological significance of speaking Hebrew, as a basis for the national revival and as the ce- ment between the opposing factions of the nation. He realizes his hand- icap in not knowing Hebrew and makes some interesting "sociolinguistic" comments. He notices the variety of "tribes" aûd languages among the Jews in the Holy Land. He thinks that he could communicate best with the Ashkenazim (roughly, the European Jews ) , but then he notices that "they are divided, too. To the 'Old Yishuv* people, the main reason for their dwelling in the Land is in order to be buried in its soil, while the 'Modern Yishuv5 people are effendis [landlords] on the one hand and poor and barefooted on the other. Logically, the barefooted should conceive of the effendiis as enemies, but they end up cooperating with them to increase their possessions, and do not give you the chance to debate with them, because you don't know to speak the Holy Tongue" (pp. 108-109; my emphasis) . In other words, Osip explicitly and implicitly expresses the idea that Hebrew is not only the common language of the linguistically and culturally different components of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, but also the bridge between the socially opposed factions. Through it an understanding is achieved between the different social classes for the sake of building the Land of Israel together. This is one role of the revived Hebrew that Agnon wanted to point out.. Moreover, the Hebrew kindergarten teacher, Pu'ah Hoffenstein, cannot accept Osip "because there is nothing that connects him to Erets Yisra'êl - neither the work of the land nor the Hebrew language" (p. 144; my emphasis). For Agnon, these two go together, almost on a par, which brings us to the role of the po'alim, the workers, the builders of Israel, in the Hebrew revival.

We have just seen Agnon's warmth to those seminarists. With similar, even greater affection, he speaks of the po'alim in at least five or six places. For example, he describes the sufferings of the po' dim and says, that in spite of their rejection by the richer farmers, who refused. to employ them and thus provide them with a means of living, they were most faithful to the land: "They added villages and settlements and strengthened the hands of the workers and gave a mouth to the Hebrew speech [i.e., were instrumental in turning Hebrew into a spoken language of the masses], and returned to us some of our exiled honor. Thanks to them, the first Olim [immigrants] started raising their heads, and an erect posture was given to all their successors" (p. 60; my


l6s AARON BAR-ADON

emphasis). Indeed, this is a song of praise to the role of the po'alim in building the Land of Israel and in establishing the revived Hebrew as a spoken, living language.

Here too Agnon takes sides in an intriguing sociolinguistic problem, as to the role of the po'alim in the history of the revival of modern Hebrew. The labor circles emphasized their central role in the Hebrew revival, and there are various valid points in that claim which cannot be denied. For example, until the arrival of the pioneers (mostly po'alim) of the Second 'Aliyah (starting in 1904-1905), Hebrew was almost exlusively the language of the teachers and young grade school students (there were no high schools until then) ; due to the efforts of the Second cAliyah po'alim^ who needed a more effective language (and to the efforts of the growing native youth who had just graduated from the first Hebrew grade schools all over the country) ,80 Hebrew became a more effective tool and the language of the masses, for all needs of a modern man in a modern society. Agnon, while disregarding the contribution of the native youth in this process, extols the contribution of the po' dim to this revival, which naturally has another effect - it dimin- ishes the role of Ben-Yehuda.

In another place Agnon goes even further. Yitzhalc visits the first workers' settlement, cEym Gannim, and is very impressed. He remem- bers a story about his great-grandfather Reb Yudil Hassid (the hero of Hakhnasat Kalla) , who once got to a village and spent a Sabbath with one of the "thirty-six tsadikim" or the thirty-six hidden righteous (also called nistarim) upon whom the world stands. That nistar would speak on the Sabbath only Hebrew, and Yitzhak said : "I, Yitzhak, the grand- son of Rabbi Yudil Hassid spent a weekday not with one nistar but with a group of nistarim upon whom the world stands, who even on weekdays speak the Holy Language, and dig pits for fertilizers, in order to improve the soil of the Land of Israel" (p. 173). Notice to what degree those secular workers were elevated due to their speaking Hebrew ! And there are other interesting notes about the po'alim.

In mentioning Hebrew speech on the Sabbath in previous generations and its spontaneous use of intercommunity communication, Agnon undoubtedly also intended to show that Hebrew was spoken even before Ben-Yehuda, who was claimed by others to be "the Father (or the Reviver) of Spoken Hebrew." The great poet Bialik objected

30 1 discuss this problem in Ch. 3 of The Rise and Decline of a Dialect and in fuller detail in the as yet unpublished study "The History of the Revival of Modern Hebrew" and in "Processes of Nativization of Contemporary Hebrew,'* in The Revival of Modern Hebrew, ed. Bar-Adon (forthcoming) .


Agnon and the Revival of Modern Hebrew 1 63

to this tide,81 and so did Agnon, who said to me in our oral interview, "Hebrew has never ceased as a spoken language. Not all the people spoke it, but they knew to speak it to each other. . . . There were still Jews in Galacia who spoke on the Sabbath only Hebrew." He doubted whether they, and others, had ever heard about Ben-Yehuda.

In his writings also Agnon makes some uncomplimentary references to Ben-Yehuda. We mentioned his mockery of Ben-Yehuda's neologisms in "Bin'aréynu uvizkenéynu." A more subtle mockery we find in Temol shilshom, when he describes Sonya's visit (p. 183 ) , then his visit (p. 331) to Ben-Yehuda's place. Mrs. Hemdah Ben-Yehuda (Eliezer Ben-Yehuda's second wife) gave him the usual "guided tour," and showed him the table which she brought to her husband in prison for him to use in writing his Hebrew dictionary and "the large cabinet in which the entire Hebrew language is gathered, from 'in the beginning God created' to the words which she created . . ." (my emphasis) .

This may sound to the naive reader as a compliment, but in my opinion, it was said in typical Agnonic irony. If one has any doubts as to our interpretation, we can quote another of Agnon's oral statements : "Ben-Yehuda - we can see how they were trying to create a legend about him. I once asked Hemdah Ben-Yehuda: Tell me, what was Mr. Ben-Yehuda?' She said : 'If it were not for me, he would have been like all the Maskilim [Enlightened] of Jerusalem, like Luncz, like - .' " And Agnon adds: "For instance, if you read my novel Temol shil- shorn . . • [you will see] that also there I describe how Yitzhak came to Ben- Yehuda, and how she shows him the stand upon which Ben- Yehuda wrote in prison." Then, after quoting an interesting related story in the name of Professor M. H. Segal, he concluded "there are people for whom all the legends in the world will not suffice, while there are people who try to create a legend artificially."

Even from the little that has been mentioned so far it is clear that

Agnon had a firm opinion about Eliezer Ben-Yehuda and his role in the Hebrew revival (plus that of Mrs. Hemdah Ben-Yehuda). In Agnon's evaluation, Ben-Yehuda does not deserve titles such as "The Father of Spoken Hebrew" or "The Reviver of Modern Hebrew," which were used by others, including national leaders like M, Ussish- kin.82 As mentioned above, by repeatedly mentioning the use of He-

81 For details, see A. Bar-Adon, "Processes of Nativization in Contemporary Hebrew," in The Revival of Modern Hebrew, ed. Bar-Adon (forthcoming).

82 Agnon, however, quoted to me orally an amazing story about a conversation between E. M. Lipshiitz and M. Ussishkin, during which the latter admitted that Ben-Yehuda was not really the reviver of Hebrew, "but the people are asking for a hero. So we give them the hero." (See more details in A. Bar-Adon, The


1 64 AARON B AR-ADON

brew for intercommunity communication among Jews of previous generations, Agnon meant to show that Hebrew was not "dead" before Ben-Yehuda, so that he could not have "revived" it. Besides, Agnon points out that Ben-Yehuda was not alone: there were others who did the enormous job - such as the first students, the devoted po'alim, and members of the Second 'Aliyah. Interestingly enough, Agnon does not give much credit to the first teachers. He mentions some of the negative or controversial figures from among the teachers, especially in connection with their attitudes toward the use or teaching of foreign languages (see section IV below), he compares the Jaffa teachers to those of Jerusalem and makes fun of both of them. However, he does not mention in his novels such superb teachers as Yellin, or Epstein, or Wilko- mitz, or Bakhar, although he spoke with great respect öf some of them in our oral interview. Agnon, morover, finds faults in Ben- Yehuda's lexical work and makes fun of his neologisms, as we have seen.

In order to give a better feel of the magnitude of Agnon's involvement in this problem, let me mention another example or two: Malk- hov says to the famous Second 'Aliyah novelist, essayist, and editor Yosef Hayyim Brenner (as mentioned above, Agnon uses real historical figures alongside the fictitious ones), in the presence of other people: "If you want to laugh, read in Ben-Yehuda's newspapers . . ." (p. 385 ) .33 Agnon points out that "Brenner did not like to hear about Ben-Yehuda [at all], neither praise nor condemnation" (p. 385). Yet

Rise and Decline of a Dialect, section 2.2). Of course, all such attributed statements have to be taken "with a grain of salt," but they can certainly reflect the transmitter's views not only on the personal aspects (and relations), but also on the evaluation and interpretation of the very phenomenon of the Hebrew revival and its history.

83 Yosef IJayyim Brenner is often referred Jo as one of the most charismatic figures of his time. He was a rigid, impulsive idealist, in his life as well as in his writing; a rebel against all forms of stagnancy and against all phenomena of delusion and deception, including religious, social and national; he is often described as the most ardent, zealous fighter for the truth, in Hebrew literature. Evidently there was a special friendship between the angry, nihilistic Brenner and the quiet, restrained Agnon. They were both very individualistic and they did share certain ideas and attitudes, but basically they were very different in their characters and in their styles - in life as in literary writing: Brenner being angry, impulsive, and straight-forward, while Agnon remained always outwardly re- served, using his subtle irony instead. They also differed aesthetically, philo- sophically, and otherwise, but there seemed to be a mutual understanding and respect between them (Brenner republished one of Agnon's earlier stories. See Band, p. 83) . The episode in connection with Ben-Yehuda which Agnon mentions in Temol shilshom seems to be essentially authentic, since Brenner is known for his hate toward all kinds of fuss and nonsense. I suspect that Agnon's frequent mentioning of the Bezalel School of Art, and its founder, does also have some element of irony in it



he makes Malkhov tell a story which ridicules Ben-Yehuda. It concerns some trivial, supposedly nationalistic, comments by Ben-Yehuda about a Hanukkah party at Professor Bonis Schatz's Bezalel School of Art, and particularly about the statue of the Hasmonean priest Mattathias, holding a sword to stab the hooligan who sacrificed a pig on the altar (p. 386). Brenner, who was sitting all that time with his eyes closed, opened them suddenly and burst out with laughter. Another author, Gorishkin, shouted against Malkhov: "A lie, Malkhov, a lie!", but Malkhov twisted his objections, saying to him: "Since you are used to heresy, you deny even Ben-Yehuda's words . • ." (p. 386). He evidently phrased it so, in order to make further fun of Ben-Yehuda. And this is exactly how Brenner interpreted it, since we are told that at that point "Brenner seized the table in order not to fall down from laughter." Then, "when he rested a little from his laughter, he laughed again saying, CI am a vulgar man, forgive me, friends, for this wild laughter' "(p. 386).

Somewhat later, Brenner says to Malkhov, "You are a joker," so Malkhov responded: "You are laughing and I am crying. They take a fine lovely land and turn it into a desert - neither Torah, nor commandments, nor good manners. There are kids in their 'gymnasia' [high school] who do not know what 'Ashrey' is.34 A generation is about to grow whose entire wisdom will be that they will be able to say ma Mom ha-gdvèrely 'How are you, Madam?' ('How is Madam?')" (p. 387). Is this, too, a hint at Ben- Yehuda, who was accused by some contemporaries of attempting to create a "shallow," "rootless," modern Hebrew, detached from its traditional religious and literary sources? Agnon made some oral comments to this effect, but we do not want to elaborate. What is of relevance here is that Agnon made such hints at the evaluation of Ben-Yehuda.

Something close to it is hinted also in Agnon's story " 'Im 'atsmi" (With Myself) where he complains about "Those who have turned the words of the Torah upside down and brought confusion into the language" (Kol sippurav, VIII, 290). Similarly, in "Shevu'at 'emunim" where a certain scholar "ridicules the compiler of the dictionary who erred in the interpretation of the words and called mirka- hat [jam] of fruit ribba" (Kol sippurav, VII, 217), which is obviously against Ben- Yehuda and none else, since he is the one who coined this

34 He is referring to the first Hebrew high school, Gymnasia Herzeliyah, which was established in a suburb of Jaffa (1906), which was to become shortly Tel- Aviv (1909). "Ashrey" is the beginning of a famous prayer, based primarily on Psajm 145. The expression that one does not know what "Ashrey" is, is used to indicate lack of. familiarity with the basic religious or Judaic heritage.


1 66 AARON BAR-ADON

word (ribba), on the basis of Arabic (murabba), and included it in his dictionary.

Hebrew education was evidently very close to Agnon's heart, too, and what annoyed him most was the attitude of the proponents of education in Palestine through the medium of foreign languages. His comments on this topic in his writings range from mild humor to raging irony. In our oral interview he became almost emotional on certain aspects of it, as we shall see in the following three sections, which will be devoted to the three different foreign-language school systems and their respective heads.

Yitzhak meditates about the Teachers' Seminary and says: "The Director of the Seminary does not act properly. He established a He- brew seminary in Jerusalem^ so they had to promote Hebrew studies there, but they ended up stuffing the students with German literature and its history, and some say that Reb Yehiel Michal Pines teaches in 'jargon' [i.e., Yiddish], but when guests come he teaches in Hebrew" (p. 393; my emphasis). Agnon could not forgive such a betrayal of the Hebrew cause even to a person like Y. M. Pines, who was one of the pillars of the Hebrew revival, and he did not refrain from embarrassing him, by name, in public.

He was unhappy with him as he was with a few other teachers. But the directors of the foreign schools attracted most of his criticism and rage. We have just seen one comment about [Ephraim Cohen] the director of the Ezrah Teachers' Seminary and of the entire Ezrah educational system, whose purpose was to disseminate German language and culture. He also mentions him in connection with his forbidding the seminary students from visiting the Hebrew Beyt-ha'am culture center. Orally he had harsh words about him (and this time mentioning him by his full name) : "Ephraim Cohen, a Jew that was born in Eretz Yisra'él, he was a representative of the Germans . . . not of the Germans [but of those Jews who assimilated to them] . . .," adding in his typical style, as a self-explanatory anecdote: "Sokolov, may he rest in peace, said, we in Poland, in Warsaw, have two kinds of assimilators: there are assimilators who wish to assimilate among the Gentiles, the Poles, and there are assimilators who wish to assimilate among the assimilated Jews." I think this analogy is an obvious clue to the entire problem.

Agnon had even harsher words for Miss Landau, who promoted English in the Evelyn de Rothschild British-supported school in Jeru- salem. Orally he was quite emotional about "that female,"35 as he re-

35 Details in my forthcoming Hebrew book Shay (=Shemuel Yosef) Agnon and the Revival of Hebrew.



f erred to her, but he made himself abundantly clear also in his writing. For example, he wrote a whole parody in Temol shilshom (pp. 302- 303) about the encounter of Balak the dog with that school and Balak's ideas about a funny story that Sholem Aleichem could have made of that situation if he were there !36 Apparently, learning English, of all languages, in Turkish Palestine, seemed to him snobbish and utterly ridiculous. Compare Agnon's sarcasm in presenting DayksiPs boasts about his knowledge even of the language of Great Britain,87

Agnon, however, seems to have been most disturbed by the director of the large Alliance school system, mainly because of his ill treatment of Hebrew. Referring to that director and to some of his colleagues, Agnon exclaimed in our conversation: "They knew Hebrew, but they treated it with disregard and contempt. You know, their intention was to establish French in Palestine." For that contempt, Agnon took ven- geance on the principal and presented him as a contemptable ignoramus who cannot read Hebrew properly - measure for measure! (Details in section IV.)

A fine literary gem on this topic, and at the same time an important addition to our study, is included in the first chapter of Book Four of Temol shilshom, especially pp. 459-463 (actually a significant portion of that chapter is devoted to the Hebrew revival) . To avoid repetition, we will turn to it (although briefly) in the discussion below of Balak. A detailed treatment will be included in the study which Balak deserves (see note 36 above) .

It can no longer be denied that personal relations between the "Fathers" of the Hebrew revival (their rivalries, petty jealousies, linguistic oppositions which sometimes stemmed merely from personal conflicts) may become a real sociolinguistic factor. Those relations had an impact on the course of the revival and on the reporting of the history of the revival from the very beginning, and we have quite a bit of authentic evidence to document this thesis.

36 This encounter and other aspects pertaining to Balak will be treated in full detail in a separate paper on "Agnon's Balafc and the Revival of Modern Hebrew."

37 I suspect that there is some connection between this parody and another parody "Mi-pirhey ha-tehiyyah" (From the Flowers of the Revival), published under the pen name of Mi-beney ha-Zamzumim in Ha'ómer, No. 2 (1907), pp. 32-38, which was edited by S. Ben-Zion. Agnon published there his famous story " 'Agunot," wherefrom he derived his (pen) name (his original sur-name was Chachkes), and also served as secretary to the editor, in his first year in Jaffa (1907-1908). However, see E. Ben-Yehuda's note on this topic {Hashkafah, Vol. 3, 1902, No. 9), and Hemdah Ben-Yehuda's skit "From the Scenes of Life in the Coming Generation" (ibid., No. 10), describing a family quarrel on the background of the "language struggle."


1 68 AARON BAR-ADON

IV

This brings us to the story, and the puzzles, about Balak the dog, as they appear in Temol shilshom** Yitzhak became a painter. While he was working in Jerusalem/a dog attached itself to him, and Yitzhak wrote on its hide "Kélev meshugaV ' or "mad dog." The dog was stroll- ing in the city, in the Jewish sections and in the Gentile sections, trying to find out the truth about himself, why he was hated, etc., passing by various places, (among them Ben-Yehuda's house!) when he stopped at the gate of the Alliance Israelite School, with the symbol of joined hands.

When the bell rang, the principal came out smelling of perfume, "which is called Eau de Cologne, which dogs dislike." Yet the dog dis- regarded it and tried to find grace in that master's eyes, licking his stick and "stretching himself [before him] like an illiterate who stretches out an epistle before the erudite to hear [from him] what is written there. And all that while he was whispering: 'Please, sir, look what is written there' "(p. 291).

And hère comes the climax: "The principal saw Hebrew letters. He took a pair of spectacles, attached them to his eyes, and started reading, according to his habit, from left to right. He matched the letters and combined them, and read Balak . . ." (my emphasis). The principal then "smiled, saying: 'The people of Jerusalem are experts in the Pentateuch and they know that there was a wicked person Balak, so they call their dogs in his name.' He patted the dog on his head and chirped to him 'Balak.' The dog heard that he called him 'Balak,' and wondered, but he was not offended." At this point, Agnon suggests: "If so, then we too may call him Balak" (pp. 29 1-292 ) .

Although none of Agnon's major critics seems to have noticed it, the root of the Balak story is indeed tightly connected with the revival of Hebrew and its struggle against those opponents who treated it with contempt while promoting the use of foreign languages and their alien cultures, on the one hand, and against its orthodox fanatic opponents, on the other.

As mentioned above, that particular Alliance principal, like others of his kind, knew Hebrew, but down-graded it. Therefore, he is presented as a Levantine type, showing off with his French language and culture, perfuming himself, walking with a cane, etc., and as a person

88 It should be noted that there were earlier versions of the story of Balak which appeared separately, before its inclusion as an organic part in the novel Temol shilshom; for example, "Balak" (1935), "Balak's Hide" (1941), etc. For biblio- graphical details, see Band, pp. 416-417.



ignorant of Hebrew who treats all scripts as French: he ends up ridicu- lously reading Hebrew from left to right, instead of from right to left. This results in the erroneous reading of B L K (Balak) instead of K L B (kéleu) 'dog.' The ridicule goes deeper than that, because kêlev 'dog* is spelled KLB, while Balak is spelled B L K (or B L Q) .89 While the situation is fantastically dramatized and intentionally (grotesquely) exaggerated, it leaves no doubt as to Agnon's views on all the related aspects of the Hebrew revival, and of Balak's involvement in it.

Balak himself is considered a many-sided character. He is a composite figure, combining man and dog, person and generation - "I say that the face of this generation is like the face of the dog. And not like a plain dog, but like a mad dog," says Geronam Yekum Purkan (p. 587) - individual and group, representing different things at different times and different contexts. On some occasions, the author provides us with the dog's comments concerning various aspects of the Hebrew revival, for example, the struggle with foreign languages or with the religious fanatics who object to modern schooling and to Hebrew speech, comments pertaining to Ben-Yehuda, and the like. In others, Balak himself makes interesting observations on similar aspects of the Hebrew revival, including again some hints at Ben-Yehuda and the orthodox opponents in Jerusalem, reflecting a certain ideology concerning the Hebrew revival. Several brief examples should suffice.

The Jewish communities in Jerusalem are split as to the Balak affair. "The Ga'ons and Rabbis of the Ashkenazim [mainly of East European origin] say that he is a metamorphosis of that heretic who denies the entire Torah [the Law] but confesses in the Hebrew language . . ." (p. 462). Who could this "heretic" be? I heard from a friend of Agnon's in Jerusalem the following comment about Ben-Yehuda: "He showed that one could profane the Sabbath yet speak in the Holy Tongue" (and a similar comment was once made in a paper by Professor Yoseph Klausner!). In other words, whereas formerly, speaking Hebrew, the Holy Tongue, used to be associated somehow with religion and was usually performed by pious people (who were, obviously, predominant in former generations), the "heretic" Ben-Yehuda showed that there was no longer a need for such a correlation. He demonstrated that Hebrew could be spoken by a nonreligious or antireligious person, for instance, by one who profaned the Holy Sabbath. For such speakers, the use of Hebrew became the main thing, while piety was ignored. This annoyed many people with a religious feeling. From this point of view, the heretic behind Balak's metamorphosis, that heretic who de-

89 See note 20 above about the consonantal spelling.


1 70 AARON BAR-ADON

nies all of Jewish religion but believes in the Hebrew language, may very well be Ben- Yehuda himself. (A similar allusion may be included in the opening section of that same chapter, p. 459 ) .

Agnon is aware of the "headache55 which this symbol may cause. As a matter of fact, he might have engineered it in anticipation of confusion and embarrassment among his critics and interpreters: "When the Jerusalem papers reached Jaffa, Jaffa thought that this dog was just a parable. The people of Jaffa who are all intelligent put their minds to those matters, but they failed to recognize to whom they referred. One says cthere is something in it5 while another says 'one should derive the implicit from the explicit.' But what is explicit here nobody explicated...55 (p. 459).

To confuse matters, Agnon provides a clue (one of several which he - again, in my opinion, by design - scattered throughout the book) : "All of a sudden the news spread in the city that all that was said in the Balak affair was aimed at the guardians of education in Jerusalem." But he immediately adds : "Said one of them to his friend and his friend to his friend: 'Why should we break our heads and suggest a different idea everytime, whereas it is clear and known that we have to deal here with Mr. X and Mr. Y, who follow, like dogs, their masters, the min- isters of the [Gentile] nations and the consuls, some out of slavishness, and others in anticipation of medals of honor, and introduce various foreign languages into the country' 55 (p. 460; my emphasis. See also p.461).40

All this is not idle talk. Those hints refer to a very real social climate at that time, especially in Jerusalem, where the old system of the halu- kah (distribution of charity funds) was still prevalent; therefore they are also of sociological and sociolinguistic relevance, and apparently reflect Agnon5s views on the matter.

Another such clue centers on the aforementioned protest against the overwhelming imposition of foreign cultures and foreign languages on the Hebrew education.41 Before the day was over, a huge protest- assembly against the "foreignization55 trend in certain schools was held in Jaffa, at the Shacarey-Zion library. Thirty-six speakers addressed the crowd "because the principals of the schools in Jerusalem, the guardians of education, each of them has a different opinion from his col-

40 "Except that the Jerusalem papers that are afraid of them, because they depend on them, because they receive money from them, refer to it only by allusion" (p. 460).

41 Again, Agnon himself provides an example of a many-faceted composite figure, or symbol, within the story about the dream of the old Jerusalem Hassid who was very unhappy over the popularity of the dog - everybody was talking about the dog and disregarding his stories. See pp. 464-465.



league, and as his opinion is different so is his language: of Alliance Israelite Universelle - French; of the Ezrah Society - German; and of Evelyn de Rothschild - English. And thus they impose all kinds of languages on their students, and bring confusion into the country" (p. 460 ; my emphasis) .

Furthermore, "If they don't have Israelite teachers, they appoint Gentile teachers, even total anti-Semites . • • whose hatred permeates like venom. And students who refuse to listen to their slander are

harassed...55 (p. 460). He goes on to describe the activities against that "fqreignization"

trend: "What the leaders in Jaffa did by mouth [orally], the pocalim [workers, laborers] of Eretz Yisra'él did in writing. They wrote sharp articles in Ha-Pocel ha-Tsacir against Alliance Israelite Universelle, and against Miss Landau and against the Ezrah Society and against the other schools, because each of them assimilates a different language, until the Land of Israel is confounded in seventy languages" (p. 461 ; my emphasis). Another favorite was not forgotten either: "And since they attacked those schools which make the Gentile languages fluent in the mouths of the Israelites, they did not refrain from the Yeshivot and the Hadarim [i.e., the religious schools] that forbid their students from speaking Hebrew, and thus cut off our tongue [play on words] from our mouth . . .55 (p. 461).

It is easy to see how the entire fabric of the Balak story, indeed of Temol shilshom (and, as we have pointed out, other stories, too), is distinctly interwoven with the Hebrew revival, and the pattern becomes obvious once it is realized that such a pattern exists and that it should be anticipated.

V

We have utilized so far only part of the written and oral material on the topic under investigation. Yet, I hope it is enough to demonstrate the scope of Agnon's involvement in the evaluation of the history and the problems of the revival of modern Hebrew, the historical and social (sociolinguistic) settings, its true promoters and supporters as opposed to its actual opponents, and the role of certain individuals in it (e.g., Ben-Yehuda).

As we have seen, Agnon himself gave us some clues to certain puzzling problems in his works and he obviously knows better than his critics. At least, this is what he thinks (as I understand it) when he speaks about the interpretation of another work of art, a painting, where the painter believes that he knows better than his critics : Yitzhak Kumer


1 72 AARON BAR-ADON

goes to visit the famous artist (painter) Shimshon Blaukopf, who is condemned to die shortly of tuberculosis and a heart ailment, at the age of thirty. Blaukopf hated (like Agnon) to be disturbed in his work by visitors, but when he heard that Yitzhak was from Galicia too, he showed him great affection, and exhibited to him some of his paintings.42 He continues: "Eventually he disclosed to him some intentions and interpreted to him some of his paintings. In truth, a beautiful picture does not need any interpretations, but since most people look and they don't know what they see, the artist ought to attune their hearts. Apparently, it is enough for the artist that he paints, and sometimes even he does not know what he is painting, nevertheless, he knows more than his interpreters, and needless to say, more than those who make themselves patrons of the artists" (pp. 211-212; my emphasis).

This statement, the end of which is undoubtedly aimed at certain critics of his, ties in very well with the foregoing assumption, in other words, that the artist sometimes gives us all sorts of clues, often quite clearly, while maintaining that he knows best. We might well agree with him.

VI

In looking at Agnon's own special style and his contribution to the Hebrew revival, we recall that Agnon condemns the "shallowness" of the knowledge of Hebrew among certain speakers and writers. In his judgement, it is due to lack of familiarity with the classical, primary Hebrew "sources," such as the Bible, the vast Talmudic and Midrashic

42 By the way, Agnon uses here the opportunity to get again at the Russian immigrants, which, again, has a biographical element (refer note 28) : "As long as Blaukopf lived in Galicia, he was not attracted to its inhabitants, but after leaving it, he began to like them. This phenomenon has several reasons. The sum of all reasons was that he was considering himself in Jerusalem among the Russians like a herring in a cage [sic], since those Russians - although their heart is wide and their hand open and their opinion firm and most of them are brave and responsible- [they] lack something which was bestowed upon us, the people of Galicia, in abundance" (p. 211). It sounds very much like old Agnon himself. We might mention too that of all the early settlements (with the exception of the first workers' settlement Eyn-Gannim), Agnon chose to describe only the history and fate of Mahanáyim, "that Mahanáyim which the Galicians founded" (pp. 498 ff). It is interesting, however, that when he had to pick one brave character among the crowd of young Zionists of his hometown "Shibush" (Buchach), in his story "Bin'aréynu uvizkenéynu," he picked the Russian (Jewish) refugee, Alexander, who is also "probably the only positive character in that story," as is pointed out by Agnon's close friend, Dr. A. Y. Brawer, p 45. On the other hand, in the first version of 1920, there is a comment which indi- cates that the Director of the Hebrew school (who was not presented in a favor- able light) was a Russian.



literature (i.e., the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Midrashim, or the Leg- ends Literature, etc.), the commentaries and the various scholarly works of previous generations. This implies that he himself was different in this respect, being immersed in the Hebrew classics of generations past, and deriving his thorough mastery of the language and his literary style directly from the Sources.

Indeed, he is considered to be well versed in the various Hebrew sources, and this is apparent in his writing. In some of his writings, mainly the earlier, he used the Biblical example of morphology, syntax, and style. Also the vocabulary is basically Biblical, but not exclusively. This includes the use of the so-called Waw Consecutive, the cohorta- tive, the jussive, preference for Biblical synonyms, and the like. Also, the sentences were relatively short, resorting to conjoining rather than embedding, a feature which actually prevails in all of his writings.

Agnon developed for himself an altogether different style, his unique "Agnonic style." It has some relation to the later Rabbinic style, especially to the style of the ethical, homiletical, and legendary writings of the Pious and the Hassidim in the past several generations. Those are written in a language whose vocabulary is eclectic of all Hebrew (and Aramaic) sources, but it is predominantly based on the vast Tal- mudic literature (see above), the commentaries of the Bible and the Talmudic literature, the Prayer Book, etc. Interestingly enough, for certain cultural-educational reasons, not all parts of the Bible were studied equally in Eastern Europe. Most familiar were the Pentateuch, the Five Scrolls, and the Psalms - mainly because they became part of the regular prayers, too. However, this vocabulary had another feature, in other words, the interference of Yiddish words (some of which may, in turn, have already been under Slavic influence ! ) , since Yiddish was the vernacular of all the East European writers. As for the grammar, it was basically, but not consistently, the so-called Mishnaic, and the style was generally closer to popular, with some Yiddish overtones.

Agnon was fascinated by this type of Hebrew, and he forged it in his own way, until it became part of his special artistic genre and the essence of his linguistic style - in short, a unique Agnonic language.

The younger generation found this language at first strange and difficult. Then the younger writers began imitating it. But since they were not familiar with all of Agnon's sources themselves (for that particular style), they could not succeed well in it. The imitation was obvious (especially to Agnon) .

It seems to me that Agnon was referring to this very imitation of his style when Blaukopf, who "paints what he is shown from heaven" (p. 210), shows him, in addition to his own works, some imitations of his


X 74 AARON BAR-ADON

art by other people "who don't have any originality of their own, but look at his pictures and imitate them" (p. 212) . Apparently, he should not have worried about those forgeries, but certain critics "mention the names of forgers alongside his." Furthermore, he rejects the possibility of mere similarity between the works of the imitators and his, con- cluding "and if they are similar, what need is there in theirs, since mine is already there, and the fact that mine is in existence cannot be denied, because if mine were not existing - how would they have been able to imitate it?" (p. 2 12 ) .

This is Agnon's direct contribution to the revival of modern Hebrew, and it was a significant one. Agnon himself tried to resist modernization in his style, but modern idiom found ways to penetrate somehow into his language. It can be seen in various places, and is perhaps best illus- trated when his later, revised versions are compared with the former ones.

By the same token, there is no doubt that Agnon's writings not only had an influence on the literary language of his younger contemporaries but also filtered in very subtle ways into the general literary language and spoken idiom.48 One apparent reason is that Agnon became a classic in the middle of his long career and his writings were included in the school curriculum.

We might also mention in passing that Agnon was a Member of the Hebrew Language Academy, and thus also contributed in a different way to the revival of Modern Hebrew. But all this deserves a special study.

We have seen Agnon's hints about his originality and the comments about the imitators. In "Chapters of the Book of the State," we find amazingly explicit statements about the nature of his style. This work is full of social and political criticism. Agnon tells us in the "Opening Chapter," how he felt a compulsion to write the story of the state, or at least the story of its leaders, on the basis of what he had seen with his own eyes. And it may be, he says, that his book will serve as a guide ("eyes") for all those who will come later to write the history of the state, "since there is a habit in the state, that if one does something, then others come and imitate him." And no wonder about it, "because the same storekeeper who sold me a little ink and some paper sells to

48 See G. Rabin, "Hanahot Yesod le-heker leshono Shel Shay 'Agnon" (Hypotheses for the Study of S. Y. Agnon's Language), in Le* Agnon Shay, ed. D. Saddan and E. Urbach (Jerusalem, 1959), pp. 217-236. Also his "Linguistic Comments on the Problem of Translating Agnon's Words into a Foreign Lan- guage" (in Hebrew), in Yuval Shay, ed. B. Kurzweil, pp. 13-26. See also J. Mansour, pp. xvii f., and Band, pp. 179 f. et passim.


Agnon and the Revival of Modern Hebrew i 75

others too, . . . And as for the idea which is all mine, there is a law of nature that all matter produces a shadow" (Kol sippurav, VI, 252 ).

Agnon then goes on to say, that although he had tried to write things exactly as they were, when he came to reporting the conversa- tions, he "was compelled to change from the [original] style, because most of the great men of the state and its leaders have acquired a language which is ... an amalgamation of ancient phraseology." Even their spoken language is mixed with words which were fabricated by members of a "languagery," each of whom boasts, "See, how many hundreds of words I made . . ." (p. 252). But "the author of the Book of the State, whose words are all counted and accounted for," predicts that because of those florid phrases and those invented words, the words of the leaders of the state may be forgotten in half a generation, since there will be no reader who will understand them. He says: "But I to whom the honor of the state and its leaders is dearer than their phraseology, gave up their language [style], and wrote their sayings in my own language, an easy and simple language, the language of the generations which were before us, and also the language of generations to come" (p. 252 ; my emphasis) .

Conceited or not, unmistakably this is the way Agnon felt about his language as compared with that of the leaders and others, and I be- lieve it adds another dimension to the foregoing interpretations.

The University of Texas at Austin


s. y. agnon and the revival of modern hebrew...aaron bar-adon s. y. agnon and the revival of modern...

Documents