Borges and Bruno Schulz on the Infinite Book of the Kabbalah

Borges and B runo Schulz on th e In fin ite Book o f th e K ab b alah Küíaitdo Páre^ Hunter College-CUNY 2 2 °06'39'N 78°37'40'W 4 l 02 1 '3 2 'N 2°5'57.9'E 40° 44' 54.36' N , 73° 59' 8.36' W . ..simetrías en el tiempo (3 de septiembre, tercer mes del año), simetrías en el espacio (3 lugares)... un destino por descifrar “Hypertextuality” may be a new term , a product o f the Internet, bu t the reality o f it goes back thousands o f years. Religious and literary texts always established wittingly or unw ittingly transversal connections w ith other texts w ithin and outside o f their own cultures and traditions. A nd fortunately for us, the by now exhausted literary concept o f influence has given way to the n otion o f confluence: the ways in which texts flow into each other in a process o f m utual enrichm ent. The aim o f this article, then, is to present the philosophical confluence o f some o f the ideas o f the A rgentine writer, Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986) and the Polish writer, Bruno Schulz (1892-1942). Certainly I am no t the first to connect them in a general way w ith respect to their interests in metaphysics and mysticism. Susan Sontag did so w hen she referred to Yugoslavian writer, D anilo Kis acknowledge affinities w ith both writers (Kis xi, 267). But no one until now has offered a detailed exposition o f their ideas, and the im pact these ideas had on their work. For the scholar o f Hispanic letters, an introduction to Borges is unnecessary. However, the same cannot be said o f Bruno Schulz, whose w ork was relatively unknow n in the Spanish language until the publication o f his Obra completa (1993).1 41 S chu lz was b o rn a t th e e n d o f th e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry in th e sleepy to w n o fD ro h o b y c z in th e reg io n o f G alic ia — a reg io n w h ic h c h a n g ed h a n d s several tim es th r o u g h o u t its history: first P olish, th e n G e rm a n a n d R u ssian, a n d to d a y U k ra in ia n . L ike G alicia, w h o se id e n tity k e p t sh iftin g w ith chan ges in g eo po litic al pow er, S c hu lz’s id e n tity seem s to have b een q u ite as liq u id , as he, a lo n g w ith o th e r G a lic ian s, h a d to a d ju st to th e w h im s o f p o litical pow er. B orn in to a Jew ish fam ily o f tex tile m e rc h a n ts, S ch u lz w as fascin ated by Jew ish (m ystical) c u ltu re; h e w ro te in P olish, k n e w G e rm a n , a n d h a d n o k n o w led g e o f Y iddish. H e stu d ie d a rc h ite c tu re , a n d e a rn e d his liv in g as a h ig h sc h o ol tea c h e r o f arts a n d crafts. In term s o f his w ritin g , his c o m p le te w orks in c lu d e tw o w o rk s o f p ro se fictio n , The Street o f Crocodiles [La calle de los cocodrilos] a n d Sanatorium Under the Sign o f the Hourglass [Sanatorio bajo la Clepsidra\, a n d so m e b rie f essays a n d letters. H is life cam e to a te rrib ly tragic e n d o n e d a y in 19 4 2 w h e n a G e sta p o officer ex ecu te d h im in th e street, fo r th e sim ple reason o f b e in g a Jew : in th e w ro n g place, at th e w ro n g tim e , a lm o st in a m a n n e r th a t recalls B orges’ “b rú ju la ” p o in tin g to a d e a th fo re to ld in a b o o k th a t need s to be de c ip h e re d . A n d th a t is n o t su rp risin g , since b o th w riters co nc eiv ed o f th e w o rld as a u n io n o f m a te ria lity (th e body: m o rta lity ) a n d sp irit (th e W o rd : e te rn ity ), a n d b o th w riters h a d p ro fo u n d in terests in th e th e K a bb alah. “Yo afirm o q u e la B iblio tec a es in te rm in a b le ,” declares th e n a rra to r o f B orges’ “La b ib lio te c a de B abe l” (1 9 8 9 I 4 6 5 ). W h ile h u m a n s, as in te rp re te rs-lib ra ria n s, are im p e rfe c t m o rta l being s, th e lib ra ry itse lf is e tern al. “La B iblio tec a existe ab aeterno... N o m e parece in v erosím il q u e en a lg ú n a n a q u e l del un iv erso h ay a u n lib ro t o t a l . . . ” w rite s B orges (466 , 4 6 9 em p ha sis in th e o rig in al). A n d w h e n Jo sep h , th e p ro ta g o n ist o f B ru n o S c hu lz’s Sanatorium Under the Sign o f the Hourglass is given a “b o o k ” b y his F ather, h e rep ro aches his fa th e r for try in g to fool h im w ith a re p ro d u c tio n o f The Book. ‘“ You m u s t know , F a th er,’ I cried , y o u m u st. D o n ’t p re te n d , d o n ’t q u ib b le . T his b o o k has given y o u away. W h y d o y o u give m e th a t fake copy, th a t re p ro d u c tio n , a clu m sy falsification? W h a t have y o u d o n e w ith T h e B ook?” (1 9 7 8 3). T h e so n w an ts to k n o w w h a t th e F a th e r has d o n e w ith The Book, becau se th e b o o k h e has b een g iv en — th e B ible— is n o t The Book. T his b o o k belon gs in n o o rd in a ry library, b u t ra th e r in The Library. La biblioteca d escrib ed by B orges. T h e B oo k is tra n s c e n d e n ta l— b e y o n d m ateria lity, a n d b e y o n d us. A n d th e b o o k to w h ic h b o th B orges a n d S c hu lz are referrin g is th e b o o k o f th e Zohar, o n e o f th e m a n y texts th a t m ak e u p w h a t is called th e K ab b alah in Ju d a ic m ysticism . In fact, i f S c hulz w as p rim a rily a lite ra ry K a b b a lis t— th a t is to say, so m e o n e w h o w as m o re in te re ste d in th e lite ra ry th a n in th e religious asp ec t o f th e W o rd per se— as I have a rg u ed in “B ru n o Schulz: L ite rary K ab b alist o f th e H o lo c a u st” (2 0 0 2 ) — so in d e e d was B orges, as E d n a A iz en b erg has p o in te d o u t in Borges: el tejedor del Alephy otros ensayos (1 9 9 7 ).2 For w hile B orges o n c e said in a n in te rv ie w th a t th e K ab b alah h a d b e e n for h im w h a t V irgil h a d b e e n fo r D a n te , he also sta te d in his 1931 essay, “U n a v in d ic a c ió n d e la cábala” th a t h e was n o t so m u c h in te re ste d in th e d o c trin e o f th e K ab b alah as h e w as in its h e rm e n e u tic a l a n d c ry p to g ra p h ic possibilities (1 9 8 9 I 2 9 9 ) .3 M o reov er, for b o th w riters th e w o rld h e ld m ysteries w ho se answ ers w ere n o t to b e revealed in h isto ric a l events. A n d th e m e a n in g o f h u m a n life c o u ld o n ly be fo u n d in th e folds o f m y tho lo g y , a n d n o t in p o litical a c tio n. In teresting ly , in sp ite o f th e ir prima facie a p o litic al w orldv iew s, th e ir u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e 42 C O N FLU E N C IA , SPRING 2 0 1 6 W ord and infinity, served to m irror the dangerous and fragm ented social reality o f their tim e.4 “The Jew is a book in G od,” wrote E dm ond Jabes in The Book O f Resemblances (80), bu t perhaps, m ore accurately, it could be said that the hum an, the O ther, our brother, our sister is a book in God. It is m y hope, then, that this article will shed some light on a very interesting aspect o f Borges that is illum inated through a com parison w ith Schulz, and vice-versa. After all, the w ord Zohar means splendor, brilliance, and light. The Rabbinical Exegetical Tradition: M idrash and the Zohar The term Midrash refers to a tradition o f biblical exegesis, which had its apotheosis from 70 C.E. to 220 and from 220 to 400 C.E. (“Introduction” H artm an and Budick ix). James L. Kugel explains it this way: M id rash .. .is a kind o f recherché interpreting o f Scripture which finds expression in all m anner o f contexts. Beyond such a broad (...) general pronouncem ent, there are perhaps two other points about m idrash w hich ought to find their way into any introductory overview. The first is that m idrash’s precise focus is m ost often w hat one m ight call surface irregularities in the text: a good deal o f the tim e, it is concerned w ith (in the broadest sense) [philological] problems. The missing ‘N ’ verse in Psalm 45, is a theologically troublesom e pronouncem ent o f the prophet Amos [about the fate o f Israel], or indeed, sim ply a perceived contradiction between passages.. .The second fundam ental point, still m ore basic, is that the m idrash is an exegesis o f biblical verses, no t o f books. The basic un it o f the Bible, for the m idrashist, is the verse: this is w hat he seeks to e x p o u n d ...( 92, 93, emphasis in the original)5 This second aspect o f midrash describes the form o f m any o f the texts o f the Kabbalah, beginning w ith the Zohar. Daniel C hanan M att writes: Midrash ba-Ne’elam is the earliest stratum o f the Zohar. It is a com m entary on parts o f the Torah and the Book o f R uth. We also possess Midrashba-Ne’elam on the beginning o f Lam entations and the beginning o f Midrash ba-Ne’elam on Song o f Songs. The style o f these passages reveals that Moses de León is still under the influence o f philosophy. (8) A nd this Moses de León referred to here was the putative author o f the Sefer Ha-Zohar or “Book o f Splendor.”6A Spanish Jew from Guadalajara, Spain, Moses de León produced the m ain corpus o f the Zohar between the years 1280 and 1286. A textual body com posed of verse fragments lacking any rational cohesiveness the Zohar both com m ents on the Torah and interweaves disparate verses from the Torah to create a mystical vision o f the Devine. The Zohar was to serve as a path to religious enlightenm ent: by unifying the “various aspects o f G od through focused awareness and visualization” (M att 37). To accomplish this, the Zohar presents the ten Sefirot— a symbolic schema o f the m anifestations o f God. VOLUME 31, NUMBER 2 43 Such a mystical journey is symbolized through the Tree o f G od and the hum an body, at the end o f which there is one’s encounter with En-Sofi or divine revelation. Scholem explains: [T]he En-Sof is not only the hidden Root o f all Roots, it is also the sap o f the tree; every branch representing an attribute, exists not by itself but by virtue of En-Sof, the hidden God. And this tree o f G od is also, as it were, the skeleton of the universe; it grows throughout the whole o f creation and spreads its branches through all its ramifications. All m undane and created things exist only because something o f the power o f the Sefiroth lives and acts in them. (1995 214-215) But the great gaping mystery o f existence necessitates the tireless and dedicated detective (read exegetical) work o f someone like Borges’ Erik Lonnrot o f “La m uerte y la brújula,” who attem pts to solve the m urder of three Jewish men, the first o f which begins w ith the stabbing o f Talmudic, scholar Dr. Marcelo Yarmolinsky in Hotel du Nord. After each killing, the m urderer leaves the following notes: “La primera letra del Nombre ha sido articulada; La segunda letra del Nombre ha sido articulada; La última de las letras del Nombre ha sido articulada!’ (1989 I 500, 501, 502, emphasis in the original).7 And while inspector Treviranus suspects that there is a logical explanation for the murder, since Yarmolinsky was known for possessing a valuable collection o f sapphires, Lonnrot believes that the explanation resides elsewhere. “H e aquí un rabino m uerto,” says Lonnrot. “Yo prefiero una explicación puram ente rabínica.. . ” (500). And thus he removes from the scene o f the crime a num ber o f books authored by Yarmolinky himself— am ong them: “ Vindicación de la cúbala-, un Examen de la filosofía de Robert Flood, una traducción literal del Sepher Yezirah, 8 una Biografía del Baal Shem, una Historia de la secta de los Hasidim, etc. (500).”9 It is not coincidental that the m urder o f Yarmolinsky occurs in a hotel called “Hotel du N ord,” north being one o f the four cardinal points o f the compass. “Los tres lugares, en efecto, eran equidistantes. Simetrías en el tiempo (3 de diciembre, 3 de enero, 3 de febrero); simetría en el espacio tam b ién .. .Sintió, de pronto, que estaba por descifrar el misterio. U n compás y una brújula completaron esa intuición” (503). A nd so Lonnrot kabbalistically deduces that a fourth m urder (that is to complete the compass) will take place at a villa, lined with eucalyptus trees, on Triste-le-Roy. Like the symmetries o f the murders, the house is made o f its own “useless symmetries,” we are told: “...a una Diana glacial en un nicho lóbrego correspondía en un segundo nicho otra Diana: un balcón se reflejaba en otro balcón; dobles escalinatas se abrían en doble balaustrada” (504). Here L onnrot comes face to face with the murderer, Red Scharlach, who has planned the series o f murders from the very beginning, because all along the one person who could complete the missing letter o f the Nam e is none other than Lonnrot himself, who m ust now die. “La últim a de las letras del Nom bre ha sido articulada” (507). A nd the name, o f course, is the Name o f G _D . “Un prodigio en el Norte, otros en el Este y en Oeste, reclaman un cuarto prodigio en el Sur; el Tetragrám aton— el N om bre de dios, JH V H — consta de cuatro letras” (507). The G od who names the beings who name, and who live by nam ing— this G od of Creation, made o f language, expressed through language, is the labyrinth(s), at the end 44 C O N FLU EN C IA, SPRING 2 0 1 6 o f w h i c h th e r e is t h e e lu s iv e m y s te ry o f life a n d d e a th ; a t o p ic w h i c h b r in g s u s t o B o rg e s ’s s to ry , “ E l m ila g r o s e c re to .” 10 F o r th e p r o ta g o n i s t h e re is J a r o m ir H l a d i k , a C z e c h , J e w is h w r ite r, a u t h o r o f a n u n f in i s h e d tra g e d y e n ti t l e d eternidad, Los enemigos, de una Vindicación de la a n d a s t u d y o n t h e in d ir e c t J u d a ic in flu e n c e s i n t h e w o r k o f J a c o b B o e h m e . W h e n t h e N a z is m a r c h i n t o P ra g u e , H l a d i k is im m e d i a te l y a rr e s te d a n d p u t in p r is o n w h e r e h e a w a its e x e c u tio n . I n p r is o n h e a t t e m p t s in e v e ry c o n c e iv a b le w a y to a n ti c ip a t e h is o w n d e a th , a n d in th e d a rk n e s s o f h is p r is o n cell h e d r e a m s o f b e in g in t h e C l e m e n t i n u m , t h e n a ti o n a l l ib r a r y o f t h e C z e c h R e p u b lic : U n b ib li o te c a r io d e g a fa s n e g ra s le p r e g u n t ó : ¿ Q u é b u s ca ? H l a d í k le re p lic ó : Busco a Dios. E l b ib li o te c a r io le d ijo : Dios está en una de las letras de una de las páginas de los cuatrocientos mil tomos del Clementinum. Mis padres y los padres de mis padres han buscado esa letra: yo me he quedado ciego buscándola. Se q u i t ó las g afas y H l a d í k v io lo s o jo s, q u e e s ta b a n m u e r t o s . ( 5 1 1 , e m p h a s is i n t h e o r ig in a l) Is it a n y w o n d e r , t h e n , t h a t M y r n a S o lo to r e v s k y lo c a te s B o rg e s w i t h i n t h e midrash t ra d iti o n ? S o lo to ro v s k y w rite s : M id r a s h u se s th e p a ra b le to c la rify a p r e v io u s c o n te x t w h i c h is p a rt ia lly u n k n o w n y e t fu lly e x i s t e n t ...L i k e M id r a s h , B o rg e s’s w o rk s a re m a r k e d b y s y m b o ls w i t h a h i g h d e g re e o f s e m a n t ic s ta b ility . M a n y o f t h e m , r e in f o rc e d b y t h e s y n ta g m a ti c c o n te x t in w h ic h th e y a p p e a r, s te m in o b v io u s w a y s f ro m a n id e a o f c o lle c tiv e m e m o r y , fo r e x a m p le , t h e l a b y r i n th as s y m b o l o f i n f in it y a n d c h a o s , t h e l ib r a r y as s y m b o l o f t h e u n iv e rs e , t h e m i r r o r as t h a t w h i c h m u lt ip lie s a n d rev e a ls t h e u n iv e rs e , t h e fire as d e m iu r g e , a n d t h e a le p h , t h e K a b b a lis tic s y m b o l w h i c h is t h e firs t l e t te r o f t h e H e b r e w a lp h a b e t a n d s p ir itu a l r o o t o f all th e o t h e r le tte r s , as i n c l u d in g i n its e s se n c e all o f t h e a lp h a b e t a n d th u s a ll th e o t h e r e le m e n ts o f h u m a n d is c o u r s e . (2 6 2 ) C le a rly , midrash as a sty le o f t h o u g h t , o f looking a t th e w o r ld , a W e lt a n s c h a u u n g w h o s e a im is t h e s y m b o lic r e p r e s e n t a ti o n o f th e c o in c id e n c e o f m a t t e r a n d s p ir it, o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r a n d t h e u n iv e rs a l, m a k e s u s e o f th e lin g u is ti c f r a g m e n t (v erse , s e n te n c e , s to r y ) t o illu s tra te t h e ir r e d u c i b il i ty o f e x is te n c e t o a n y o n e p riv ile g e d p o i n t o f view . W h i l e th e A b s o lu te is r e a d a b le its M e a n i n g is u n d e c ip h e r a b l e . T o t h a t e n d t h e lite r a r y s ty le o f b o t h B o rg e s a n d S c h u lz p o i n t to s u c h l a b y r i n th i n e , i n f in it y o f re a d in g s , a n d to th e i r s h a re d c o n c e p t io n o f l it e r a tu r e v is-a -v is The Book. 11 The Kabbalistic Traits o f Schulz and Borges [T]he author contents himself-—and discontents the reader— with vague references to ancient writings or mystical tracts dealing with the same topic. Thus the story o f the real sources, which he is so careful to obscure, is one o f the main prerequisites for a correct appreciation o f the historical and doctrinal significance o f the Zohar. The task is made all the more intricate and amusing because the author ... VOLUME 31, NUMBER 2 45 not only fails to indicate his real sources but supplies fantastic references to non­ existent ones. The whole book book isfu ll o f fictitious quotations and other bogus references to imaginary writings... The above quotation could very well be a description of any one of Borges’ short stories; instead it is Scholem’s description of Moses de Leon’s Zohar (1995 173-174). In violation of all syllogistic laws, the Zohar proceeds by way of the fragment; for the monadic fragment reflects the whole. Such a notion of the relation between language, myth, and reality was certainly not lost on Schulz. In fact, in his 1936 essay, “The Mythologizing of Reality,” Schulz wrote: “The essence of reality is Meaning or Sense. W hat lacks sense is, for us, not reality. Every fragment of reality lives by virtue of partaking in a universal Sense. The old cosmogonists expressed this by the statement Tn the Beginning was the Word’” (1990 115). One may very well begin with either a dainty woman’s foot, or with a book of stamps. In either case, it is the fragment (a word) that, like a mirror, reflects the elusive whole. “Suddenly Rudolph, his mouth still full of cracknel, produced from his pocket a stamp album and spread it before me,” writes Schulz in Sanatorium Under the Sign o f the Hourglass. He continues: I realized in a flash why that spring had until then been so empty and dull. Not knowing why, it had been introverted and silent— retreating, melting into space, into an empty azure without meaning or definition— a questioning empty shell for the admission of an unknown content.. .That spring was holding itself ready: deserted and roomy, it was simply awaiting a revelation. Who could foresee that this would emerge— ready, fully armed, and dazzling— from Rudolph’s stamp album? (1978 31-32, emphasis added) W hat Rudolph’s stamp album makes patently clear is that the Spring season is as much a text or a myth, as is a nation (represented through a stamp). And so the story “Spring,” from Sanatorium, begins thus: This is the story of a certain spring that was more real, more dazzling and brighter than any other spring, a spring that took its text seriously: an inspired script, written in the festive red of sealing wax and of calendar print, the red of colored pencils and of enthusiasm, the amaranth of happy telegrams from far away... (24) Moreover, says Schulz, “Spring” is a text which may be read, or entered like a Deleuzean map, from any direction; or as Schulz so beautifully puts it: The text can be read forward or backward, lose its sense and find it again in many versions, in a thousand alternatives. Because the text of spring is marked by hints, ellipses, lines dotted on an empty azure, and because the gaps between the syllables are filled by frivolous guesses and surmises of birds, my story, like 46 C O N FLU E N C IA , SPRING 2 0 1 6 t h a t te x t, w ill f o ll o w m a n y d i f f e r e n t tr a c k s a n d w ill b e p u n c t u a t e d b y s p r in g lik e d a s h e s , s ig h s , a n d d o t s . ( 2 5 , e m p h a s is a d d e d ) I n lik e m a n n e r , n a t i o n a n d h i s t o r y a re a ls o r e d u c e d t o d i s j o i n t e d m ic r o - n a r r a ti v e s history o f “ E m p e r o r F r a n z J o s e p h o f A u s t r i a ” t u r n s o u t t o b e n o t h i n g o t h e r story o f “ E m p e r o r F r a n z J o s e p h o f A u s t r i a .” 12“ W h a t a t t r a c t i o n , d e a r r e a d e r , h a s w h e re th e th a n th e a p o s ta g e s t a m p f o r y o u ? W h a t d o y o u m a k e o f t h e p r o f il e o f E m p e r o r F r a n z J o s e p h w i t h h is b a ld p a t c h c r o w n e d b y a la u r e l c r o w n ? ” a s k s t h e n a r r a t o r o f “ S p r in g . ” “ Is it a s y m b o l o f o r d in a r in e s s , o r is i t t h e u l t i m a t e w i t h i n t h e b o u n d s o f p o s s ib ility , t h e g u a r a n t e e o f u n p a s s a b le f r o n t ie r s w i t h i n w h i c h t h e w o r l d is e n c lo s e d o n c e a n d f o r a ll? ” ( 3 3 ) . A n d t h e n , a d d r e s s in g “ F r a n z J o s e p h ” d ir e c tly , t h e n a r r a t o r re fle c ts : “ H o w g r e a tly d i m i n i s h e d y o u h a v e b e c o m e , F r a n z J o s e p h , a n d y o u r g o s p e l o f p ro s e ! I l o o k e d f o r y o u in v a in . A t la s t I f o u n d y o u . Y o u w e r e a m o n g t h e c r o w d , b u t h o w s m a ll, u n i m p o r t a n t , a n d g r a y ” ( 3 5 ) . F o r , in e s s e n c e , “ F r a n z J o s e p h ” is a m e r e s y m b o l in t h e p r o s e o f t h e w o r l d : p r o s a ic a n d f la t, lik e a p o s ta g e s ta m p . ( T h e a n a lo g i c a l e q u iv a l e n t o f F r a n z J o s e p h i n B o r g e s is t h e d e f u n c t B e a triz V i t e r b o o f “ E l a le p h ” w h o s e r e a lit y f o r “ B o r g e s ,” t h e n a r r a to r , is b a s e d o n p h o t o g r a p h s o f h e r ) . 13 R u d o l p h s d e c e p tiv e , p o c k e t- s iz e s t a m p a l b u m is, i n a ll a c tu a lity , “ G o d ’s f e r v e n t t i r a d e . . . a g a i n s t F r a n z J o s e p h a n d h is s ta t e o f p r o s e . . . t h e b o o k o f t r u t h a n d s p l e n d o r ” ( 3 4 ) . 14 B u t th is s h i m m e r i n g t r u t h t h a t b u r n s b r i g h t i n t h e s k y is n o t t h e t r u t h o f “s c ie n tia ,” b u t o f m y t h o l o g y — o r w h a t is t h e s a m e , o f t h e i n f i n i t y o f la n g u a g e ( S c h u lz 1 9 9 0 1 1 5 ) . “ I n M a y t h e d a y s w e r e p i n k lik e E g y p t ia n s ta m p s , ” w r i te s S c h u lz ( 1 9 7 8 4 7 ) , i n a re v e rs a l o f lo g ic w h e r e t h e d a y s i n M a y a re l ik e n e d to E g y p t ia n s ta m p s , i n s t e a d o f t h e c o lo r o f E g y p t ia n s ta m p s li k e n e d to t h e c o lo r o f t h e d a y s in M a y . S c h u lz g o e s o n : I n t h e m a r k e t s q u a r e b r ig h t n e s s s h o n e a n d u n d u l a t e d . O n t h e s k y b illo w s o f s u m m e r y c l o u d s — v o l c a n ic , s h a r p l y o u t l i n e d — f o ld e d u n d e r c h in k s o f l ig h t [ B a r b a d o s , L a b r a d o r , T r i n i d a d ] , a n d e v e r y t h in g w a s r u n n i n g w i t h r e d n e s s , a s i f s e e n t h r o u g h r u b y g la s s e s , o r t h e c o lo r o f b l o o d r u s h i n g to t h e h e a d . . . T h e n th e s c e n e r y c h a n g e d i n t h e s k y : i n m a s s e d c lo u d s t h r e e s i m u l t a n e o u s p i n k e c lip s e s o c c u r r e d , s h i n y la v a b e g a n t o s m o l d e r , o u t l i n i n g l u m i n o u s l y t h e f ie r c e c o n t o u r s o f c lo u d s [ C u b a , H a i t i , J a m a ic a ] a n d t h e c e n t e r o f t h e w o r l d r e c e d e d , its g l a r i n g c o lo r s b e c a m e d e e p e r . . . W i t h t h e s t a m p a l b u m i n m y h a n d , I w a s s t u d y i n g t h e s p r in g . W a s i t n o t a g r e a t c o m m e n t a r y o n t h e t im e s , t h e g r a m m a r o f its d a y s a n d n ig h ts ? T h e m a i n t h i n g w a s n o t t o f o r g e t , lik e A le x a n d e r t h e G r e a t, t h a t n o M e x ic o is f in a l, t h a t it is a p o i n t o f p a s s a g e w h i c h t h e w o r l d w ill c ro s s , t h a t b e y o n d e a c h M e x ic o t h e r e o p e n s a n o t h e r , e v e n b r i g h t e r o n e , a M e x ic o o f s u p e r ­ c o lo r s a n d h y p e r a r o m a s . . . ” ( 4 7 ) T h e w a y i n w h i c h S c h u lz d e s c r i b e s t h e v i b r a t in g , u n d u l a t i n g b r ig h t n e s s o f t h e w o r l d , g l a r in g and f r i g h te n i n g , a lm o s t p a in f u l ly d if f ic u lt to b e h o ld , is a ls o t h e s a m e w a y t h a t B o rg e s d e s c r ib e s t h e “A l e p h ” : E n la p a r t e i n f e r i o r d e l e s c a ló n , h a c ia la d e r e c h a , v i u n a p e q u e ñ a e s fe r a t o r n a s o la d a , d e c a s i VOLUME 31, NUMBER 2 intolerablefulgor. A l p r i n c i p i o la c r e í g i r a to r ia ; lu e g o 47 c o m p r e n d í q u e ese m o v im ie n to e ra u n a ilu s ió n p r o d u c id a p o r los v e rtig in o s o s e s p e c tá c u lo s q u e e n c e rra b a . E l d iá m e tr o d e l A le p h se ría d e d o s o tres c e n tím e tro s , p e ro el e sp a c io c ó s m ic o e s ta b a a h í, sin d is m in u c ió n d e ta m a ñ o . C a d a c o s a ...e r a in fin ita s c o s a s .... (“ El a le p h ” 1 9 8 9 I 6 2 5 , e m p h a s is a d d e d ) A n d in te re s tin g ly in B orge s (as in S c h u lz ), th e A le p h is b o th a c o sm ic “p la c e ” o f e m a n a tio n , a n d a H e b re w le tte r 15 th a t in its g ra p h ic fo rm “d iv id e s th e w o rld s a b o v e a n d b e lo w th r o u g h th e d y n a m ic o f its c e n tr a l lin e ” ( D r u c k e r 1 4 6 ) :16 X “ It is a sig n ,” says D ru c k e r, “w h ic h is c h a rg e d w ith life, th e d y n a m is m o f c o m in g in to b e in g , a n d in th is re sp e c t A le p h f u n c tio n s as a m ic ro c o s m o f all th e a sp ec ts o f th e a lp h a b e t’ (1 4 6 ). In s h o rt, all th e le tte rs a re th e L ette r, a n d th e flo a tin g , s h im m e r in g fra g m e n ts are s u b s u m e d in a v isio n o f to ta lity : .. . [V ]i la c irc u la c ió n d e m i o s c u ra sa n g re , vi el e n g ra n a je d e l a m o r y la m o d ific a c ió n d e la m u e r te , vi el A le p h d e s d e to d o s los p u n to s , vi e n el A le p h la tie rra , y e n la tie rra o tra vez el A le p h y e n el A le p h la tie rra , vi m i c a ra y m is visc eras, vi t u c a ra , y s e n tí v é rtig o y lloré , p o r q u e m is o jo s h a b ía n v isto ese o b je to se c re to y c o n je tu ra l, c u y o n o m b r e u s u rp a n los h o m b re s , p e ro q u e n in g ú n h o m b r e h a m ira d o : el in c o n c e b ib le u n iv e rso . S e n tí in fin ita v e n e ra c ió n , in fin ita lá s tim a . (1 9 8 9 I 6 2 6 ) T h is is th e “ B o rge s” o f th e te x t (like th e F ra n J o s e p h I o f S c h u lz ’s s ta m p a lb u m ), to w h ic h h is in te rlo c u to r, C a rlo s A r g e n tin o D a n e r i re s p o n d s , “¡Q u é o b s e rv a to rio fo rm id a b le , c h e B orges!” (6 2 6 ). “ B o rge s” s k a b b a lis tic v isio n , is d o u b tle ssly , th e v is io n o f B o rge s, th e w r ite r w h o m u s t r e p o r t w h a t h e h a s se en th r o u g h L a n g u a g e — th e o n ly m e ta p h y s ic a l in s tr u m e n t a va ilab le to h im . “A rrib o a h o ra , al in e fa b le c e n tro d e m i re la to ; e m p ie z a , a q u í, m i d e s e s p e ra c ió n d e e sc rito r,” d e c la re s B orge s in “ El a le p h ” : “T o d o le n g u a je es u n a lfa b e to d e s ím b o lo s c u y o e je rc ic io p re s u p o n e u n p a sa d o q u e los in te rlo c u to re s c o m p a r te n : ¿ có m o tra n s m itir a los o tro s el in fin ito A le p h ...? L o q u e v ie ro n m is o jo s fu e s im u ltá n e o : lo q u e tra n s c rib iré , suc esivo , p o rq u e el le n g u a je lo es” (6 2 4 , 6 2 5 ). I f th e re a d e r o f B o rge s fin d s little o r n o d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n h is essays a n d his ficciones, it is b e c a u se fo r B o rge s, as it w as fo r S c h u lz , la n g u a g e is n o t so m u c h lo gica l as it is a n a lo g ic a l, a n d in a s m u c h as it a tte m p ts to c a p tu re s o m e a sp e c t o f re a lity t h a t is c le a rly o u ts id e o f p h e n o m e n a o r lo g ic (A is A ), la n g u a g e falsifies th e w o rld . It in v e n ts th e w o rld a n d c re a te s m y th s . S c h u lz w rite s: N o t o n e sc ra p o f a n id e a o f o u rs d o e s n o t o rig in a te in m y th , isn ’t tra n s fo rm e d , m u tila te d , d e n a tu r e d m y th o lo g y . T h e m o s t f u n d a m e n ta l f u n c tio n o f th e s p irit is in v e n tin g fables, c re a tin g tales. T h e d riv in g fo rc e o f h u m a n k n o w le d g e is th e c o n v ic tio n th a t a t th e e n d o f its rese arch e s th e sen se o f th e w o rld , th e m e a n in g 48 C O N F L U E N C IA , SPRING 2 0 1 6 of life, will be found. It seeks out sense at the very top of its scaffoldings and artificial stackings of level upon level. (1978 116). And Carter Wheelock, for whom Borges was a “mythmaker,” states that: “The manner in which Borges makes language more appropriate to some unnamed entity than to the ostensible subject of the narrative comprises the primary form of m ythmaking...” (66). Little or nothing bears any “reality” outside of language and myth for Borges. That is why when Borges writes on the fate of the Argentine writer in “El escritor argentino y la tradición,” his final recommendation is that the Argentine writer think of himself or herself as a myth, “una máscara” (1989 I 274) in the grand totality of “Western civilization.” Myth is simulation, and simulation is all there is. Nearly heretics, neither Schulz nor Borges can be said to have been deeply religious individuals; what they found of interest in the Kabbalah was the way in which these sacred texts reflected back unto the page the slipperiness of language and its irreducibility to the mere instrumental rationality of communication. “Schulz cannot be viewed as a kabbalist, or in any way a follower of the Kabbalah,” states Bozena Shallcross. “He was an intellectual and a writer who ingeniously retextualized kabbalistic myths in his second collection of short stories, Sanatorium Under the Sign o f the Hourglass” (272). And Saul Sosnowky makes a similar point about Borges, when he argues: While the Kabbalist risks his immortality with each linguistic transformation, Borges only entertains multiple variables whose basic purpose is to rejoice in the creative act that begins and ends with the the writing of fiction. While the Kabbalist seeks an elusive opening in the mysterious lines of the Sacred Language, Borges reduces theology and metaphysics to a game. (1973 383) But later Sosnowsky writes: In spite of these radical differences, the Kabbalist, and the poet meet at the focal point of their search: language... [T]he purpose of both the Kabbalist and the poet is to elucidate and pronounce his word, to create his world, to conjure up his magical formula and thus expand his human consciousness. (384, emphasis in the original) Again, this is the literary aim of both Borges and Schulz. W hat is above and what is below, of the earth and the heavens, is Language. And here a philosophical essay such as Walter Benjamin’s “O n Language as Such and on the Language of Man” can help us to understand the Schulzian-Borgesean notion of the infinity of language and The Book. The Infinite Book Borges, fortunately for him as for us, died of a ripe old age in 1986; Bruno Schulz, on the other hand, was not so fortunate. Schulz was murdered by a Gestapo officer in his native town of Drohobycz in 1942, on a day that came to be known as Black Thursday: when VOLUME 31, NUMBER 2 49 the Jews of the town were rounded up and many of them summarily killed in the streets. Schulz published two books in his lifetime, The Street o f Crocodiles (variously translated as Cinnamon Shops), and Sanatorium Under the Sign o f the Hourglass (discussed throughout in this article); but he is also supposed to have written a third book, entitled The Messiah, which lost after the war, has never been found. The fact that this third book has been lost to us and that it bears such a title, perhaps underscores, by its very absence, the Kabbalistic thought that Language simultaneously reflects both eternity and the messianic time to come. Walter Benjamin, who enjoyed a friendship with Scholem, writes in “On Language as Such and on the Language of Man”: .. .the language of a mental entity is directly that which is communicable in it. W hat is communicable of a mental entity, in this it communicates itself. Which signifies: all language communicates itself. Or more precisely: all language communicates itself in itself; it is in the purest sense of the ‘medium’ of the communication. Mediation, which is the immediacy of all mental communication, is the fundamental problem of linguistic theory, and if one chooses to call this immediacy magic, then the primary problem of language is its magic. At the same time, the notion of the magic of language points to something else: its infiniteness. This is conditional on its immediacy. For just because nothing is communicated through language, what is communicated in language cannot be externally limited or measured, and therefore all language contains its own incommensurable, uniquely constituted infinity. (1978 316— 317, emphasis in the original) Moreover, what differentiates humans from other creatures, inasmuch as other creatures can also be said to possess (communicative) language, is that humans live by naming. “[I]n naming the mental being o f man communicates itself to God.. .Man alone has a language that is complete both in its universality and its intensiveness” says Benjamin (318, 319, emphasis in the original). And furthermore he states: Man is the namer, by this we recognize that through him pure language speaks. All nature insofar as it communicates itself, communicates itself in language, and so finally in man. Hence he is the lord of nature, and gives names to things. Only through the linguistic being of things can he gain knowledge of them from within himself— in name. God’s creation is completed when things receive their names from man, whom in name language alone speaks. (319) After all, what is the Kabbalah, if not the human attempt at reconstituting the fragments of a blissful reality— before Babel, before Language became languages— through naming? Lurianic Kabbalah situates the unity of the world in the figure of the first namer, Adam Kadmon: “the first configuration of the divine light” (Scholem 1995 265). God’s light distributed throughout Creation, is preserved in six separate bowls or vessels, representing the Sefiroth, or multiple manifestations of God.17 The wholeness mythically represented in these vessels, comes to an unfortunate end, however, when the vessels are shattered and 50 C O N FLU EN C IA, SPRING 2 0 1 6 th e o n c e c o n s titu te d cosmos s u f f e r s d i s i n t e g r a t i o n a n d d i s p e r s io n . N o t c o in c id e n ta lly , I s a a c L u r ia ( 1 5 3 4 - 1 5 7 2 ) , w a s b o r n in t h e e x ile c o m m u n i t y o f S a f e d in G a l ile e , a m e r e f o r t y y e a r s a f te r t h e e x p u ls i o n o f t h e J e w s f r o m S p a in . F o r L u r ia , t h e w o r l d h a d u n d e r g o n e a H is to ric a l a n d S p iritu a l tra n s fo rm a tio n fro m c re a tio n to d e s tru c tio n , th a t o n ly p ra y e r a n d m e d i t a t i o n c o u l d r e s to r e ( Tikkun). T o t h a t e n d : T h e h i s t o r ic a l p r o c e s s a n d its i n n e r m o s t s o u l , t h e r e lig io u s a c t o f t h e Je w , p r e p a r e t h e w a y f o r t h e f in a l r e s t i t u t i o n o f a ll t h e s c a t t e r e d a n d e x ile d lig h t s a n d s p a r k s . T h e J e w w h o is in c lo s e c o n t a c t w i t h t h e d iv in e l ig h t t h r o u g h t h e T o r a h , t h e f u lf il lm e n t o f t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s , a n d t h r o u g h p r a y e r , h a s i t i n h is p o w e r to a c c e le r a te o r to h i n d e r t h is p r o c e s s . E v e r y a c t o f m a n is r e l a te d t o th is f in a l ta s k w h i c h G o d h a s s e t f o r H i s c r e a tu r e s . ( S c h o le m 1 9 9 5 2 7 4 ) S c h o le m c o n ti n u e s : I t f o llo w s f r o m t h is t h a t f o r L u r ia t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e M e s s ia h is n o t h i n g b u t th e c o n s u m m a tio n o f th e c o n tin u o u s p ro c e ss o f R e s to ra tio n , o f ‘w o r l d o f Tikkun Tikkun.. .T h e is th e r e f o r e t h e w o r l d o f M e s s i a n ic a c ti o n . T h e c o m i n g o f t h e M e s s ia h m e a n s t h a t th is w o r l d o f Tikkun h a s r e c e iv e d its f in a l s h a p e . ( 2 7 4 , e m p h a s is in t h e o r ig i n a l) W h e t h e r S c h u l z e v e r f i n i s h e d h is b o o k , The Messiah, o r s im p ly p l a n n e d t o w r i te it b u t n e v e r d i d , its d e f e r r a l a n d its a b s e n c e s ig n a ls f o r u s t h e w a y h e v ie w e d t h e h i s t o r ic a l m o m e n t in w h i c h h e liv e d . T h e N a z is ’ m a r c h i n t o P o la n d , a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t o h is n a tiv e t o w n o f D r o h o b y c z , i n t h e t h e n p r o v in c e o f G a lic ia ( to d a y t h e U k r a in e ) h a d t o h a v e b e e n f o r h i m t h e f ir s t s ig n t h a t t h e r e c o n s t i t u t e d v e s se ls h a d b e e n s h a t t e r e d o n c e a g a in . “A ll t h r o u g h o u t Sanatorium o n e g e ts t h e f e e l in g t h a t l o o m i n g o n t h e h o r i z o n is s o m e a w f u l c a ta s tr o p h e a n d t h a t T h e B o o k a n d t h e p e o p le o f T h e B o o k w ill b e its v i c t im s ” ( P é r e z 1 9 ) . O r a s S h a llc r o s s h a s s a id : “T h e d e v a s t a ti o n o f T h e B o o k c o r r e s p o n d s to t h e b r e a k i n g o f t h e v e s se ls ’ t h a t in k a b b a li s ti c r h e t o r i c s ig n if ie d c o s m i c c a t a s t r o p h e ” ( 2 7 7 ) . A n d y e t, S c h u lz ’s f a i t h in Book, The i n t h e p o w e r o f t h e w o r d t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h e w o r l d r e m a in s u n s h a k e a b l e t o t h e b i t t e r th e e n d . L ik e a m o u s e , I t h o u g h t , W h a t d o I c a r e a b o u t h u n g e r ? I f w o r s t c o m e s to w o r s t, I c a n g n a w w o o d o r n i b b l e p a p e r ,” s a y s t h e S a m s a - lik e n a r r a t o r o f “ L o n e l in e s s ” in Sanatorium. “T h e p o o r e s t a n im a l, a g r a y c h u r c h m o u s e a t t h e ta i l e n d o f t h e B o o k o f C r e a t i o n , I c a n e x is t o n n o t h i n g ” ( 1 9 7 8 1 7 2 ) . I t is o n n o t h i n g a ls o , o r m o r e a c c u r a te ly , n o t h i n g b u t m e m o r ie s a n d v is io n s t h a t B o r g e s ’ A z te c p r ie s t, T z i n a c á n , liv e s o n : in a p r is o n w h e r e h e is t o r t u r e d b y t h e c r u e l s i x t e e n th c e n t u r y S p a n is h c o n q u is t a d o r , a n d g o v e r n o r o f G u a t e m a l a , P e d r o d e A l v a r a d o ( 1 4 8 5 - 1 5 4 1 ) , a n d h is m e n . T z i n a c á n r e f le c ts : U n a n o c h e s e n t í q u e m e a c e r c a b a a u n r e c u e r d o p r e c is o ; a n te s d e v e r e l m a r , el v ia je r o s ie n t e u n a a g it a c i ó n e n la s a n g r e . H o r a s d e s p u é s , e m p e c é a a v is t a r el r e c u e r d o ; e r a u n a d e la s t r a d i c i o n e s d e l d io s . É s te , p r e v i e n d o q u e e n e l f in d e lo s t ie m p o s o c u r r i r í a n m u c h a s d e s v e n tu r a s y r u in a s , e s c r ib ió el p r i m e r d ía d e la C r e a c i ó n u n a s e n te n c ia m á g i c a a p t a p a r a c o n j u r a r e s o s m a le s . L a e s c r ib ió d e VOLUME 31, NUMBER 2 51 m anera que llegara a las más apartadas generaciones y que no la tocara el azar. N adie sabe a que p u n to la escribió ni con qué caracteres, pero nos consta que perdura, secreta, y que la leerá un elegido. Consideré que estábamos, com o siem pre, en el fin de los tiem pos y que m i destino de últim o sacerdote del dios m e daría acceso al privilegio de in tu ir esa escritura. (1989 I “La escritura del dios” 5 9 6 -5 9 7 ) Tzinacán’s m em ory is one o f past apocalyptic tim es, and the only way to escape the p ortentous apocalypse is by deciphering the god’s secret script; for only Language, and particularly, The Book can redeem, enlighten, and liberate.18 W h en W alter Benjam in com piled w hat was to becom e his m ost com prehensive work, The Arcades Project (1999), his unstated inten tio n was to create a (“m odern”) m odel o f the universe: com posed in Midrash fashion o f hundreds o f notes and q u o tatio n s.19 In th at sense, The Arcades Project is a labyrinth because it is a book and it is book because it is a labyrinth. Clearly, this equally applies to Bruno Schulz and to Jorge Luis Borges. M ade by language, or as Benjam in w ould p u t it, in language, there is no Schulz or Borges outside The Book, outside the word. In an attem p t to give order to chaos vis-a-vis Language, every w riter participates in a process o f Tikkun, w hether he or she is a Kabbalist or not; b u t moreover, in an attem p t to create m eaning and sense, every w riter is a m ythm aker whose w ork is a m onadic book th at reflects the infinite Book th at eludes us all. “Conclusion” As w ith any other hypertext (and w hat text is no t a hypertext, kabbalistically speaking?), the reader is free to begin here or at any oth er p o in t in the article and re/member. “Si un eterno viajero .. .atravesara [la biblioteca] en cualquier dirección, com probaría al cabo de los siglos que los m ism os volúm enes se repiten en el m ism o orden (que repetido, sería u n orden: el O rd e n )” (1989 I “La biblioteca de Babel” 471) A nd this is w hat I have attem p ted to do here as well. T hat is to say, to establish some im p o rtan t transversal connections between tw o writers w ho, like the books in Borges’ Library, are distinct and yet related: as each in their ow n way reflect the h u m an need to understand an incom prehensible totality. They lived in tim es o f great affliction, through W W I and W W II, and experienced w hat José M arti called “la vallas rotas” o f m odernity. In order to m ake sense o f this fragm entation, they tu rn ed to the interpretative tradition o f the midrash and to the Kabbalah, for herm eneutical and philosophical reasons. If the w orld seem ed senseless, if hu m an behavior in its m ost extreme negative form was im possible to grasp, then perhaps language was the key. Perhaps the dual nature o f language, m aterial and transcendental at once, could offer som e glim m er o f hope. The final words th at conclude the above cited passage are: “M i soledad se alegra con esa elegante esperanza” (371). For b o th Schulz and Borges, there were books and then The Book, hu m an history and eternal History, and through the latter one could som ehow m ake oneself understand the inherent contradictions o f the hum an condition. In sum , it is precisely this th at this article has attem pted to com m unicate about th em — the crux o f their confluences. 52 CONFLUENCIA, SPRING 2016 Notes 'See W orks C ited . For an analysis o f B runo S chulzs life an d w o rk (pictorial a n d literary) in Spanish consult th e ex h ib itio n catalogue, ed ited by Ju a n M iguel H ern án d ez L eón, Bruno Schulz: E l país tenebroso (M adrid : C írcu lo de Bellas A rtes 2 0 07). 2 “Lo q u e ... hace [Borges] es a d o p ta r .. .las técnicas de los kabalistas españoles para incorporar, a la vez q ue actualizar, la tradición. E sta técnica consiste en la in terp retació n irreverente de los textos consagrados, es decir, en la lectura y rescritura revisionistas de las obras canónicas,” w rites A izenberg (94). In short, Borges m akes a literary use o f th e K abbalah. 3See Saúl Sosnow ski’s Borges y la cdbabla: la búsqueda del verbo (1976 1 8 -1 9 ), an d particularly ‘“ T he G o d ’s S cript’— A K abbalistic Q u e st” w herein Sosnow ski w rites th a t “alth o u g h language is th e unifying factor” for b o th th e K abbalist an d th e w riter, “th e m ystic aim s at th e in teg ratio n in to a D ivine (i.e., n o n -h u m a n ) realm; th e p o et looks for new m anifestations to en tertain a homo ludens w hile tim e encroaches u p o n th e solitude a n d em ptiness o f a life devoid o f a priori m ean in g ” (1973 384). 4Borges an d Schulz w ro te som e o f th eir w ork alm ost at th e sam e tim e: in th e late 30s an d early 40s. 5T he n o tio n o f different exegetical versions o f th e sam e passage o r text is frequently fo u n d in Borges. Take fo r instance, “Pierre M enard, a u to r del Q u ijo te ” (1 989 I Ficciones 44 9 ) o r from th e sam e volum e, “Tres versiones de Judas,” w here Borges’ fictional biblical scholar, N ils R uneberg, proposes th a t Judas betrayed C h rist in o rder to force h im to declare his divinity “y a encender u n a vasta v indicación co n tra el yugo de R om a” (515). Interestingly, a sim ilar idea has been p roposed lately by Z izék in his book, The Puppet and the Dwarf, w herein Z izék proposes th a t Judas’ betrayal is w h at launched C h ristian ity as an ethical force against th e R om an E m pire (143). 6W ith respect to th e unresolved q u estio n o f M oses de León au th o rsh ip o f th e Sefer Ha-Zohar, o r th e Zohar “it can at least be said th a t by so m e o f his co ntem poraries, Moses de L eon was already described as th e a u th o r o f th e Z ohar. T h at m u ch at an y rate we k now from th e m uch-discussed testim o n y o f th e K abbalist, Isaac ben Sam uel o f Acre, one o f th e tw o d o cu m en ts o f th e p eriod, a p art from M oses de L eon’s ow n w ritings, in w hich w e find h im m en tio n e d ” (S cholem 1995 190). 7O n c e w hen asked by R onald C hrist: “H ave y ou tried to m ake yo u r ow n stories Kabbalistic?” Borges responded: “Yes, som etim es I have,” giving as on e o f his sources for th e K abbalah Scholem ’s book, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (Borges and R onald C h rist 1967 161). A n d Scholem , w ho for his p art recognized th e A rgentine w riter’s “considerable p o d er im aginativo” (cited in A izenberg 114), also underscored the secular aspect o f Borges’ interest in Jew ish m ysticism . 8S choiem has said o f th e Sefer Yezirah (or T he B ook o f C reation) th a t it is a b o o k “sm all in size b u t enorm ous in in flu e n c e ...” (1974 2 3). Less th a n tw o th o u san d w ords “even in its lo nger version— allied to its obscure an d at th e sam e tim e laconic a n d enigm atic style, as well as its term inology,” th e Sefer Yezirah “has no parallel in o th e r w orks on related topics” (23). A n d Alazraki describes it thus: “T he B ook o f C reatio n is a b rie f treatise on cosm ologic a n d cosm ogonic m atters. It was w ritten betw een th e th ird an d sixth centuries an d represents, w ith th e B ook Bahir (tw elfth century), th e em bryo o u t o f w hich th e b u lk o f th e K abbalah grew an d developed. Its ch ief subjects are th e elem ents o f th e w orld, w h ich are so u g h t in th e ten elem entary and p rim ordial n u m b ers— S efiroth— an d in th e tw enty-tw o letters o f th e H ebrew alp habet. T ogether these represent th e m ysterious forces w hose convergence has p ro d u ced th e various c o m b in atio n s observable th ro u g h o u t th e w hole o f creation; they are th e thirty-two secret paths o f wisdom, th ro u g h w hich G o d has created all th a t exists” (15). F or m ore on this text see Scholem ’s Kabbalah (1 974 2 1 -3 0 ). 9 Vindicación de la cabala is a reference to his ow n essay, “U na vindicación de la cábala” already cited here (1989 I 2 0 9 -2 1 2 ). As to th e o th e r titles m en tio n e d above, Jaim e A lazraki w rites: “ [T ]h e History o f the Hasidic Sect a n d th e Biography o f Baal Shem, attrib u te d to Yarmolinsky, are slightly m odified versions o f tw o w orks by M a rtin B uber: The Origin and Meaning o f Hasidism a n d The Legend o f Baal Shem... [and] A Study o f the Philosophy o f Robert Flood, although n o t directly concerned w ith th e K abbalah, is n o t foreign to its doctrine. Several o f F lood’s (1574—1637) postulates are close to those o f th e K abbalah” (16). 10“R uneberg c o m p ren d ió que no era llegada la hora. S intió que estaban convergiendo sobre él antiguas m aldiciones divinas: recordó a Elias y a M oisés, que en la m o n ta ñ a se taparon la cara para no ver a D ios; a Isaías, que se aterró cu an d o sus ojos vieron a A quel cuya gloria llena la tierra; a Saúl, cuyos ojos q u edaron ciegos en el cam ino de D am asco; al rabino Sim eón ben Azaí, que vio el Paraíso y m urió; al fam oso hechicero Ju an de V iterbo, que enloqueció cu an d o p u d o ver la T rinidad; a los M id rash im , que ab o m in an de los im píos que p ro n u n c ia n el Shem Hamephorash, el Secreto N o m b re de D ios,” w rites Borges in “Tres versiones de Judas” (1989 I 517). VOLUME 31, NUMBER 2 53 11 “Al arm o n iz ar la especulación co n los sím b o lo s, al d escifrar el L ibro, y al p rese n tar su b ú sq u ed a religiosa en fo rm a d e tex to s apó crifo s y glosas revisionistas a textos sagrados, el m isticism o ju d ío te n ía m u c h o q u e ofrecer al Borges escritor,” w rites E d n a A izenb erg in Borges: el tejedor del Aleph, etc. (81) 12Sven S piek er notes: “T h e d isjo in te d , n o n lin e ar q u ality o f S chulz’s narratives to o , is an effect o f th e a u th o r’s tre a tm e n t o f tim e. Like th e G erm a n Geschichte, th e Polish te rm historia h ig hlig h ts th e co n n e ctio n b etw een h isto ry a n d n arrativ e o r story. A n y rep res en tatio n o f ex tra tim e can b e successful o n ly if narrativ e co h eren ce is s u s p e n d e d .. . ” (2 8 6). T h e sam e, o f co urse, applies 1) to th e S panish c o n c ep t o f historia, a n d 2) to Borges’ “h isto ria d e la etern id a d .” In “El tie m p o circular” Borges argues: “M a rco A urelio afirm a la analogía, n o la id e n tid a d , d e los m u c h o s d estin o s in divid uales. A firm a q u e cu alq u ier lap so— u n siglo, u n añ o , u n a sola n o ch e , tal vez el in asible p res en te— c o n tien e ín te g ra m e n te la h isto ria. E n su fo rm a esa c o n je tu ra es d e fácil refutació n: u n sab o r d ifiere d e o tro sabor, d iez m in u to s d e d o lo r físico n o equivalen a diez m in u to s de álgebra. A plicad a a g rand es p eríod os, a los se ten ta añ os d e ed ad q u e el L ibro d e los Salm os nos ad ju dica, la co n jetu ra es verosím il o tolerab le. Se red u ce a afirm ar q u e el n ú m e ro d e percepcion es, d e em o cio nes, de p en sam ien to s, d e v icisitud es h u m a n a s es lim ita d o , y q u e antes d e la m u e rte lo ag otarem o s. R ep ite M arco A u relio: ‘Q u ie n h a m ira d o lo p resen te h a m ira d o to das las cosas: las q u e o cu rriero n en el in so n d a b le p asad o, las q u e o c u rrirá n en el p r o v en ir’ (Reflexiones, lib ro sexto, 3 7 ). E n tiem p o s d e aug e la c o n je tu ra d e q u e la existen cia d el h o m b re es u n a c a n tid a d co n s tan te , inv ariable, p u ed e en tristecer o irritar: en tiem p o s q u e d eclin an (co m o éstos), es la p ro m esa d e q u e n in g ú n o p ro b io , n in g u n a calam id ad , n in g ú n d ic ta d o r p o d rá em p o b rece rn o s” (1 9 8 9 I 3 9 5 - 3 9 6 ). 13Borges’ Beatriz is an alogically D a n te ’s B eatrice. “ .. .Borges adores B eatriz as series o f p h o to g ra p h s— flat tw o -d im en sio n al im ages o f an ideal. I f sh e w ere p rese n t as a flesh a n d b lo o d reality she w o u ld be like th e A leph , all persp ectives a t o n ce in th ree d im en sio n s; she w o u ld b e false b y v irtu e o f b ein g to o tru e,” w rites C a rte r W h ee lo ck (35 ). A n d y et th e q u es tio n surpasses th e trad itio n al o n e o f reality versus im ag in a tio n . For far m o re im p o rta n t th a n th is is th e ir rec o g n itio n o f th e m ateriality o f sp irit. In Borges su ch a n o tio n is to be fo u n d in w h a t can o n ly be called a k in d o f “b ib lio ” fetish, w hereas in th e m o re sensual S ch ulz o f The Street of Crocodiles a n d The Booke o f Idolatry (draw ings a n d etchin gs), su ch a sp iritu a l m aterialism is to b e fo u n d in his fo o t fetish ism . “M y fath e r never tired o f g lo rify in g th is ex tra o rd in ary e le m e n t— m a tter,” declares th e n a rrato r o f The Street o f Crocodiles. “’T here is n o d ead m a tte r,’ h e ta u g h t us, lifelessness is o n ly a guise w h ic h b eh in d h id e u n k n o w n fo rm s o f life. T he rang e o f th ese fo rm s is in fin ite a n d th e ir shades a n d n u ances lim itle s s ...‘In o n e w o rd ,’ fath e r co n c lu d e d , w e w ish to create m a n a seco n d tim e— in th e sh ap e a n d sem b lan ce o f a ta ilo r’s d u m m y ’.. .A d elas o u tstre tc h e d slip p er trem b le d slightly a n d sh o n e like a se rp e n t’s to n g u e. M y fath er rose slowly, still lo o k in g d o w n , to o k a step fo rw ard like an a u to m a to n , a n d fell to his k nees” (1 9 7 7 6 2): to w o rs h ip A dela’s feet. M u c h like Isaac L uria, w h o “d id n o t d ifferen tiate b etw een o rg an ic a n d in o rg an ic life, b u t in sisted th a t souls w ere p resen t everyw here a n d th a t in terco u rse w ith th e m w as p ossible” (S cho lem 1995 2 5 5 ), S chu lz believed in th e sp irit a n d life o f m ateriality. 14T he reference to th e sm all size o f th e alb u m yet th e in fin ity o f its m e an in g is p ro b ab ly a reference to th e b rie f b u t in flu en tial co sm o g o n ic b oo k , th e Sefer Yezirah, o r B o ok o f C re a tio n m e n tio n e d b y Borges in b o th “L a m u e rte y la b rú ju la” (19891 500) a n d in “D el cu lto d e los lib ros” (1 9 8 9 II 9 3 ). T h e Sefer Yezirah is also at tim es tran slate d as T he B o ok o f F o rm atio n . “A t th a t tim e, th e w o rld was to ta lly en c o m p assed b y Franz Josep h I. O n all th e h o rizo n s th e re lo o m ed th is o m n ip re se n t a n d inev itab le profile, s h u ttin g th e w o rld off, like a p riso n . A n d ju s t w h en w e h a d given u p h o p e a n d b itterly resig ned ourselves in w ard ly to th e u n ifo rm ity o f th e w o rld — th e p o w erfu l g u ara n to r w ho se n arro w im m u ta b ility w as F ranz Jo sep h I— th e n su d d en ly O h G o d , u n aw are o f th e im p o rta n ce o f it, y o u allo w ed m e to cast a lo o k o n its g lim m e rin g colors, o n th e pages th a t sh ed th e ir treasures, o n e after an o th er, ever m o re g larin g a n d m o re frig h te n in g ... [ W jh a t a Copernican d eed , w h a t flux o f all categories a n d concepts! O h G o d , so th e re w ere u n c o u n te d v arieties o f existence, so y o u r w o rld w as in d ee d vast a n d infinite!” (1 9 7 8 3 3, em ph asis add ed ). I5“T h e cre atio n o f th e letters them selves is d escrib ed at th e o u tse t o f th e seco n d c h a p te r o f th e Sefir Y etzirah w h ere it states th a t G o d first ‘en grav ed ’ th e n ‘carv ed ,’ ‘p e rm u te d ,’ ‘w eigh ed ,’ a n d finally tran sfo r m ed th e m ,” w rites Jo h a n n a D ru c k e r in The Alphabetic Labyrinth: The Letters in History and Imagination (1 44). 16 “Para la C áb ala, esa letra significa el E n S o ph , la ilim itad a y p u ra d iv in id ad ; ta m b ié n se d ijo q u e tie n e la fo rm a d e u n h o m b re q u e señala el cielo y la tierra, p ara in d icar q u e el m u n d o in ferio r es el espejo y es el m ap a d el s u p e r io r ...” (Borges 1 98 9 I 6 2 7 ). 54 C O N F L U E N C IA , SPRING 2 0 1 6 '^According to Scholem, the im agery o f second century C .E., G nostic mystic, Basilides, may have had an indirect im pact on Luria’s own cosmology. Influenced by Zoroastrianism , Basilides believed that the universe was guided by the principles o f Light and Darkness. Furtherm ore, Basilides believed that the divine essence, the ‘“ sweetest smelling unguent,’” was contained in a bowl “to be em ptied w ith the greatest possible care” (1995 264). I m ention this as one more example o f Borges’ encyclopedic knowledge o f the Judeo-Christian mystical tradition; for Borges makes reference to Basilides first in an essay o f 1931 dedicated to the story of this controversial personage, entitled “ U na vindicación del falso Basilides” (1989 I Discusión 2 1 3 -2 1 6 ), and later (1942) in “La biblioteca de Babel” (1989 I Ficciones 469). 18 “Cualquiera sea la meta que prom ueve la búsqueda, el lenguaje ofrece las claves para desentrañar el secreto universal porque el universo fue creado por medio del lenguaje” (Sosnowski 1976 73). 19Benjamin’s theological/M arxist critique o f m odernity stems from a critique o f social fragm entation— the origin o f which is capitalism. This critique o f m odernity is also to be found, albeit in a different form, in Borges and Schulz equally. Works Cited Aizenberg, Edna. Borges: el tejedor delAlephy otros ensayos: del hebraísmo al poscolonialismo. M adrid: Vervuert Iberoamericana, 1997. Print. Alazraki, Jaime. Borges and the Kabbalah: A nd other essays on his fiction and poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988. Print. Benjamin, Walter. Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings. Trans. E dm und Jephcott. New York: H arcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978. Print. ----------. The Arcades Project. Ed. R olfT iedem ann. Trans. H oward Eiland and Kevin M cLaughlin. Cambridge: The Belknap P, 1999. Print. Borges, Jorge Luis and Ronald Christ. “Interview,” The Paris Review 40 (Spring 1967): 1 1 6 -164. Print. ----------. Obras Completas: 1923—1949. Vol. I. Ed. Carlos V. Frias. Buenos Aires: Emecé Editores, 1989. Print. ----------. Obra Completas: 1952—1972. Vol. II. Ed. Carlos V. Frias. Buenos Aires: Emecé Editores, 1989. Print. Drucker, Johanna. The Alphabetic Labyrinth: The Letters in History and Imagination. N ew York: Thames and H udson, 1995- Print. H artm an, Geofrey H . and Sanford Budick. Eds. Intro, Midrash and Literature. N ew Haven: Yale UP, 1986. Print. H ernández León, Juan M iguel. Ed. Bruno Schulz: El país tenebroso. M adrid: Círculo de Bellas Artes. 2007. Print Jabés, Edm ond. The Book ofRessemblances. Trans. Rosemarie W aldrop. M iddletown: Wesleyan UP, 1990. Print. Kis, Danilo. Homos Poeticus: Essays and Interviews. Ed. Intro. Susan Sontag. N ew York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1995. Prints. Kugel, James L. “Two Introductions to M idrash.” Midrash and Literature. Eds. H artm an, Geofrey H ., and Sanford Budick. N ew Haven: Yale U P, 1986. 7 7 -1 0 3 . Print. M att, Daniel C hanan. Trans. Intro. Zohar: The Book o f Enlightenment. Preface. A rthur Green. N ew York: Paulist P, 1983. Print. Pérez, Rolando. Bruno Schulz: Literary Kabbalist o f the Holocaust. N ew York: H u n ter College o f the City University o f N ew York, 2002. Print. Scholem, G ershom . Kabbalah. N ew York: D orset Press, 1974. Print. ----------. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. Foreword. Robert Alter. N ew York: Schoken Books, 1995 (1941). Print. Schulz, Bruno. The Street o f Crocodiles. Trans. Celina W ieniewska. Intro. Jerzy Ficowski. Trans. Michael Kandel. N ew York: Viking Penguin, 1977. Print. ----------. Sanatorium Under the Sign o f the Hourglass. Trans. Celina Wieniewska. N ew York: Walker & Company, 1978. Print. ----------. The Booke o f Idolatry. Ed. Intro. Jerzy Ficowski. Trans. Bogna Piotrowska. Warsaw: Interpress, 1988. Print. VOLUME 31, NUMBER 2 55 ----------. Letters and Drawings o f Bruno Schulz: with Selected Prose. Ed. Jerzy Ficowski. Trans. Walter Arndt. Preface. Adam Zagajewski. New York: Fromm International Publishing Corporation, 1990. Print. ----------. Obra completa. Trad. Juan Carlos Vidal. Madrid: Siruela, 1993. Print. Shallcross, Bozena. ‘Fragments o f Borken M irror’: Bruno Schulz’s Retextualization o f the Kabbalah.” East European Politics and Society. 11 (Fall 1997): 270-281. Print. Solotorevsky, Myrna. “The Model o f Midrash and Borges’s Interpretive Tales and Essays.” Midrash and Literature. Eds. Flartman, Geofrey H ., and Sanford Budick. New Flaven: Yale U P, 1986. 253-264. Print. Sosnowski, Saúl. ‘“ The G od’s Script’— A Kabbalistic Q uest.” Modern Fiction Studies 19 (1973): 381-394. Print. ----------. Borgesy la cabala: la búsqueda del verbo. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Hispamérica. 1976. Print. Spieker, Sven. “’Stumps Folded into a Fist’: Extra Time, Chance, and Virtual Reality in Bruno Schulz.” East European Politics and Society. 11 (Fall 1997): 282-298. Print. Wheelock, Carter. The Mythmaker: A Study o f M o tif and Symbol in the Short Stories o f Jorge Luis Borges. Austin: U o fT P, 1969. Print. Zizék, Slavoj. The Puppet and the Dwarf: The Perverse Core o f Christianity. Cambridge: M IT P, 2003. Print. 56 CONFLUENCIA, SPRING 2016 Copyright of Confluencia is the property of Confluencia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.