_The Mendele Review_: Yiddish Literature and Language
˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ (A Companion to _MENDELE_)
______________________________________________________
Contents of Vol. 01.026
30 November 1997

1) Yiddish Matters: From the Editor (Leonard Prager)
2) _The Languages of Jerusalem_ by Bernard Spolsky and Robert L. Cooper
˙˙ (Leonard Prager)
3) Der motiv fun "toytn-tants" in der traditsye fun literatur bay yidn:
˙˙ (David Katz [Dovid Kats])

1)----------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 November 1997
From: Leonard Prager <lprager@research.haifa.ac.il>
Subject: Yiddish Matters

a. In this issue:

_The Languages of Jerusalem_ appeared six years ago but continues to be
of interest to students of Yiddish sociolinguistics, particularly where
mention is made of low-status and high-status functions.˙ In this issue
of _TMR_ we give the table of contents and abstract of a relatively
recent doctoral dissertation -- i.e. a "high-status function" -- written
in Yiddish; its subject is the dance-of-death motif in Jewish literary
tradition.˙ While it is true that "academic Yiddish" has been limited in
the scope of its outlets, this is not due to any intrinsic incapacity in
the language; failure, however, to use Yiddish for academic purposes
inevitably curtails its expressive range.˙ My citations from and brief
comments on _The Languages of Jerusalem_ focus on its Yiddish-related
sections, but the book as a whole can be recommended to the general as
well as the specialist reader.

b.˙ In future issues:

In addition to presenting significant academic texts, _TMR_ will
continue to publish fiction and verse -- both classic and, beginning
shortly, the work of contemporary writers (e.g. Tsvi Kanar).

2)------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 November 1997
From: Leonard Prager <lprager@research.haifa.ac.il>
Subject: _The Languages of Jerusalem_ by Bernard Spolsky and Robert L.
Cooper

Bernard Spolsky and Robert L. Cooper, _The Languages of
Jerusalem_. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 1991, 166pp. [Oxford Studies in
Language Contact]˙ ISBN 0-19-823908-4.

In the front material of this sociolinguistic study of the Old City of
Jerusalem we encounter the multilinguistic credo of Rabbi Jonathan of
Bet Gubrin:˙ "Four languages are of value:˙ Greek for song, Latin for
war, Aramaic for dirges, and Hebrew for speaking."˙ [Jerusalem Talmud,
Tractate Sotah 7:˙ 2, 30a.] In the one-thousand-year "Yiddish period" of
our tri-millenial Jewish history, Yiddish largely usurped the place of
Hebrew "for speaking" -- but this was not a wholly "low-status function"
in contrast to the "high-status function" of the languages of written
texts, Hebrew and Aramaic.˙ After all, religious instruction at the
highest levels was in Yiddish, sermons were delivered in Yiddish -- oral
activities, but hardly "low-status."˙ We can nonetheless agree with the
general lines of the authors' discussion of H(igh) and L(ow) functions
as applied to Hebrew and Yiddish respectively.

"...˙ Jewish multilingualism, " Spolsky and Cooper explain, "clearly
pre-dates the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E.˙ By the first
century a pattern had developed whereby Jews knew and used Hebrew for
religious and literary purposes, spoke a Jewish vernacular, and also, as
members of a minority group, knew and used non-Jewish languages.˙ This
pattern is true of Jerusalem in the second half of the nineteenth
century."˙ (p. 33) Yiddish, alongside Judezmo and Hebrew, was important
in nineteenth-century Jerusalem, where many Sephardim and Arabs also
spoke Yiddish.˙ (p. 54)

The authors succinctly describe the tangled history of Hebrew-Yiddish
relations in Palestine:

"It is important ... to make clear the fundamental difference in the
tasks undertaken by the proponents of Yiddish and Hebrew revival.˙ For
Yiddish, as with so many other European languages associated with
national movements, the aim was to add, or approve the addition of
high-status functions to a widely spoken but low-status language; for
Hebrew, the task was to add, or approve the addition of daily use and
speech (a low-status function which could be raised ideologically) to a
language with high status.˙ The dispute betwen the two sides was marked
by strong rhetoric, and worse.˙ In 1914, for instance, Chaim Zhitlowsky
visited Palestine, lecturing in Haifa, Jerusalem, and Jaffa in Yiddish.
The last of his planned series of lectures was disrupted by a
demonstration of Herzlia high school pupils.˙ In an article in
_Ha-Ahdut_, Zhitlowsky argued that only Yiddish could maintain the unity
of the Jewish people.˙ In a reply, A. Hashin argued that Yiddish was not
revolutionary; only Hebrew could be the national language.˙ After the
end of the First World War, supporters of Hebrew, concerned that new
immigration from Europe would strengthen Yiddish, led a renewed
ideological campaign.˙ A proposal by N. Twerski that knowledge of Hebrew
should be a prerequisite for election to the autonomous Jewish
institutions in Eretz Israel was adopted at the Third Constituent
Assemby of the yishuv (the Jewish community in Palestine) in December
1918.˙ A meeting in Philadelphia of American Po'ale Zion, held at the
same time, passed a resolution calling for equal rights for Yiddish in
Palestine.˙ The language question became a major issue in the struggle
to unite the labour movement.˙ It remained a central polemical issue
until at least 1925.˙ From 1925 until 1930 the debate in Palestine was
much more personal, and attempts to found a chair of Yiddish at the
Hebrew University in 1927 were defeated...." (p. 60)

"The argument in Palestine was a continuation of a European debate, but
the important decision was made by the labour movement before the
Czernowitz conference.˙ Extremists on each side held a monistic
position, ignoring the possibility of multilingualism.˙ It was
essentially a struggle within the Zionist movement; the language
question was not relevant in the conflict with the non-Zionists, who
continued to use Yiddish.˙ Ideologically, the Hebraists refused to allow
any cultural role for Yiddish in Palestine, and the debates in the 1930s
were intensely political.˙ Later, in the 1940s, there was even violence,
with a Yiddish printing-press being blown up.˙ Paradoxically, after
1948, Oriental Jews came to identify the very elite which had chosen
Hebrew with the Yiddish that they had rejected, seeing the latter as a
symbol of discrimination." (p. 60)

Spolsky and Cooper rightly hesitate to explain the adoption of Hebrew in
Palestine as due to the need for a lingua franca or for some other
material reason.˙ "... Yiddish was already a satisfactory language of
communication... no lingua franca was needed...."˙ The public use of
Hebrew was initiated in Yiddish-speaking farming communities and not in
towns with mixed Sephardic and Ashkenazic inhabitants.(p. 64)

"During the period of Hebrew revitalization the opposing languages were
less powerful.˙ Yiddish was the language that Hebrew replaced as a
vernacular, but it was in many ways... a pre-ideological Yiddish, a
Yiddish plainly (to the people concerned) labelled as not just a
language associated with the Diaspora (the denial of which was their
very reason for being in Palestine), but a language lacking (at least
before 1905) clearly acknowledged cultural value; indeed, many hardly
considered it a language at all, but a jargon." (p. 65)

In their survey undertaken in 1983/1984 ("total sample population was
2,149 people... 14 percent Jews") Spolsky and Cooper found only four
percent of Old City inhabitants gave Yiddish as their major language,
and the number who gave Yiddish as their second language also trailed
far behind those for Arabic, English and Hebrew.˙ (Obviously, had the
researchers included in their survey all the Jews who pour into the Old
City daily from Mea Shearim and other Jerusalem neighborhoods, the
statistics would be radically different).

"Wheras the censuses of 1916-18 had confirmed that nearly 60% of all
Jews who did not speak Hebrew as a principal language spoke Yiddish, by
1972 that figure had dropped to 19% for those aged 14 and above....˙ Of
... eight languages... Yiddish is the only one whose percentage of use
among non-Hebrew speakers has declined in each of the five periods
studied between 1916 and 1972 -- even between 1948 and 1954, when large
numbers of Yiddish-speaking immigrants arrived." (p. 69)

Spolsky and Cooper suggest that "the decline of Yiddish has stemmed in
part from its low status... and in part from its decreasing usefulness
as a lingua franca....˙ The growth of Hebrew as a lingua franca at the
end of the Ottoman period, then, would have created pressures for its
acquisition and slowed the spread of its chief rivals, Yiddish and
Arabic.˙ The potential of Yiddish as a lingua franca was almost
certainly undermined, in addition, by its association with the
ultra-orthodox anti-Zionists of East European origin, who used it as
their internal lingua franca."˙ (pp. 69-70)

3)----------------------------------------------------
Date:˙ 30 November 1997
From:˙ Leah Krikun <lejim@netvision.net.il>
Subject: "der motiv fun "toytn-tants" in der traditsye fun literatur bay
yidn" fun Dovid kats

der motiv fun "toytn-tants" in der traditsye fun literatur bay yidn

˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ motiv "mekhol hamaves" b|masoret h|sifrut h|yehudit


˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ khibur lesheym kabalat toar "doktor lefilosofye"


˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ me'et˙˙ david katz

˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ h|makhlakah l|sifrut am yisrael

˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ h|katedre l|yidish al-shem rina kosta

˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ hugash l|senat shel universitat bar-ilan

ramat gan˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ kislev, tashn"ag



inhalt

-sikum b|ivrit..................................................... alef

-tamtsis in yidish................................................ zayen

-di motivn fun toyt un tants in di minhogem, gloybungen, filosofye un
elt|ste literatur-shafungen fun altertum..............................1

1.˙ dikhtungen un eposn..............................................3
2.˙ tents.............................................................5

-der oyfkum un antviklung fun mistishe gloybungen in dem kristntum...6

1.˙ di mistishe mekoyres fun dem kristntum ..........................6
2.˙ der khet-h|kadmon, predestinatsye un "frayer viln" ..............9
3.˙ di "fareynikung mit got" .......................................10
4.˙ a stsenaryum fun shrek farn gehenem ............................11
5.˙ di krayts-tsugn vi a poyel-yoytse fun an agresivn gloybn........15

-di mitlelterlekhe literatur in eyrope..............................16

1.˙ algemeyne kharakteristik........................................16
2. "memento mori" shafungen.........................................17
3.˙ apokaliptishe shafungen.........................................19
4. "di dray lebedike un di dray toyte" -- legende variantn..........21
5.˙ di vikuekh-literatur tsvishn mentsh un toyt.....................22

-der tants vi an oysdruk fun mistik in der mitlelterlekher eyrope...25

-tsu der frage fun der forshung fun di mitlelterlekhe toytn-tants...29

-der stereotip fun toyt un tants....................................31

1.˙ di problematik..................................................31
2.˙ di rol fun folksgloybenishn in der antviklung fun stereotip.....32

-di antviklung fun dem toytn-tants motiv............................36

1.˙ di historishe tkufe.............................................36
2.˙ di virtshaftlekhe lage in der fest-tkufe........................40
3.˙ di lage fun di yidn.............................................41

-der aynflus fun der fest-tsayt oyf der formirung fun toytn-tants...42

-"der shvartser toyt" -- dos algemeyne bild fun der mageyfe.........44

1.˙ di shmayser-tsugn -- an oysdruk fun a fartsveyfltn viln
˙˙˙ optsushteln di fest.............................................50

-der tantsn-shigoen.................................................53

1.˙ demonishe tents un dibukem......................................53

-di haltung fun der kirkh in der fest-tsayt..........................55

1.˙ di farlornkayt fun der kirkh in onblik fun dem fest-kataklizm...55
2.˙ di farshpreytung fun magye un mistik............................58
3.˙ di raykhtimer fun di monastirn..................................59
4.˙ gotlozikayt, tayvl-kult, simonye un zitnlozikayt................60
5.˙ moralishe degredatsye fun der katoylisher hirarkhye.............63

-folkstimlekhe formen fun toytn-tants...............................66

1.˙ protsesyes un tsugn.............................................66
2.˙ folksshpiln nusekh "toytn-tants"................................68
3.˙ fang-shpiln.....................................................71
4.˙ der toytn-tants oyf der bine....................................73
5.˙ iber di toytn-tents-oysfirungen in frankraykh un daytshland.....76
6.˙ a meglekhe leyzung fun der frage vegn dem tsuzamenhang tsvishn
˙˙˙ toyt un tants in der bilder-form fun "toytn-tants"..............82
7.˙ di muzik fun der fest-tsayt......................................83

-di kompozitsye fun dem vant-toytn-tants un zayn shafungs-protses...84

1.˙ di tekhnik un kompozitsye in dinst fun kinstlerishn efekt.......84

-di bazeler toytn-tants.............................................87

-der berner toytn-tants.............................................90

-der parizer toytn-tants -- "dance macabre".........................96

-di shpanishe "dantsa"..............................................99

-italyenishe toytn-tants-variantn...................................102

-der toytn-tants in holtsshnitn, blokbikher un drukoysgabn..........105

-frantsoyzishe holtsshnitn..........................................109

-di daytshishe renesans-kunst -- di toyt-fantazyes fun 16tn yorhundert
....................................................................111

1.˙ hans holbayn....................................................113

-makabrishe variantn oyf der bine...................................115

-makabrishe opklangen in der literatur...............................120

-di antviklung fun dem toytn-tants motiv in 19tn yor hundert un
onhoyb fun 20tn yor hundert.........................................122

1.˙ der romantizm un zayn tsushtayer................................122
2.˙ a nayer tsugang tsum toyt in der literatur un filosofye.........127

-di psikhologishe folgn fun der "shvartser fest"....................130

1.˙ algemeyne dershaynungen in der nokh-fest tkufe..................130
2.˙ di toytn-tants shpiln -- simboln fun nitsokhn fun lebn
˙˙˙ ibern toyt......................................................131

-der antviklungs-protses fun mistishe gloybungen bay yidn...........135

1.˙ undzere mekoyres vegn dem tsuzamenhang tsvishn lebn un toyt.....147
2.˙ di ekstreme pozitsye fun dem seyfer koheles -- komentarn tsu
˙˙˙ der mashmoes fun seyfer koheles.................................152
3.˙ tsu der frage fun dem khet-h|kadmen bay yidn....................154
4.˙ Odems khet in di apokrifn........................................157
5.˙ der yidisher un kristlekher banem fun kadmen-zind un zayn tikn..159
6.˙ folklor-shtudyes -- a moker far der forshung fun mistishe un
˙˙˙ makabrishe gloybenishn..........................................161

-mistishe gloybungen bay yidn in mitlelter in mayrev-eyrope.........163

1. "mayse-bukh" -- a dokument vegn mistishe un demonologishe
˙˙˙ forshtelungen bay yidn in mitlelter.............................170

-iberblik vegn dem tants bay yidn...................................171

-yidishe hashpoes un geshtaltn in dem mayrev-eyropeyishn
toytn-tants.........................................................176

-der toytn-tants baym mayrev-eyropeyishn yidntum....................186

1.˙ der toytn-tants fun Yoysef opotoshu.............................188
2.˙ diskusye arum opotoshu's dertseylung "a tog in regensburg"......190

-toytn-tants-lider -- yidishe variantn fun "memento mori" nusekh....193

1.˙ ayzik valikh vermaysn: "der grimig toyt"........................194
2.˙ reb Yankev Eliyohu teplits: "a sheyn hisoyreres lid"............195
3.˙ Yitskhok fun vilne: "got|sfarkhtig lid".........................196
4.˙ fun a pinkes fun khevre-kedishe: a lid fun lebn un toyt.........197
5.˙ Yisrol|ik skuders lid "koydem yom-hamoves"......................200

-arum dem toytn-tants in di zikhroynes fun glikl fun hameln.........203

-der toytn-tants-motiv in a tanakhisher drame.......................208

-der toytn-tants-motiv bay dem mizrekh-eyropeyishn yidntum..........210

1.˙ der khasidizm vi a mistishe bavegung............................210
2.˙ der toyt un zayne bagleyt-momentn in der yidisher etnografye
˙˙˙ un folklor......................................................212
3.˙ a toytn-tants bay voliner khsidem...............................220
4.˙ a zeltene bashraybung fun toytn-tants bay litvishe khsidem......222
5.˙ anoykhi der bazinger fun der amoliker, frumer yidisher velt.....224

-der toytn-tants-motiv in der drame un siper fun onhoyb 20tn
yorhundert (perets, anski, agnon)...................................226

1˙ "baynakht oyfn altn mark" -- der toytn-tants fun y.-l. perets....226
2.˙ di mistishe velt in dem "dibek" (anskis variant fun a
˙˙˙ toytn-tants)................................................... 230
3.˙ oyf di randn fun gevise kritishe bamerkungen vegn "dibek".......238
4.˙ di toytn-tants un toyt-tematik bay shay agnon...................241
5.˙ geenderte oyffasungen fun dem toyt in der filosofye un
˙˙˙ literatur.......................................................246
6.˙ paraleln un analogyes (perets, anski, agnon)....................248
7.˙ a peretsyanish viderkoyl........................................250
8.˙ Dovid aynhorns "toytn-tants" fun antoyshung.....................252
9. "tsen milyon -- rekvyem" -- der patsifistisher toytn-tants.......255
10. di demonologishe velt fun bashevis-zinger un di neshome-
˙˙˙ fareynikung durkh libe un toyt..................................257

-der toytn-tants-motiv in der kidesh-hashem un in der
shoa-literatur......................................................258

-forgeyer fun der shoa in der literatur.............................260

1.˙ kh.-n. byaliks "shkhite shtot"..................................260
2.˙ u.-ts. grinberg mobilizirt di toyte "in malkhes fun tseylem"....263
3.˙ Perets markish un di misterye fun toyt -- "di kupe".............268

-der toytn-tants-motiv in der shoa literatur........................269

1.˙ Khayem grade: der toytn tants...................................269
2.˙ u.-ts. grinberg: "keyver beyaar"................................270
3.˙ Perets markish: "trot fun doyres"...............................271
4.˙ Yishayahu shpigl: "erd".........................................272
5.˙ Avrom sutskever: "vilner geto"..................................273
6.˙ kelermans: "der totn-tants".....................................274
7. "a briv-oystoysh oyf yener velt".................................275
8.˙ der dikhter vos hot geshept lebnskraft fun dem toyt.............277
9.˙ di oyfshtand in geto fun Perets markish.........................279

-di estetishe printsipn fun kunst bay yidn..........................281

-di estetik fun toyt un di estetik fun lebn.........................285

-bibliografye.......................................................290

1.˙ bikher..........................................................290

2.˙ artiklen........................................................301

-inhalt in english...............................................,..i

˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ ****

tamtsis in yidish

di prezentirte materyaln vegn toytn-tants-motiv derloybn tsu definirn un
farentfern a rey fragn vos zeyer problematik iz geven nisht klor farn
onheyb fun der shtudye.˙ tsu zey gehert di frage tsi es iz barekhtikt a
tseteylung oyf kristlekhe un yidishe toytn-tents, tsi es zenen iberhoypt
faran spetsifishe yidishe un kristlekhe toytn-tants-formen, un oyb yo,
vos zenen di kristlekhe un yidishe kinstlerishe kontseptsyes vos
derloybn makhn aza tseteylung?˙ zenen meglekh izolirte, nisht
baaynfluste formen fun motiv?˙ vos zenen di virkndike faktorn vos
izolirn oder fareynikn dershaynungen in a kultur-historishn protses?
vayl in a breytern zin, ven men batrakht di filzaytikayt fun der
toytn-tants-problematik in ir historisher antviklung, ken men kumen tsum
oysfir, az in der batsiung tsu "eybike temes" vi di bahandlte teme fun
lebn un toyt, torn nisht geshtelt vern keyn aynfakhe fragn oykh vayl es
kenen nisht gegebn vern oyf zey keyn poshete, simplifitsirte entfers.

di dozike festshtelungen firn tsu a vaytern oysfir vegn der etsem
meglekhkayt fun bahandlen di teme in di grenetsn fun a farglaykh tsvishn
dem kristlekhn un yidishn toytn-tants motiv.˙ es iz klor az der
toytn-tants iz geven un iz geblibn an algemeyn mentshlekher motiv.˙ er
dershaynt in a sakh andere kulturn un nisht dafke in der yidisher un
kristlekher kultur un ideyen-velt.

in undzer fal hobn mir di teme bagrenetst tsu di tsvey tkhumem, nit nor
tsulib ir groysn farnem.˙ es iz undz geven vikhtik tsu demonstrirn dem
gaystikn koyekh fun yidishn velt-banem oyf a kultur-motiv fun der
mekhtiker kristlekher imperye, in a tsvey-toyzntyoriker religyezer un
ideologisher konfrontatsye.˙ in der doziker nisht-simetrisher
konfrontatsye iz der yidisher tsad geven tomed nisht nor gaystik bakemft
nor oykh fizish geshtoysn tsum umkum.

tsulib di shtendike enderungen fun dem motiv in zayn antviklungs-veg
hobn mir nisht keyn eynhaytlekhe definitsye fun dem toytn-tants bagrif,
nor a rey fun definitsyes.˙ zey zenen andersh in farsheydene historishe
tkufes, ven es hobn gevirkt naye, zikh baytndike kultur-faktorn.˙ derfar
iz yeder eyntslner toytn-tants a komplekser, tsayt-spetsifisher produkt
fun a bashtimter tkufe.

farn aribergeyn tsu a nenterer konfrontatsye fun di kharakteristishe
shtrikhn fun dem motiv baym yidntum un baym kristntum, iz keday
demonstrirn a gevise tsol fun zayne gilgulem, azoy vi zey zenen
presentirt in der geshikhte fun der eyropeyisher kultur-traditsye.

* der eyropeyisher toytn-tants iz a simbol fun der fargenglekhkayt fun
mentshlekhn lebn, vos iz nisht ophengik fun tsayt un ort.

* der toytn-tants iz der letster veg tsu an ander velt, geboyt oyf a
religyezn gloybn in a kiyem nokh dem toyt.˙ derbay iz der tants nor a
tsaytvayliker bagleyt-komponent fun dem motiv.

* di historishe forgeyer fun dem toytn-tants zenen nisht geven dinamish.
zey zenen bashtanen tsuersht fun diologn un shpeter fun bilder un
diologn tsvishn dem mentsh un dem toyt.˙ di tendents fun di diologn iz
geven tsu stimulirn a yoysherdik lebn oyf der velt, kedey zoykhe tsu
zayn tsu an eybikn kiyem in gan-eydn.

* der inhalt fun der diologn-form fun toytn-tants prezentirt di eybik
tragishe, nisht glaykhe un fun faroys farshpilte konfrontatsye tsvishn
dem mentsh un dem toyt.

* gevise, frie, mitlelterlekhe formen fun baveglekhn toytn-tants
anthaltn vi a bagleyter fun di tsum toyt-farmishpete mentshn,
farsheydene makabrishe geshtaltn.˙ dos rov zenen dos halb-tsefoylte
toyte (shpeter skeletn), genumene fun di tsayt-aktuele misterye-shpiln
un pasionen.

* in di shpetere vizuele formen fun toytn-tants dershaynt der
simbolisher toyt vi a shpilman.˙ er bagleyt zayne korbones mit a shpiln
oyf farsheydene instrumentn.˙ a tekst unter dem bild git iber dem inhalt
fun dem gerangl.

* in der tkufe fun shpetn mitlelter farvandlt zikh dos toytn-tants-bild
(als vant-bild) in a kultur-historishn dokument fun der tkufe.˙ oyfn fon
fun a fest-kataklizm vert gemoln an apokaliptish bild fun umkum fun
forshteyer fun ale ekzistirndike klasn.˙ der toytn-tants fun bazl iz a
fragment fun a gresern ansambl vos hoybt zikh on mit der
gan-eydn-aroystraybung un endikt zikh mitn akt fun der kristlekher
presentatsye.

* in dem holbaynishn toytn-tants dershaynt der shtumer toyt vi a nisht
zeendiker bagleyter fun dem mentshns letstn lebns-gang.˙ der
diolog-tekst unter dem bild un der komponent fun etsem tants,
farshvindn.˙ der gevuntshener efekt vert dergreykht mit der hilf fun
hoykh ekspresive, molerish-kinstlerishe mitlen.

* di toytn-tants formen dershaynen nisht in a konsekventn kronologishn
hemshekh, alte formen farshvindn oder farblaybn un dershaynen paralel
mit di nay-oyfgekumene, oder vern teylvays adaptirt fun zey, baraykhndik
dem inhalt fun dem motiv.

* di mitlelterlekhe (un shpeter yidishe) toytn-tants shpiln in
mayrev-eyrope, vos zenen bakant fun der traditsye oder kultur-geshikhte
un literatur, trogn an algemeyn mentshlekhn, folkstimlekhn kharakter.
zey zenen ophengik fun algemeyne tsayt-situatsyes un zeyere
psikhologishe oysvirkungen.˙ der tants-komponent dershaynt vi a
kinstlerish-asimilirter mageyfe-simptom.

* di eyropeyishe folks-shpiln nusekh toytn-tants vern a dank zeyer nisht
religyezn, psikhologish-farshtendlekhn kharakter, asimilirt in di
yidishe getos.

* di toytn-tants-lider fun dem 17tn yor hundert un di tanakhishe dramen
fun 18tn yor hundert bay yidn zenen farenderte, teylvays faryidishte
formen fun amolike nisht yidishe toytn-tents.˙ zey zenen kolel elementn
fun di amolike toytn-tants-diologn.˙ di lider-form rirt nisht on dem
bakantn oser fun yidishn das, vos bagrenetst di prezentatsye fun bilder
un skulpturn fun mentshn.

* der mizrekh-eyropeisher toytn-tants hot zikh antviklt umophengik fun
mayrev-eyropeisher traditsyes un hashpoes. er iz a produkt fun der
khsidisher, spetsifisher lebns-oyffasung. zayne kinstlerishe
ekspresye-mitlen zenen mimik, muzik un gezang.

* di toytn-tants-formen bay di mizrekh-eyropeishe khsidem drikn oys
durkh zeyer spontonem ibergang fun troyer tsu hislayvesdiker simkhe, dem
yidishn religyezn printsip fun ahaves-khayem un farneynung fun toyt.

* in 19tn un in onhoyb fun 20tn yor hundert farlirn di toytn-tants
formen zeyere religyez-didaktishe shtrikhn un hashpoe.

a. in der romantisher un neoromantisher literatur, spetsyel in der
drame, dershaynt der toytn-tants motiv vi a simbol fun a mistishn
koyekh.˙ di romantiker zeen in der metofizisher velt a mokor fun a
koyekh, vos iz msugl tsu endern di umgevuntshene virklekhkayt.˙ di
makabrishe geshtaltn fun di toyte vos shteyen oyf fun zeyere kvorem,
farshtarkn dem dramatishn efekt tsenish, ober zeyer oysleyzung iz a
dekadentishe.

b. in der filosofye vert geendert di mistishe batsiung tsum toyt.˙ der
toyt vert batrakht vi a hemshekh fun lebn.

in algemeyn vert der toytn-tants motiv in der literatur farshtanen vi a
simbol fun a nisht koregirbarer, tragisher, terminaler lebns-situatsye
vos endikt zikh mit umkum un toyt.˙ der doziker simbol kharakterizirt di
pogrom-dikhtung un umkum-literatur.

di yidishe literatur un drame fun onheyb fun 20tn yor hundert zenen
geven befeyresh baaynflust fun der mayrev-eyropeisher romantisher mistik
bikhlal, un fun dem toytn-tants motiv befrat.˙ di transtsedentale
elementn in der yidisher drame un proze, aynshlislekh dem toytn-tants
motiv, oder zayne vikhtikste elementn, zenen a sintez fun fremde
aynflusn un eygene folklor un svive-traditsyes.

dafke bay a noentern farglaykh fun tipishe, kristlekhe toynt-tants fun
eyropeishn mitlelter mit di toytn-tants fun di mizrekh-eyropeishe
khsidem, lozn zikh antplekn yesoydisdike kontrastn tsvishn beyde
kontseptsyes fun dem motiv.˙ zey hobn zikh antviklt in gayst fun tsvey
mahusdik-farsheydene, religyez-ideologishe un religyez-estetishe
kontseptsyes fun kinstlerisher ekspresye, di yesoydes fun velkhe mir
hobn gebrakht in onheyb un tsum soyf fun der doziker shtudye.

di kultur-geshikhte batseykhnt di kunstverk fun gotishn mitlelter,
aynshlislekh dem toytn-tants, als oyfbroyzn fun kristlekhn religyezn un
metafizishn gayst.˙ beys ale kunst-dershaynungen bizn letstn prat, hobn
gedint di noytn fun der katoylisher kirkh.

di kristlekhe toytn-tants fun der dermonter tkufe zenen farhoyln in a
tifn tunkl fun di mitlelterlekhe kloysters, katedraln un monostirn.˙ di
umheymlekhe mistik fun der kunst hot geshrokn un gerufn di gloybike
kristn tsu fartsukung oyf di nishtike freydn fun oylem haze, un
nokhfolgn dem letstn gang fun di tsum toyt-farmishpete in der bagleytung
fun an ekldikn malekh-h|moves.˙ nor di groyln fun der fest-tsayt un der
mistisher gayst fun der kristlekher presentatsye, hobn gekent derfirn
tsu aza absoluter glorifikatsye fun toyt un negatsye fun lebn.

in kontrast, anthaltn undzere mekoyres antviklte bagrifn vegn dem
tsuzamenhang tsvishn lebn un toyt.˙ fun zey dringt aroys a klorer,
pozitiver yidisher tsugang tsu der velt un a negative batsiung tsum
toyt, vos iz a klole.˙ dos iz tsu zen fun di tsolraykhe psukem,
aroyszogungen, reydnsartn, vertlekh un shprikhverter vos kharakterizirn
di negative shtelung fun yidntum tsu dem inyen fun toyt un di tsolraykhe
tfiles vos zenen farfast gevorn l|khayem arokhem [arikhes-yomem].

di negatsye fun der velt hot keyn mol nisht bahersht fulshtendik dem
yidishn gloybn un velt-banem trots di tsolraykhe obyektive, historishe
sibes vos hobn dafke gekent firn tsu aza shtelung.˙ der yidisher
mistitsizm iz geven kemat on demonizm un eyme, vayl in tsenter fun dem
yidntum iz dos vikhtikste tomed geven dos mekuyem-zayn fun got|s mitsves
oyf der velt.˙ der yidisher mistitsizm iz eygntlekh geven fun a hekherer
madreyge.˙ er hot gefirt dem yokhed tsu zukhn visn vos iz fun yener zayt
seykhl.˙ di yidishe toyre iz a toyre fun realn lebn un universale
gebotn.˙ in ir toykh iz de mistishe khkire geven konservativ un hot zikh
geshtitst oyf der eygener folkstraditsye.˙ in der yidishe traditsye,
vos shpiglt zikh op in folklor, vert prezentirt der toyt in negativstn
zin.˙ der yid hot nisht gemuzt, vi der krist, zikh fareynikn mit zayn
got durkh dem toyt.˙ gor oft iz der toyt un der mes geven bay dem yidn
an obyekt fun distants, bitl un khoyzek.

bay di khsidem iz der tkhies-hameysem-tants geven a tants vos bavayzt vi
der mentsh goysest, vi er shtarbt, un dernokh -- vi er shteyt oyf tsu
tkhies-hameysem. er hot bavizn kemat a fizishn gerangl fun dem mentshn
mitn toyt un der tkhies-hameysem vi a nitsokhn fun dem mentsh ibern
toyt. der nitsokhn-akt fun lebn ibern toyt flegt vern bagleyt bay di
khsidem mit heyse, hislayvesdike tents. in der kharakteristishn ibergang
fun toyt tsum lebn iz gelegn der mehus fun der khsidisher lebns-hasoge.
der khsidisher toytn tants is a boyleter oysdruk fun yidishn velt-banem
vos zogt, az "di gantse velt iz mole simkhe un lebn, un got tantst mit."

der khsidisher toytn-tants iz an originele, nisht-asimilirte form fun
dem motiv bay yidn.˙ er iz in toykh diametral andersh in zayn
kontseptsye fun dem kristlekhn toytn-tants, vayt fun der mageyfe-tkufe
un ire hashpoes.˙ er iz a produkt fun an eygener, yidisher traditsye un
velt-banem, geshtitst beiker oyf dem farvortsltn gloybn in bies
h|mashiekh, mitn tkhies-hameysem-element als vezntlekhn komponent fun
der geule.

der gayst fun beyde motiv-formen iz in aynklang mit di farsheydene
religyez-estetishe yesoydes legabe kunst fun dem yidntum un kristntum.
trots dem, vi es iz bavizn in der doziker shtudye, hot di yidishe
ideyen-velt baaynflust un bagleyt dem kristlekhn toytn-tants in zayn
langn gilgulim-veg.

----------------------------------------------------
End of _The Mendele Review_ 01.026

Leonard Prager, editor

Send articles to:
˙˙˙ lprager@research.haifa.ac.il

The editor of _TMR_ can also be reached via _Mendele_'s homepage:
http://www2.trincoll.edu/~mendele/

Subscribers to _Mendele_ (see below) automatically receive _The Mendele 
Review_.

Send "to subscribe" or change-of-status messages to:
˙˙˙ listproc@lists.yale.edu

˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ a. For a temporary stop: set mendele mail postpone
˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ b. To resume delivery: set mendele mail ack
˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ c. To subscribe: sub mendele first_name last_name
˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ d. To unsubscribe kholile: unsub mendele

˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ ****Getting back issues****

_The Mendele Review_ archive can be reached at:
http://www2.trincoll.edu/~mendele/tmr.htm
and at:˙ http://sunsite.unc.edu/yiddish/TMR