There is nothing like the shock of discovery. The moment of recognition is transformational. In Greek, the word for recognition is anagoresis. In Greek anagnōrisis comes from the word anagnōrizein to recognize. The root of this word comes from ana- + gnōrizein to make known. Webster’s dictionary goes on to point out that it is akin to Greek gnōrimos, meaning, well-known and the word gignōskein to come to know.
Anagoresis happens in Greek tragedy when the main character learns who he or she really is and/or who other people really are. Usually, this knowledge is tragic. One need only think of Oedipus in Sophocles’ famous play Oedipus Rex who, when he discovers who he is and who his real mother and father are, has a breakdown. This tragic knowledge culminates with Oedipus poking his eyes out.
But anagoresis doesn’t always have to be tragic. In fact, it can be comic.
In yesterday’s blog, I located the moment of Benjamin’s self-discovery in his aphorism entitled “Vestibule.” In this aphorism, Benjamin writes of a dream he had about being in Goethe’s house. When he is asked by the “curator” to write his name in Goethe’s guestbook, he discovers that his name is not only already written but that it is also written in “big, unruly, childish characters.” In other words, Benjamin has a comic self-discovery. He learns that his name, his essence, is childishly written. And it is not he that has written it this way; someone else, some Other, has written his name in this childish manner. To be sure, although this is comic; it is also tragic. It’s as if, someone, some Other, has played a prank on him.
This discovery is astonishing. But what does it mean? Yesterday, I suggested that this is Benjamin’s discovery that he is a man-child. More to the point, he discovers that he has been, prankishly, written into Goethe’s guest book (that is, the book of German letters) as a schlemiel (a man-child).
To be sure, Benjamin took names quite seriously. And this discovery of his already written name, albeit in a dream, was revelatory. In his essay “On Language as Such and On the Language of Man” Benjamin makes this explicit: “In naming, the mental being of man communicates itself to God”(318, Reflections).
Naming is, for Benjamin, a direct form of communication between God and Man. It is, without a doubt, revelatory.
Naming, in the realm of language, has as its sole purpose and its incomparably high meaning that it is the innermost nature of language itself. Naming is that by which nothing beyond it is communicated, and in which language itself communicates itself absolutely. (ibid)
But does Benjamin discover the essence of language in his dream or does he discover himself? What does he discover? Moreover, in this dream, Benjamin does not write. He doesn’t, in this sense, communicate with God by way of naming. To be sure, it seems to be the other way around.
Moreover, the “Vestibule” aphorism complicates Benjamin’s claim in “On Language as Such and On the Language of Man” that “Man is the namer, by this we recognize that through him pure language speaks.”
Benjamin’s mention of “pure language” is quite fascinating. It further complicates things. Gershom Scholem, in a chapter of Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism entitled “Merkabah Mysticism and Jewish Gnosticism” helps us to clarify what is at stake with such language.
In his discussion on ancient Kabbalistic liturgy, Scholem notes that the words of these Kabbalistic prayers to God, which can be found in prayers books today, are the “pure word.” According to Scholem, they are pure words because they don’t mean anything; they don’t have any content. Moreover, the “ascent of the words has not yet substituted itself for the ascent of the soul and of the devotee himself. The pure word, the as yet unbroken summons stands for itself; it signifies nothing but what it expresses.”
The pure word is a word of man to God. For Scholem, it is purely relational and bears no content. It has a lot in common with what Benjamin calls naming.
However, in Benjamin’s aphorism, his name is already written. Is it “pure?” Is Benjamin pointing out a comic relationship with God?
The irony of all this is that Benjamin, in this aphorism, is recording what was already written; namely, Benjamin’s name in “big, unruly, childish characters.” He is not, like Adam in his essay, naming. He is recording what is written.
This is the prophetic mode or recording and not simply the mode of naming because, as Benjamin well knew by way of his friend Gershom Scholem, the Jewish tradition says that Moses wrote the Torah down after being told, word by word, what to write.
As the Medieval Rabbi, Scholar, and Philosopher Moses Maimonides points out, Moses’ prophesy, which is law, is communicated in this way of recording. (And it is different from other prophets insofar as they, mainly, rebuke the people or prompt them to “return” to God. Or, as Martin Buber might say, the prophets alert the people to the “demand of the hour.”)
Benjamin seems to be giving this prophetic legacy a comic twist. In Benjamin’s aphorism, he is recording the name he saw in a dream: his name, childishly, that is, comically written.
Benjamin is not naming so much as being named (or renamed). But this name, which he can’t even write, although asked to do so, has been comically altered. It suggests that Benjamin’s destiny (the law he falls under) is, so to speak, tied up with the schlemiel. He cannot escape the joke that has been played on him: he realizes, in his moment of anagoresis, that his destiny is to accept his childishly written name. His identity, his essence, is written in “big, unruly, childish characters.”
This is tragic and comic knowledge. This is a tragic and a comic anagoresis. It is the, so so speak, S(c)h(l)ock of discovery. (Schlock means a stroke of bad luck or denotes something that is low grade and cheap; it often has a comic connotation.) He realizes, that in Goethe’s house, in this house of the classicist, he is childish. He is the subject of laughter.
But why is his name improper? Why is it his destiny to be a schlemiel in Goethe’s house? Are there other reasons for this shameful recognition? Is this or rather was this, perhaps, the destiny of all Jews (even the most modern) in Germany? Are all of their names “childishly” written? Are they the butt of a bad, Greek joke? Or is it just Benjamin who suffers this fate?
Most importantly, who is the mysterious Other who wrote his name in this childish manner? Who played the trick on Benjamin? Was it God, a demon, or Goethe?
Regardless of the answer, Benjamin knew that his destiny, his name, was tied to the schlemiel.
But, based on his writing on the child, childhood, and the fool throughout his work, as we have seen in a few entries on this blog, it seems as if he didn’t seem to be angry or disturbed about this revelation. He seems to have accepted it and to have made it into one of his passionate interests.
Like Woody Allen, Benjamin doesn’t seem to get angry about this revelation so much as perplexed. He is shocked but…
(In our next blog entry, we will look, once again, at this discovery yet from the angle of another name that Benjamin discovered.)