Sholem Aleichem: Monologues of Mastery Recommended Citation

Sholem Aleichem's monologues give voice to a diverse cast of characters. Sholem Aleichem is best known as an author who speaks for the common people, or folkstipn, because his digressive, free-associative style is most effective when attributed to untrained narrators.' A vastly different situation arises, however, when relatively educated monologists narrate and manipulate events; I refer to monologues of this manipulative kind as "monologues of mastery." These monologues preclude an affectionate or even a neutral response, and raise questions concerning the moral content of satire. In two particular cases, when Sholem Aleichem represents the voices of bourgeois characters, he stages an unusual drama of social criticism. Previous writers have touched on the social and political implications of Sholem Aleichem's work. In a seminal essay entitled, "The Social Roots of Sholem Aleichem's Humor," for example, Meir Viner disputes the claim that Sholem Aleichem did not criticize the Jewish plutocracy of Kiev.2 Viner refers to the first period of Sholem Aleichem's creativity, from 1890 to 1895, arguing that he did stray from the "path of mercy" onto the "path of judgment." Yet Viner only mentions the "years of reaction" (from 1905 to 1907), and does not analyze the later stories written during these years. A recent article by Hana Wirth-Nesher, "Voices of Ambivalence in Sholem Aleichem's Monologues," continues where Viner left off. Paraphrasing Viner, Wirth-Nesher concludes that Sholem Aleichem strives to preserve neutrality: "the linguistic disguises which Sholem Aleichem has draped around his speakers.., permit the writer to escape from making the moral choices that his mutually contradictory and eclectic petit bourgeois social views would have eventually necessitated."3 I will dispute this conclusion: while many of the monologues do express basic ambivalences, others convey Sholem Aleichem's sympathies and (especially) antipathies. In short, Sholem Aleichem employs monologues to enact a subtle form of social satire. Interpreters of Sholem Aleichem's monologues have concentrated on a few major figures.4 As a result, critical and popular awareness hardly extend beyond "The Pot," "Advice," "Geese," and the Tevye stories. Reader reception has suppressed or overlooked another, potentially threatening world of Sholem Aleichem's work, which is epitomized by the monologues of mastery. The elements that comprise this mock genre may be found elsewhere, but they are particularly evident in the stories "Yoysef," "Three Widows," and "A Story of a Greenhorn." Rather than attempt a comprehensive discussion of Sholem Aleichem's monologues, I will interpret two of these relatively unknown and atypical tales.


Sholem Aleichem: Monologues of Mastery
Sho!em A!eichem's mono!ogues give voice to a diverse cast of c}1aracters.Sho!en1 A!eic}1en1 is bcst knO\VI1 as an author who speaks for olkstipn, because }1is digressive, free-associative ‫ן‬ the common people, or style is most cffcctive \\'}1cn attributcd to untrained narrators.1A vast}y different situation arises, however, \vhen relative!yeducated monologists narrate and manipulate events; I refer to monologucs of this manipu!ativekind as "mono!ogues of mastery."These mono!oglles prec!ude an affec tionate or even a neutral response, and raise questions conceming the mora!content of satire.In t\VO particular cases, \vhen Sholem Aleichem represcnts the voices of bourgeois characters, he stages an unusua!drama . of social criticism -Previous \vritcrs have touched on the social and political implica tions of Sholem A!cicl1cm's work.111 a semina!essay entitled, "The Social Roots of Sho!em Alcichem's Humor," for example, Meir Viner disputes the c!aim that Sholem Aleichem did not criticize the J e\vish p!utocracy of , Kicv. 2 Viner refers to the first period of Sho!em A!eichem's creativity from 1890 to 1895, arguing that he did stray from the "path of mcrcy" onto " the "path of judgment."Yet Viner only mentions the "years of rcaction from 1905 to 1907), and does not analyze the later stories written during ( -these years.A rccent article by I-Iana \\'irth-Neshcr, "Voices of Ambiva .lence in Sholem A!eichem's Monologucs," continues \vhere Viner left off Paraphrasing Viner, \Virth-Ncsher concludes that Sho!em Aleichem strives to preserve neutra!ity: "the !inguistic disguiscs \vhich Sho!em Alei chem has drapcd around his spcakcrs ... permit the \vriter to escape from making the mora!choices that his mutua!!y contradictory and ec!ectic petit bourgeois socia!vie\vs would have eventua!lynecessitated."3I will dispute this conclusion: \vhile many of the monologues do express basic -ambi\'alences, others convey Sholem Aleichem's sympathies and (espe cially) antipathies.In short, Sholem Aleichcm employs monologues to .enact a subtle form of social satire Interpreters of Sholem Aleicl1em' s monologues have concentrated on a few major figurcs. 4As a result, critical and popular a\vareness hardly .extend beyond "The Pot," "Advice," "Gccse," and the Tevye stories Reader reception has suppressed or overlooked another, potentially tllreatening \vorld of Sholem Aleichem's work, which is epitomized by the mono!ogues of mastery.The elements that comprise this mock genre may be found else\vhere, but they are particularly evident in the stories Yoysef," "Tllree Wido\vs," and "A Story of a Greenhom."Rather than " 1 , attempt a comprehensive discussion of Sholem Aleichem's monologues .vill interpret two of these relatively unknown and atypical tales \ The monologues of Jnastery are narrated by men whose \vealth and education enable tllem to carry out sinister schemes.They often claim The monologist is familiar with Marxist terminology, and he uses it to approach Yoysef and his circle.011 occasion he even resorts to their key words: "proletariat," "Marx," "Bebel," "react" (reagiren), and ~conspira torial" (114,123,124,126,130).For the gentleman, however, these words merely fom1 the mask by means of \vhich he hopes to attain his ends.
Although the narrator boasts of his good name, he discovers that another name is far better, in the usage of his beloved: "She speaks the name 'Yoysef \vith an odd sort of sing-song.Only a bride uses such a sing-song, \vhen she speaks the name of her groom" (110).Impoverished, the desired girl asscrts her frecdom from the narrator by means of a word, one of her only words \vhich he records: "Yoysef."This word presents such an obstacle that it structures the narrative and provides its title.Like a spell against Satan, the name of the beloved keeps the narrator at a to be impotent or indecisive; unlike Sholem Aleichem's impoverished , ators are in a position to dominate events ‫ח‬ speakers, however, these na ation.As they address ‫ח‬ both in their fictionaI worlds and in their acts of na their monologues to Sholem Rabinovitsh's persona, Sholem Aleichem, we search for a clue as to ho\v \ve should react.But the listener betrays no cmotions, except in his occasional, ambiguous smiles.The gentleman initially defies the hearer of his tale: "You can laugh at me, you can make a ieui1leton out of me, even a book, if you \vish-I'm not afraid of you" {107}.A\vare of Sholem Aleichem's usual, satiric prac tices, the monologist asserts his independence.Nevertheless, the finallines of the story undermine this initial bravado: "Give me your hand that 7 .}133 { " everything 1 have told you here \vill remain between the t\VO of us From start to finish, the narrator is aware of po\ver struggles, and is ile hc tells a story T}‫\\ן‬ .especially sensitive to those associated with speech of his efforts to manipulate others, he strives to manipulate the fictional hearer of his tale, simultaneously manipulating the reader of Sholem Aleichem's story.But by writing the account which his character has supposedly asked him to keep secret, Sholem Aleichem hints at a betrayal . of his fictional speaker The narrator boasts that women constantly fall in love with him , and that matchmakers always chase him.I-lis self-description is, however : unconvincing Thc gentleman rcsorts to this self-portrait in order to authenticate his status, and it becomes a kind of nervous reflex, but his oft-repeated refrain only unsettles the identity it is intended to secure. 8Rather than respect his position, \ve come to see it as a joke: he tums himself into a caricature of the up-to-date gcntleman.\Vhenever he encounters a difficulty, an awk ward pause, or a threat to his presumed po\ver, he comically sketches out e claims to have "a bit of a name," in his own story The plot of "Three \Vido\vs" 1)arallels tl e ‫ו‬ althougl1 the irascibJe speaker's account borders on absurdity.TI monoJogist begil1s 11is story by narrating the death of an acquaintance.He helps the bereaved \\'ido\v and her daughter Roza, who is born a fe\v -at indeci ‫ו‬ mOl1ths Jater.Altl}ough infatuated by the \vido\v, 11e expJains tl , si\'eness prevcnts him from satisfying his desire to marry her.Mea11\vhiJe .shifts from mother to daughter ‫מ‬ as Roza matures, the narrator's infatuatio Again, ho\vever, he ne\'er goes so far as to propose marriage.Roza e\'entuaJJy marries a bookkeeper who promptly poisons himseJf after a business faiJure.She subsequently gives birth to FeygeJe, and the earlier pattern recurs.TI1e narrator delays I}is marriage proposal to the daughter for so long that he finally tra11sfers his attcntions to thc granddaughter.(In structure, if not in tone, this repetition of events ad absurdum associates ). the story \vith some of Sholem Aleichem's more famiJiar, comic tales Insensitive to his charms, Feygele marries a chemist \vl}o, like Yoysef, is soon arrested for conspiratorial activities and hanged.The speaker con d t\vice il1terrupts The relationship between power and language is explicit in one central scene, \vhen tl1e gentleman attends a revolutionary meeting.\Vhile -Yoysef speaks, the narrator observes his success as an orator' hc is cspe ' : ciaJly struck by Yoysefs sway over her That minute 1 cnvied him, not so much for the force of his speaking, not for the honor and the appJause which he received after\vard, \\'hen he finished speaking-not for these things \vas 1 so cn\'ious of him, as for the For such a look of hers 1 \\'ouJd give a\vay-I rhetorical skill: me da Yoysefs po\ver resides in his ]anguage, the narrator reso]ves to fight him , on this ground: "1'11 }1ave a chat \vith him alone" (ibid.).When they meet .the gentleman begins by sho\ving off all the 1\1arxist vocabu]ary he kno\vs Then he transforms reagiren from a po}itica] term into a description of bourgeois emotions, to exp}ain that he is not accustomed to "reacting" to a gir] in thi.s \vay.It remains unc]ear \\'hether the speaker says anyt]1ing more , threatenlng to Yoysef.\Ve mere]y see that, in contrast to the gent!cman .Yoysef has concerns other than amorous pursuit The next \ve hcar, Yo)'sef is in troub]e \Vit]1 the authorities.Civen the politica} environn1ent of early 1905, onc must assume that his trial turns an's obstacle ‫ו‬ out badJy; he is presumably hal1ged or exiled.The gcntJen appears to have bcen overcome.He then makes a ruthlcss attempt to .ambush his be]ovcd's hcart in a mon1ent of weakness, but \vithout success He teJ]s her that she necd not reagiren (again this \vord!)so strongly to vhat has happened; s}}e shou]d forget it 'a}].Although he is momentarily \ surprised by his po\\'er of speech, his efforts fai] (130).Soon after\vard the ; girl, her mother, and their restaurant disappear.All inquiries are in \'ain their memory is like a dream.The gentleman can only tell the tale of a girl .vho revealed to him tl1e limits of his po\vcr \ The narrator strives to manipulate t}1e hearer of the story at the same time that he pretends to be \veak and a fai!ure ( 108).Yet he evident!yplays an active role at son1e points in his account, and we may \vonder vhether there is any connection bet\vcen the narrator's schemes and \ sefs demise.those he calls "my three \vidows," but he manages to completely domi nate their lives, apparently spending most of his days and even some : is is the conclusion of the story ‫ן‬ nights with them.TI One early digression on buttons, revolving around a failure to marry, prepares for the events of the story: \\'hat is a button?A button, dear friend, with one of us, \vith a bacheJor, is an important thingl An entire worJd!Over a button a nasty story once occurred: a bacheJor came to Jook at a girJ, and someone pointed out to him with a Jaugh that he was missing a button; he went a \va y and hanged himseJf.( 168  Like the narrator of "Yoysef," he is an individualist and an outsider.15He even predicts that the hearer willlabel him "an old bachelor, an irascible man," anticipating the criticism he kno\vs he provokes.Still, the success of this fiction deri\'es from the problematic (rather than entirely and 16 .obviously reprehensible) position of its speaker As he speaks, the narrator taunts the hearer: "1 don't ask your opinion!" (167); "1 \\'on't enter into discussion \vith you" (172); "'Yhat does it matter to me \vhat you think?" (173).He has only harsh words to say about "your \vriters" (197).The first widow's daughter gre\v and blos somed "like a delicate rose," he says, alluding to her name and mimicking g ‫מ‬ the language of your novelists, \vho know as much about the blossomi " kadesll [the prayer for the  (189; cp. 195).In particular, he rejects the vord "love," which "your writers" have spoiled by indiscriminate use \ 197; cp.210).These polemics cover up his cool reactions to the lives of his ( .loves and to the deaths of his rivals .The speaker carefully monitors the hearer's reactions to his story This is one result of the story' s unusual tone, which is closer to black humor than is usual in Sholem Aleichem's \vork.To offset this atmosphere, the gentleman narrators befriend women whose infectious laughter brings .... light to an otherwise dark universe: "She laughs, and everything laughs The table laughs, the benches laugh, and the \valls laugh-all of life laughs" (109-10).The grim mood of "Three Widows" is lightened by laughter for, when beset by difficulties, "they laugh": "With them every thing is laughterl AII of life is laughter" (183; cp.191).18The redeeming laughter of the three widows differs sharply from the potentially critical or ironic smiles of the hearer.Hence even this silent reaction is unaccepta ble: "1 dislike it when one smiles.Y ou can laugh as much as you wish, but not smile" (200; cp.I68, 187; 107).In this case, most of the laughter occurs vithin the story rather than on the part of the reader.Somewhat proud of \ his education, the irascible man explains why, as guardian of the three , is imprisoned.As the story closes 1 picked a la\vyer for his wife who demands from him, on her account threc things: 1) hcr moncy, the thousand-dollar dowry; 2) a divorce; and 3) until shc receives a divorce from him, he shall support her in accordancc with the la\vs of the country.(259) -omizes Sholem Aleichem's scathing critique of America, and (more spe cifically) ofbusiness practices on the Lower East Side.But this monologue e ‫ו‬ aIso reworks the narrati\'es of manipulation by the gentJeman and by tl , s us that in it "Mr.Baraban ‫ו‬ old bachelor.The subtitJe of this satire infom business broker, tells how he taught a lesson to a greenhom, who married for the sake of business" (251).21This narrator, \vhose name 1neans drum," pounds out a self-righteous account of his \vrongdoings.Whereas " the gentleman and irascible man have a somewhat ambiguous moral standing, Mr. Baraban has no positive features.This one-sidedness pro .duces a more straightfor\vard and Iess subtle effect of social criticism " Like "Yoysef' and "Three ,\lidows," "A Story of a Greenhom opens in reaction to the interlocutor: "You say: America is a land of business-nevermind.It has to be like this" (!llr zogt: A,nerike iz a land un biznes-nevermind.Es darf azoi tsu zayn) (253) .But whcre "Thrce !Vido\vs" initially attacks psychological theories, this mon010gue refers to ' : the practices of ne\vcomers and states a mora1 Y speakers, this last monologist ‫ן‬ Radica1izing the leanings of other \\'ea1t1 embodies the triumph of evil.Mr. Baraban unabashedly eliminates his opposition and takes contr01 of the \voman's affairs, through the media tion of a law)'er.Financia1 po\ver yields persona1 power, and a self assurance that b1inds the caricatured speaker to the possibility of seeing medias res, since we do not ‫ןו‬ his actions in a negative light.The story ends i know \vhat may cnsue bet\veen the usurper and thc woman whose life he .dominates After perpetrating a vi01ent scheme, Mr. Baraban narrates his misdeeds comp1acently and even mora1istically.I-lis language is as violent as the actions he l•elates; this violence is directed both against people and against 1anguage itself.Specifica11y, the business broker wrecks the Yid dish language by slipping in English \vords at every tum.This perversion of Yiddish reaches such proportions that the volume of Monologn in cludes an extensive dictionary of !arenglishte words.Sh01em Aleichem's mon010gical narrators betray themse1ves in the language of their .narrations After all, to go and marry and sell oncsclf for thc sake of busincss-that is really, excuse mc, s\vinishness.1 don't prcach morality, but I'm tclling g us marry for ‫ןו‬ orns amo ‫ן‬ you, it's a fact that nincty-nine perccnt of grcenl , the sake of busincss.That vcxes me, and \vhcn 1 catch such a grcenhorn ) . he docsn't get a\vay from me in one piece.(Ibid Despite thc po\ver of the mastcr mon010gists, \ve finally resist their attempted domination.Like the imp1ied hearer of these stories, the Sho lem Aleichem persona, \ve leave their narrators \vith a grimace.This S, and also because they ‫ו‬ happens in part because we question their actio1 -undermine themsel\'es through inconsistencies and questionable lan guage.Each of the bourgeois speakers puts on airs and presumes to know more than he does.They boast of their know1edge, but garble Marxist jargon, place Cerberus at the gates of paradise, and (in "A Story of a .Greenhom") do obvious violence to the Yiddish 1anguage -Mon010gue is an appropriate form for these stories, whose speak ers live monologically.Dialogue hardly enters into their experience, for they never exchange \vords or thoughts.\Ve seldom hear a dialogue; the desired \vomen appear almost entirely mute.The monologists are \vont to impose their \vills, not to suit their actions to others' needs.,They are openly hostile to \vhatever the capti\'e audience may say, preferring to do .all the talking themselves, without interruption In the crotic rea1m that is 'both suppressed and decisive in tbese storics, the monologists present themseJves as voyeurs.They desire beau .tiful women from afar, but never seem to get beyond appearanccs Ultimately, they desire only their 0\\'0 desire, in a fantasy that cannot be By bcginning with a rclatively uncontroversia1 moral judgmcnt (i.e., onc e speaker forestaJls our recognition of his ‫ו‬ should not marry for money),.tl1r.Baraban tells a tale of his unethical actions, under the ~ immorality.
v‫\ח‬ o mask of self-righteous criticism.This duaI presentation produces the strained irony of the story, which thc narrator caIJs a "comedy" (255).As in the other monoJogues of mastcry, the drama centers around a desired .woman, and recounts the elimination of a competing man An unsuspecting ne\vcomcr visits Mr. Baraban, the business brokcr, together \vith his \vife.They ask for assistance in opening a 1r.Baraban happens to have a Iaundry up for ~ stationery store.Because sale, he convinces the greenhom to go into the laundry business.'\lhat s weJJ-favored marriage ‫יוח‬ most impresses the monologist is the greenho .to a beautiful girl \vith a finc dowry Although the girl is a passive observer of the ensuing spectacle, she is the source of its drama.Mr. Baraban describes her enthusiastically, as he .first sees her: "with him a \voman-\vhat shall I tell you? -blood and milk Beautiful as the day and fresh as an appJe, just off the tree" (253).His : outrage against the greenhom flarcs up when he compares their assets The bastard has only a fe\v hundred dollars in his pocket and a woman at his side-fine goldl Why docs he deserve it?Mr. Baraban, the biggest e East Sidc, has to havc a \vifc, excusc mc, a monster .44-50 .ton, 1964), pp 5. "Yoysef" \vas first serialized in Der veg, September 22, 24, 25, 1905, andin Dos yidislle togeblat, October 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 1905.Without substantial changes, the story \vas reprinted in Sholem Aleichem's Nayeste verk (War sa\v: Progress Edition,1909), vol. 1, pp. 21-41.These earlier printings bear lengthier subtitles than the Folksfond edition, and do not place "Gentle man" in quotation marks.In Der veg and the Progress edition, the subtitle reads: "Narrative of a Gentleman and Retold \\'ord for Word by Sholem : Aleichem."; disturbed by any opposing will.Thus these monologists never procreate their only offspring are words, words, words.They never escape the .limits of the mastery they desire -Although it is tempting to interpret Sholem Aleichem's mono logues of mastery on the mimetic plane, with an eye to clues of unreliabil ity, even the unreliable narrator is only a fictional persona.Sholem Alei chem directs a wide range of narrative strategies toward irony at the expense of his monologists.When they are "lo\v" characters, this irony achieves the effect of light comedy or humor.But when the speakers are more imposing personalities, the irony cuts deeper, challenging the social contexts that empower them.In the monologues of mastery, monologue h;lS become a luxury-and a delusion-of the rich. 22Their wealth is no extraneous detail; it buys greater freedom from constraints and po\ver to manipulate events.But these monologues are invariably unsettled by discrepancies.Allied with perversions of desire, the monologists are o\'er .thrown by their forced dependence on others 1 one form or ‫ו‬ Social criticism in literature often depicts corruption i another.Sholem Aleichem's "monologues of mastery" employ a subtler means: in these stories the depiction itself is corrupt.There is no distance between the narrative voice and the \vorld that is described.The monolo gists inadvertently tum their words against themselves, uncovering bour 1onologue, \vhen it is a luxury of the rich, acts  speakers to imposc their narrative wills.The gentlcman, thc irascible man ( and the business broker are authors, not only of their monologues, but o dcvious plots within their narratives.Hence these monologists enable Sho lem Aleichem to exercise his mastcry of form by transfcrring the burden of mastery to them.We may, in consequence, admire the compositions while .disliking their fictional inventors 19.To the cxtent that the narrator is obviously manipulative, his efforts fail to achieve their dcsired effect.We end the story with a critical smile on our lips, and ,vith an uneasy a,vareness that we have been had.This conclusion is at of a "A zekhs-un-zckhtsig," in Alc Verk !un Sholem ‫ן‬ analogous to tl -Aleichem (Ne'v York: Folksfond Edition, 1917-25), vol.28: Ayzenbahn .171 .gesllikhles, p 20. Curt Leviant's translation perhaps aims to spare innocent readers when it mistranslatcs thc words that contribute most to our recognition of the speaker's unrcliability.It translates "ikh kon mikh dort farzitsen biz tog oykh amol" (212) by "I'm liable to spend the whole day there" (Slories and S?lires, op.cit., p. 213).Cranted: given the narrator's equivocations, day is " nlght and night is day.But "biz tog" does mcan "until dawn.""Farzitsen hcre mearls "to sit," although (especially when applied to ,vomen) it can also , ain unmarried."This is exactly ,vhat the narrator does world.In effect, this critique may grant a greater i\\usion of reality to the provoking speaker, 'vho pretends to understand the real world bettcr than .does his creator 14.At every turn, the present scene of narration is relevant to the c,'ents narrated.From the start, tbe spcaker challenges his hearer to grasp the paradoxical talc he will relate; psychology, he says, is incapable of exp\ain ing such hard realitics: "Why are you telling me about psychology?If you want to know the true ps}'chology, you should sit do,\'I1 and listen carefully , to what 1 tell you" (165).Only after listening to the tale, the speaker claims may the hearer express an opinion on the origins of sadness and egoism, or .concerning the character of old maids and bachclors , The narrator demands freedom to narrate ,\;thout interruptions a\most as if hc ,vere outlining the rules for Freud's talking cure.Sholem -Aleichem knew little or nothing about Freud in 1907, but from our contem onologue in somc ways .rcsembles a ‫ן‬ porary standpoint, the scene of n psychoanalytic interview.At several points, in fact, the narrator toys ,vith the prospect that he is meshuge (166, 171, 178-79, 181,185, 191,208).He directs thc hearer to trade places ,vith him, so that ,vhile he narrates hc may recline in a rocking-chair; "by the ,vay, it's better for you right there, you 10rcover, the speaker says: "I'm spcaking ~ won't fall asleep" (166; cp.186).
out my hcart to you, and with you 1 \\'ant to analyze, to find out: ,vhere is thc worm?" (185).The hearer's brief reactions are not recorded, ho\\'e,'er, but only implied by the monologist's ,vords.Thus the burden-and po\\'er-of interpretation rests with the reader, which givcs thc story a large measure of .its interest -15.He also makes s\urs against the Je,vish people (172, 187), unlike the gentle ing, a J ew ‫ן‬ man narrator ,vho admits in passing that he is, in spite of cverytl .)120 ( 16.In the narrator's telling of his tale, one early point of contention is his relationship to the first widow's husband: "1 ,vas acquainted ,vith her husband.Not only acquainted, but friendly (bafraynt).That is, 1 don't say , that we were friends. 1 say that we ,\'cre friendly" (167).Later in the story the narrator refers back to this "friend" (169,201); his rc\ationship to .the widow makes this a potentially sensitivc point Similar to Sholem Aleichem's other monologists, the irascible man digresses frequently and employs a linguistic catch,vord to bring himself ex is the connectivc ‫ח‬ back to the main thrcad.His rather Cermanic re , 190 , 184,185 , adverb, "alzo" (e.g.,I66,I67,169,171,172,173,176,177,182 201,203).By means of this word the spcakcr indicates that he is rcturning to .the earlier narrative line, but his digressions remain apparent .120 , 110 ", 17.Compare "Yoysef , 18.In these monologues, laughter also occurs at the expense of their narrators within the stories tbey tell.See, for example, tbe mother's play on tbe word farzorgt, in "Yoysef' (110).These stories are neither humorous nor comic in .the usual senses, because we do not laugh heartily wilh or at their speakers rt in der ‫ס‬ lem Aleykhem: zayne vikhtigste vcrk, zayn humor un zayn

‫ס‬
In Sh ( -yidisher literatur [New York: Yidisher Kultur, 1928], Shmuel Niger differen tiates between laughter with humorous characters and at comic characters pp.102-4].)Wcalthy rather tban poor, the domineering speakers do not [ whom we laugh in order not to cry.Nor do they tl‫ן‬ represent folkstipn wi .make the best of an imperfect world; they add to the ,vorld's imperfections They have the means to ovcrcome most obstacles to tbe fulfillment of their desires.In fact, Sholem Aleichem's fictions depend on the power of these ‫מ‬ e three \vido\vs, a ‫ו‬ tinues his close associations \vith tl his story to dine with them.As the story ends, he anticipates spending the umor, perversity, and ‫ו‬ night at their home.This narrative combines dark l 14 .the absurd, in multiple layers of satire distance.Since the mildly satanic ge11t!eman cannot become Yoysef il1 o\v he can e!iminate the ‫ו‬ e \vonders I ‫ו‬ order to correspond to her longi11gs, I .rival ) A Story of a Greenhorn" (1916), which closes the volume of " -e level, it epit ‫מ‬ intensifies the earlier voices of Inastery.On o of the la\v timental details, \vhich "the novelists employ in order to squeeze out a ‫מ‬ se tear from the foolish reader"

‫ן‬
busincss broker of tl and what's more a Xantippe; and God has to send such a je\vel to the ) 257 ( .greenhomIn "Yoysef," the gentleman monologist learns the limits of his \vealth, since his beloved is attracted to a poor intellectual.Mr. Baraban refuses in For Max \Veinricll on his Seventieth Birtllday (The Hague:

~ 3 .
Hana Wirth-Nesber, "Voices of Ambivalence in Sholem Aleichcm's .170 .Iogues," Proo/texts, 1 (1981), p 4. See, for example, 1. J. Trunk, Sholem Aleykhenl: zayn vezn un zayne verk Warsaw: Kultur-lige, 1937), pp.161-224, and Victor Erlicb, "A Note on tbe ( MonoIogue as a Literary Form: Sholem Aleichem's 'Monologn'-A Test 35 34 The Pursuit 01 Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstructio Diaz-PJaja, GuiJJermo.AI pie de la poesia.Madrid: Editora NacionaJ Ram6n de.Rev. of Don de la ebriedad.InsuJa , leuva poesia espanola.Madrid: Ediciones AJcaJa • I ‫ו‬ CuJJer, J onathan.‫ו‬ Fish, StanJey E. Sell-Consuming Artilacts: The Experie I a hayntiger, un a sheyner yung, a ge:.unter, mit a ‫ו‬ Ikh bin a yungenna .libsher fardiener, un a kerbel iz bay mir blote ‫ו‬ shtikel nomen, un a tl}e subtitJe eml)hasizes an ungentJen1anJy characteristic: this is story of an oJd bachelor, an irascible man [bal kasan]."Anger is central to the story, in part because the speakcr contil1uaJJy provokes the Jistener You are wro11g, my Jord.Not aJJ old maids are eJors arc egoists.Sitting there in your study \vith 9Language becomes a medium of aggression and the reader may well feel uneasy about the narrator's attacks and .feints Languagc also becomes an issue in conl1ection \vith the Marxist e "Yankelekh."The speaker ‫ו‬ tcrJnino\ogy which is so popular among tl says that he has nothing against honcst talk, but t‫ז‬ I, far'n vo ‫ו‬ lir, a:.ikh bin a "bourgeois."Ik ‫וו‬ I hob nor faynt, az me ;;ogt ‫ו‬ Ik !l ‫ו‬ bourgeois," kon gebcn a fohr-arayn in bak araY " 1 simply dislike it, \\'hen someonc tells me that 1 am a "bourgeois."For the ‫מ‬ Vithout yet dra\ving conclusions, 1 turn to a more i \ •" of this basic pJot, ShoJem AJeichem's "Three \Vidows" ("Dray aJmonos ' d literate ‫מ‬ arrator of this lnonologue is sin1iJa:rly wealthy a ‫מ‬ e }‫ז‬J but ‫ו‬ diate}y create a dramatic situation, foJJo\vil has SUl)posedJy said: "‫ו}‬ hapl)y, not all old bac ‫ון‬ u d a book in )'our hand, you imagine you aJready ‫ו‬ a cigar in your mouth al e reader is dra \vn into an aggressi\'e scene for ‫ו‬ kno\v c\'er),tl}ing!" (165).TI the duration of the narrative.13 Sin1iJarJy, the second part begins: "\vhy 1 , ha\'e 1 made you \vait so Jong?-Because 1 \vantcd to.\\ihcn 1 teJJ a story do it \\'hcn 1 \vish, not \vhen you \vish" (190).The speaker insists that thc e sets the timc and pJace ‫ו‬ d I ‫מ‬ hearer sit si}entJy in an uncomfortabJe chair; a d sectior., he tells the listener ‫ו‬ of thcir n1eeting.After he concludes the secol e story about lny '\\'idow number three,' you ‫ו‬ ear the rest of "tl ‫ו‬ that to I ould trouble )'ot1rself to comc to my home.If not-as you \vishl I \von't ‫ו‬ sl lr vct i‫(ו‬ ' drag }'OU by the coattails."I-Ie taunts, "You'll come by yourself I) (199).Sholem Aleichem displaces the three sections of his ‫ז‬ aleyn kumc rce installments) onto three ‫ו‬ n10re than tl This question is unanswerab]e, since it ]ies beyond the dog, that is, that stands at the entrance to paradise ' lnadvertently reversing the classical myth, possibly because for him the widows' home is a paradise, he betrays the fact that he has tumed it into a 19 .hell for all other suitors hree Widows" ends in a situation of charged ambiguity.The ‫ז"‬ irascible narrator often refers to his inability to fulfill his desires, saying that despite his infatuation for the first wido\v, "1 had no courage to tell here is no way to test his honesty, because the fictional world notebook" (ikh hob es farshriben bay zikh in bikhel) (115).Sholem A]eichem employs irony \vhen he has the narrator add: "Whether it will be , , or.not, 1 don't know, but certainly it doesn't hurt" (ibid.).Of course ~ of us certaln klnds of notes can have deleterious effects, though perhaps not on 29 idows, he receives the name "Cerberus": '''l' hey gave me the name forces greater than capitaJ; in Sholem AJeichem s !lCUUI .American milieu tends to confirm this view By a series of swindles, the business broker succeeds in completely , hom who, like the other monologists' competitors ‫ו‬someone makes a bad pJay, one doesn't sJ to\vard me nor 1 to\vard them.\Vith me, if someone makes a bad pJay in cards, I'm Cal)able of trampJing on them, tearing them to piccesl \Vhat does your smile mean, for cxampJe? 1 know \\'hat \'ou think now. 1 know inking ‫ו}‬ you through and through and Jaugh at your grandmal You're ‫ו‬ bet\veen the narrator and his three \vido\vs I C of their card games is acknowledge ‫ו‬ bankrupting the gree1 Dos yidishe togeblat presumably chose its own punning title by The gentleman tells.tlS that he suffcred for thrce )'ears \\'ith her before rcgaining his frecdom .Froln start to finish, il1 fact, he is aware of po\ver struggles, and is especially sensitive to those associated \\'ith speech; evcn primarily rl}ctorical (in thc original scnsc of Sec 1. J. Trunk, op.cit., p 13.At the same timc, Sholcn1 Alcichcm cmploys irony against himself \vhen he has a fictional character criticize his own papcr-thin conccption of the An earlier draft \vas rcad at the Eighteenth Anl of the Association for Je\\'ish Studies, on 15 December 1986.Transliterations of quoted passages follow the original Yiddish texts, even \v)}ere spcllings do not .conform to current standards set by the YIVO Institute for Je\vish Research Alodern ‫ו‬ing of this paper.