LITERATURE AND NATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST

shai ginsburg20. See, for instance, the use of the novel in Oz Almog’s historical/sociological portraitof the Sabra (1997: 24); in YaÆakov Shabtai’s attempt to trace the literary roots of hisnovel Past Continuous (1983); and in Emmanuel Sivan’s historical research into themyth surrounding the 1948 dead (1991: 56).21. The following biographical notes are based on Shulamith Laskov’s biography ofTrumpeldor (1995).22. The word artsenu in Trumpeldor’s maxim could be translated as land, soil, country,territory, and so on. The precise circumstances leading to his death remain unclear.As Tom Segev remarks, one of the earliest (Jewish) reports of the incident talks of‘mutual misunderstanding’ (Segev 1999: 106). Similarly, Trumpeldor’s last wordsremain a matter of debate. The physician who treated the dying Trumpeldor quotedhim as saying, ‘Never mind, it is worthwhile to die for the Land of Israel.’ It wasfinally Y. H. Brenner, a leading Hebrew writer of the time, who in his eulogy ofTrumpeldor gave the words the form in which they were popularised (Laskov 1995:237–8; Segev 1999: 107). For the way the myth of Trumpeldor played was used inthe construction of a Jewish national consciousness in Palestine, see Zerubavel 1995.23. See Zerubavel’s corresponding discussion (1995: 9–10, 16–21, 43–7).24. See in this context Maoz Azaryahu’s discussion of the cult of the fallen soldier inIsraeli civil religion, and in particular, his discussion of the mythification of the deadsoldier (1995: 10, 123–4).25. For such readings of Shamir’s With His Own Hands, see, for instance, Gurfein(1952); Kraemer (1957); and Tuchner (1952).26. See also Miron (1975: 439–71) and Almog (1997: 24).27. See, for instance, Maoz Azaryahu (1995: 3, 117).28. Among the critics I read here there are only three exceptions. Shlomo Zui andDavid Aran, reviewing the novel in 1948 and 1952 respectively, criticise the novelfor its failure to give expression to the Hebrew youth’s more ideal characteristics.Gershon Shaked in his second treatment of the novel also notes the ambiguities andoverdetermination of Uri’s death, but in his conclusion still constructs Uri as theHeroic character (Shaked 1993: 248–9, 266–8). Shaked’s reading here deviatessignificantly from the terms in which he reads the novel the first time as a simpleidealisation of the 1948 generation (Shaked 1971: 27–46).29. Interestingly enough, even those critics who explicitly question the necessity ofUri’s death, who confusedly look for its roots and justification, still avoid examiningits different contexts within the novel and ultimately accept it as unambiguous. See,for instance, Schweid (1957: 26); Shlomo Zui (1948).30. See, for instance, Dan Miron (1975: 439–71); Gershon Shaked (1993: 235–52).31. By the myth of the novel’s reception I mean the impression of a uniform reading ofthe novel by earlier critics.32. Even those critics that underscore meaning as the production of the reader or thecommunity of readers, such as Wolfgang Iser and Stanley Fish, end up by locatingthe meaning they offer for the literary texts they read within the literary text itself.See, for instance, Iser (1974); Fish (1980).33. My objection, then, to the attempt to read the novel allegorically is that, once more,such a reading establishes a realm of uninterrupted meaning. I could think of twodistinct allegorical readings in the context of this novel: first, as it was done— 126 —www.taq.ir