不得已之惡獸：來維克之泥偶怪客

Necessary Monster: H. Leivck’s Drama The Golem

泥偶怪高林（golem）的傳奇衍生繁多的文學與藝術改編，其中俄裔猶太作家來維克（Leivick）的意底緒劇作影響尤其深遠。此傳奇須置於反猶太主義的歷史脈絡來觀之，由傳奇起源十六世紀末馬哈拉拉比的布拉格，到來維克二十世紀初共產革命的俄羅斯，在捏造的血誣控訴陰影下，猶太人遂創造出高林傳奇以求自保，但高林是救世主，亦是怪獸，此雙重性造成它們一方面利用高林作為集結反沙皇壓迫的革命動力，另一方面卻又視其為兔死狗烹的暴力工具。高林渾然天成的肢體暴力彌補了猶太人向來引以為傲的純粹精神性，然而猶太人僅專注於其可用之獸性，使得怪獸日增的人性得不到善意回應，受挫的人性因而又惡化為獸性，反將暴力轉化為對付他原本應該保護的猶太主子，釀成悲劇。來維克刻意將高林形塑為通曉言語，透過其抗議非自願的暴力，藉以突顯猶太人使用暴力的雙面刃僵局：一方面不得不使用暴力已自救，另方面又粗暴地對待巨獸萌發的人性。來維克以社會主義的角度批判猶太人過度唯心的彌賽亞救世論，並以猶太傳統的道德批判強調猶太心的仁者哲學，不應以他者為器，避免造成暴力反噬的悲劇。

As one of the earliest precursors of modern android creations, the golem has inspired a plethora of literary creations from Mary Shelley to Michael Chabon. The paper focuses on Jewish poet H. Leivick’s Yiddish “dramatic poem” The Golem (1921), an unstageable 8-scene extended interpretation on the legend. The golem legend is historicized in its seminal gestation in the late sixteenth century Prague and its dramatic representation in early twentieth century Russia against the background of anti-Semitism. The predicament that the messiah is also a monster are explored historically from Leivick’s own conflicting Russian and American periods, when he perceives the golem as an agent of progressive revolutionary violence and a consequence of the revolutionary horrors respectively; as well as the fictionalized yet historical creator Rabbi Mahral in late sixteenth century Prague. Caught between necessity and contingency, the golem is on the one hand a necessary instrument of self-defense against the slandering blood libel, popular in Leivick’s tsarist Russia as part of the virulent anti-Semitic pogrom, and on the other hand an expendable tool of defensive violence revealing the dark side of instrumental rationality. Supplementing the purely spiritual Jews, the golem is designated as a purely physical force of violence to combat external assault. Yet his growing humanity is repressed and passion for the Jews unrequited; leading to the tragic end of his unleashing his frustrated passion on his master by turning his violence against the Jews. Leivick renders the monster articulate and through his complaint of unreturned compassion highlights the dilemma facing the Jews in their use of violence. He also offers a socialist critique of the purely metaphysical Judaic messianic redemption, as well as an ethical critique of violence by accentuating the centrality “Jewish heart” (yidish harts) in traditional Jewish thinking. Violent passion used against destruction not only could turn destructive itself, but lack of compassion for monstrous passion could also breed violent monsters of its own.