The Jewish World in the Prose Works of Mychajlo Šmajda

The Jewish Wo ld in he P ose Wo ks o Mychajlo Šmajda* Ad iana Ami Facul y o A s, Uni e si y o P ešo , ins i u e o Uk ainian S udies [email p o ec ed] SYNOPSIS In his con ibu ion we analyse images o Jews in wo p ose wo ks by he w i e Mychajlo Šmajda. These a e he no el Lemkos (1964) and he sho s o y Con aband (1989), bo h o which a e w i en in Uk ainian. Uk ainian li e a u e in Slo akia is ep esen ed by membe s o he Uk ainian (p e i- ously Ru henian-Uk ainian) mino i y, who a e conside ed he indigenous popula ion o he no h- eas e n pa o Slo akia. These hi he o unexplo ed li e a y monumen s e lec ing he legacy o he Jewish mino i y ep esen asou ce o in angible weal h and he only memen os o his e hnic g oup, which once cons i u ed an in eg al componen o he his o y o Eu ope. KEYWORDS Jews; Ru henians; Uk ainian Li e a u e; Slo akia; Mychajlo Šmajda. DOI h ps://doi.o g/10.14712/23366680.2022.1.16 The Jewish popula ion p obably li ed o along ime sca e ed h oughou small, u al se lemen s in eas e n Slo akia, and hei numbe s began o g ow signi ican ly only a e he beginning o mig a ion om Poland, om he egion o Galicia, which was a ached o he Habsbu g mona chy (Kónya 1997, p.52).1 The i s Jews2 se led wi hin he e i o y o Ša iš wi h he suppo o he a is oc acy, and wi hin a ela i ely sho space o ime came o occupy an impo an posi ion wi hin he economic li e o he egion (Š o c— De iňák 2014, p.18). The nobili y o en en ed dis ille ies, pubs and * The s udy was de eloped wi hin he p ojec VEGA MŠVVaŠ SR 1/0060/19 Sla ic In e lan- guage and In e li e a y ela ions (Wes Sla ic and Eas Sla ic con ex ). 1 The ex con ains quo a ions om Uk ainian o iginals, which we e i s o all ansla ed by he au ho o he a icle in o Slo ak, and subsequen ly ansla ed in o English. 2 In his s udy we unde s and Jews as an e hnic g oup, e en hough in he pas , be o e he es ablishmen o he Czechoslo ak Republic, hey we e no pe mi ed o decla e hem- sel es as o Jewish e hnici y in he census. Howe e , he s udied p ose wo ks map he pe- iod be o e he Second Wo ld Wa . In o he places, Jews a e iewed a he wi hin he con- ex o a eligious g oup. OPEN ACCESS 224 SLOVO A SMYSL 39 land o Jews, bu also made use o hei comme cial and inancial se ices. Jews no only owned lands, bu also wo ked on hem as peasan a me s o woodcu e s. They aded in ag icul u al c ops, poul y and ca le. Unlike in o he pa s o Eu ope, mo e han wo hi ds o he Jews in no h-eas e n Slo akia li ed in u al a eas, and mos o hem we e equally as poo as he indigenous Ru henian-Uk ainian popula ion. In he opinion o many obse e s, i is p ecisely his simila socio-economic s a us o hese wo e hnic g oups ha os e ed hei equali y and mu ual espec . Good e- la ions p edomina ed be ween Jews and Ch is ians ( he his o ians whose ex s we ha e s udied on his heme concu in his iew: Magocsi, Kónya, Š o c, Hla inka), and hey we e uni ed o example by he in ense expe ience o hei ai h in God. The wo g oups had mu ual espec o one ano he due o hei passiona e eligious de- o ion, which was ypical o bo h he Ashkenazi Jews and he G eek Ca holic o O - hodox Ch is ians who p edomina ed wi hin he egion. Howe e , his does no mean ha no elemen s o an i-Semi ism e e su aced. The some imes olun a y, hough mo e o en en o ced isola ion o Jews mean ha hey we e equen ly sh ouded in mys e y in he iew o he su ounding popula ion, which was u he ein o ced by he exis ing p ejudices and s e eo ypes (Salne 2011, p.5). F om he la e 1840s, Neo- log communi ies began o es ablish hemsel es in Hunga y, based on he model om Wes e n Eu ope, which ep esen ed a e o mis cu en .3 Simila ly o he Ch is ian popula ion o he egion, hey oo spli in o a ious eligious pe suasions. The g ea majo i y o Ashkenazi Jews in no h-eas e n Slo akia belonged o he O hodox Ha- sidic school, which was ypi ied by i s e en displays o eligiosi y and celeb a ion o li e.4 A he u n o he 20 h cen u y, he numbe o Jews g adually began o decline due o he mig a ion o he younge popula ion o la ge ci ies (Büchle 2010, p.5). 3 In 1865 acon lic b oke ou a he Michalo ce synod, and la e a he Gene al All-Hunga i- an Jewish Cong ess in Pes (which was held om No embe 1868 o Feb ua y 1869). A his poin ade ini i e schism occu ed be ween he Neolog and O hodox cu en s o Hunga - ian Jew y (Kónya 1997, p.65). 4 Whe eas in Cen al Eu ope he cu en s o Judaism we e di ided in o O hodox and Re- o mis , wi hin he e i o y o oday’s wes e n Uk aine and sou h-eas e n Poland (Po dolia and Volhynia) aschism occu ed be ween he indi idual O hodox g oups, esul ing in he es ablishmen o Hasidism. This Jewish mo emen , ounded by Baal Shem To (app ox. 1700–1760), was inspi ed by Jewish mys icism. The Hasidim ejec ed he asce ic o m o pie y o hei p edecesso s, and hei eligious p ac ices syn hesised Eas Eu opean pie y and new o ms o he Kabbalah. In p ac ical li e, hey exp essed hemsel es by ejoicing in e e yday li e and in hei belie ha e e y pe son could come o know God h ough mys i- cal con empla ion (Magocsi 2016, p.135). Hasidic dynas ies we e hus es ablished, headed by in luen ial abbis. In he second hal o he 18 h cen u y, Hasidism sp ead o he Sla - ic coun ies o Eas and Cen al Eu ope (Balog— Mo gens e n 2010). Du ing he ime o Rabbi Yechezkel Sh aga Halbe s am (1811–1899), S opko (asmall own in no h-eas e n Slo akia) was one o he mos espec ed Hasidic cen es in all o Hunga y and Galicia. A e 1942 and he i s depo a ions his p ocess was iolen ly in e up ed, and many Jews om he egion pe ished in he Holocaus . Today he su i ing descendan s o hese amilies li e p edominan ly in he USA and in Je usalem, whe e hey con inue o cul i a e Hasidic communi ies (S opko e Yeshi a). OPEN ACCESS ADRiANA AMiR 225 The Ca pa hian egion is dis inguished also by a u he speci ic ea u e. No o - ganised o spon aneous ac s o iolence agains Jews ook place he e. In mos a eas h oughou Cen al and Eas e n Eu ope, pog oms we e a ela i ely equen phe- nomenon a a ious imes in his o y (Magocsi 2016, p.320). Indi idual con lic s oc- casionally b oke ou , especially when he non-Jewish popula ion was indeb ed o he local Jews and was unable o pay o he deb . The ensuing seizu es o p ope y ep esen ed ag ea pe sonal agedy o he deb o s. Acco ding o he iew o he his o ian Pe e Š o c, o along ime his ac o sou ed ela ions be ween he Jew- ish and non-Jewish popula ion in eas e n Slo akia, and culmina ed d ama ically a imes o wa e shed e en s such as he end o he Fi s Wo ld Wa , wi h he a en- dan ca as ophic social condi ions ha esul ed o he local popula ion (Š o c— De iňák 2014, p.35). Acco ding o he p ese ed in o ma ion, howe e , con lic s occu ed mo e o en be ween ecen Jewish immig an s and he es ablished Jewish se le s (ibid., p.34). We may assume ha hei ela ionship owa ds eligion, sha ed condi ions o po e y and empe amen we e among he easons o peace ul coexis ence o Ch is ians and Jews wi hin his e i o y. Ace ain symbiosis was mani es ed also in mu ual communica ion. In addi ion o hei na i e language, he Jews we e also luen in he local dialec s, while on he o he side he local popula ion adop ed ele- men s o Yiddish. The communi ies li ed alongside one ano he , bu hey we e also in e connec ed. As he his o ian Ján Hla inka s a es, ‘o e he cou se o he yea s, he Ru henians as he e hnic majo i y and he Jews as he economically mos ac i e and dominan elemen s ound amodel o coexis ence. Since no w i en sou ces ha e been p ese ed, when seeking an answe o he ques ion o wha coexis ence was like be ween Ru henians and Jews, we can ely only upon he es imonies o wi nesses’ (Hla inka 2007, p.32). Upon eading hese memoi s, we disco e ha hese wo com- muni ies isi ed and be iended each o he , and owed each o he goods o money, which hey exchanged o ce ain se ices o epai s. They had acommon loa hing o he weal hy, whe he hey be Jews o Ch is ians. We may add ha in addi ion o au hen ic eyewi ness es imonies, wo ks o li e a u e ep esen ano he possible sou ce when econs uc ing he pas . Howe e , his mul icul u al wo ld was sha - e ed by he Second Wo ld Wa , he change o egime in he wa ime Slo ak s a e and he an i-Jewish laws.5 The Hasidim o eas e n Slo akia ound hemsel es in he s age o he ‘Final Solu ion o he Jewish ques ion’. E en hough he exis ence o he Jewish popula ion had been a egula pa o he li e and his o y o hese municipali ies and ownships, hey le behind hem only a ew b ick synagogues in he owns (some o he s one buildings changed hei unc ion sho ly a e he wa ), while in he illages he e we e mos ly only wooden abe nacles which we e bu ned down, wi h no h- ing emaining. As o he his o ians con i m, he e a e insu icien ele an sou ces in o de o us o econs uc an image o he si ua ion o he Jewish communi y in he in e -wa pe iod, and which could p o ide us wi h no only abe e ou line bu also an unde s anding o he ela ions be ween he Jewish and non-Jewish inhabi an s o he eas e n Slo akian se lemen s. The Holocaus and he associa ed liquida ion o e e y hing ha was Jewish— he Jewish people hemsel es and i ems ela ing o 5 The Jewish Code en e ed in o alidi y in Slo akia on 9Sep embe 1941. OPEN ACCESS 226 SLOVO A SMYSL 39 hei cul u e, eligion, adi ions, hus w i en sou ces (Š o c— De iňák 2014, p.9), make any such econs uc ion impossible. Al hough we no longe encoun e li ing Hasidism in Eu ope oday, he Hasidim ha e le hei legacy in a ,6 philosophy7 and li e a u e. In he ex below we shall ocus on he Jewish wo ld ha is e lec ed in he li - e a y wo ks o an au ho om eas e n Slo akia. Uk ainian egional li e a u e has been and con inues o be w i en by ep esen a i es o he Uk ainian na ional mi- no i y (p e iously he Ru henian-Uk ainian mino i y), who a e conside ed o be he indigenous popula ion o he no h-eas e n pa o Slo akia. Wo ks o li e a u e a e w i en in Uk ainian, while some con ain mo e and o he s ewe egional linguis- ic elemen s. Du ing he pe iod o he eawakening o na ional consciousness ( om he la e 18 hcen u y o he end o he 19 h cen u y), he au ho s di e ged owa ds Old Chu ch Sla onic, wi h an addi ional blending o local linguis ic elemen s. A his poin we conside i necessa y o emphasise ha he ecep ion and in es iga ion o he li e a y p oduc ion o he Uk ainians o Slo akia is hus limi ed o hose who ha e mas e ed he Uk ainian language, o ha in an in es iga ion o wo ks om he pas , knowledge o Old Chu ch Sla onic is equi ed. Fo o he s in e es ed in he opic, he li e a y he i age emains inaccessible and encoded. Vi ually no ansla ions in o Slo ak o Czech exis . Jews appea in he Uk ainian li e a u e o Slo akia p ac ically in he i s didac i- cally o ien ed wo ks by ep esen a i es o he local in elligen sia o no h-eas e n Slo akia (Alexande Duchno ič, Alexande Pa lo ič, Ana olij K alyckyj). A he end o he 19 h cen u y, his pa o he e i o y o med ahomogeneous whole wi h he e i o y o oday’s Zaka pa ia Oblas in wes e n Uk aine ( hen pa o he Kingdom o Hunga y).8 In hei wo ks, he Jewish mino i y appea s as awa ning o eade s mainly agains he dange s o alcoholism. Since Jews we e engaged in he unning o inns, hey consequen ly became seen as he cause o his se ious p oblem, and peasan a me s we e ‘me ely’ hei ic ims. In compa ison wi h he ield o his o y, whe e consolida ed book s udies a e a ailable acing he s anding o Jews in Slo ak socie y a he end o he 19 h cen u y and up o he mid-20 h cen u y, in li e a u e au- ho s ha e ocused on Jews only minimally.9 The hema ising o Jewishness has been 6 Klezme — he i acious olk music o he Eas Eu opean Jews in Yiddish language, wi h i s cha ac e is ic sha p changes o empo and equen imp o isa ion. 7 Fo example he Ge man philosophe Ma in Bube (1878–1965), who w o e ales o Ha- sidic abbis (Příběhy abiho Nachmana [Tales o Rabbi Nachman], Mal e n, P aha 2018). 8 Many schola s o igina ing om no h-eas e n Slo akia s udied no only a home, bu also in Uzho od (Alexande Duchno ič 1803–1865, Ana olij K alyckyj 1835–1894), o hey pu - sued aca ee in S .Pe e sbu g o Ľ i (Pe o Lodij 1764–1829, A senij Kocak 1737–1800). Educa ion ab oad unc ioned also in he opposi e di ec ion, o example he philosophe , poe and linguis Vasyľ Do ho ič (1783–1849) s udied in T na a. Ape iodical om he ime, he newspape Церковная газета (Vienna), СвѢтъ (Uzho od), Новый свѢтъ, Карпатъ, Слово (Ľ i ), he Uzho od and L o calenda Мѣсяцословъ, we e a ailable o ace ain ime on bo h sides o he Ca pa hians, and hus ideas could be eely dissemina ed. 9 Na u ally wi h a ew excep ions, o example Ladisla G osman: he sho s o y Ne es a, Obchod na ko ze (B ide, The Shop on Main S ee ), Gejza Vámoš: he no el Odlomená haluz (The Se e ed Twig). OPEN ACCESS ADRiANA AMiR 227 on he ma gins o in e es in li e a y s udies. This phenomenon can be explained by he ac ha he communis egime made a aboo o Jewish hemes. As Jiří Holý s a es: […] we encoun e he ma ginalisa ion o an i-Jewish s e eo ypes in he wo ks o au- ho s o he classical li e a y canon only in pos -communis coun ies. These s e eo- ypes long emained on he pe iphe y o in e es . I is only in ecen yea s, undoub - edly in connec ion wi h discussions o pos -colonialism and gende issues, ha he pe o a ion o adi ional app oaches has begun, and a iew o nega i e he e os e- eo ypes in li e a u e has begun o eme ge mo e sha ply (Holý 2013, pp.28–29). Acco ding o he in o ma ion we ha e a ailable o us, e iden ly o he a o emen- ioned easons, o da e nobody has ocused on a e lec ion o Jewish images, igu es o Jews o Jews as an e hnic o eligious g oup wi hin he egion o eas e n Slo akia.10 In ou con ibu ion we concen a e on wo wo ks o li e a u e by Mychajlo Šmajda11 (1920–2017), whose ou pu was w i en in he second hal o he 20 h cen u y and o e laps in o he 21s cen u y. These a e he no el Лемки (Lemkos, 1964) and he sho s o y Контрабанд (Con aband, 1989). F om he o iginally in ended ilogy o he no el Lemkos, only he i s pa was published. Mychajlo Šmajda denounced he in asion o he So ie a mies in o Czechoslo akia in 1968, and as aconsequence he was pe secu ed and was unable o con inue in his li e a y wo k. In he ic ional wo ld o his wo ks o li e a u e we concen a e no only on he place o he Jews, bu also on an examina ion o he au ho ’s na a i e s a egy, he layou and cha ac e is ics o he p o agonis s, he al e na ion o na a i e pe spec i es, he use o me apho , and his po ayal o denial o widesp ead s e eo ypes. This will he e o e conce n speci ic li e a y app oaches. F om he pe spec i e o li e a y ypology, anumbe o pa adigms exis ed upon which he au ho could base his wo k. Signi ican ypes o depic ion o Jewish e h- nici y included he wise, mo ally wo hy, b oad-minded, ole an , and a o he imes e en exo ic Jew. The emale ype is mos ly ep esen ed by an ex ao dina ily beau i- ul and su e ing Jewess. A a e ype is ha o he Jewish wa io , bu all he mo e 10 Ba olomej K pelec, in he book Ba dejo ajeho okolie dá no adnes (Ba dejo and i s su - oundings, his o ically and oday), Mies ny odbo Ma ice slo enskej Ba dejo e, Ba de- jo 1935, ou lines he cus oms, adi ions and eligion o he Jewish mino i y. 11 Mychajlo Šmajda was he au ho o he i s pos -wa no el in Uk ainian li e a u e o be published in Slo akia, Ľady pukajú (Тріщать криги, The Ice is C acking, 1957), which was awa ded by he Slo ak W i e s’ Union. A e 1970 (a e he had decla ed his opposi- ion o he occupa ion o Czechoslo akia by he So ie a mies in 1968), Šmajda was o ced ou o his employmen and was unable o publish. A e he Vel e Re olu ion o 1989 he was ehabili a ed, and his membe ship o he Uk ainian W i e s’ Union o Slo akia was e u ned o him. He was accep ed as amembe o he W i e s’ Union o Uk aine, and awa ded he I an F anko P ize o he Slo ak Li e a y Fund. In 2008, Mychajlo Šmajda was awa ded he s a e honou o he P ibina C oss o he Thi d Class by he P esiden o he Slo ak Republic, I an Gašpa o ič, o his con ibu ions o he ad ancemen o cul u e, li - e a u e, e hnog aphy and olklo e in he Ru henian egion in Slo akia, and in 2010 he e- cei ed he Eu opean Union P ize o A and C ea i e Ac i i y. OPEN ACCESS 228 SLOVO A SMYSL 39 common is he ype o he comical Jew, who di e s om o he s in his language, ex- p ession and cus oms, and is usually mise ly and cunning (we equen ly encoun e his ype in anecdo es). In a is ic li e a u e o Eu opean p o enance, he mos com- mon ype o Jew is he me chan , he ma ke ade , o en an innkeepe o money- lende (Sukalenko 2018, p.461). The me cena y and hea less Jew s ands in sha p con- as wi h he modes , poo , honou able and nai e Ch is ian. The o he wo schema ic con as s a e ypical in wo ks o li e a u e om he mid-19 h cen u y. Con as s we e mani es ed mainly along eligious (Judaism e sus Ch is iani y) o mo al lines ( o example he p edominan ‘blood libel’ s e eo ypes abou he use o Ch is ian blood in Jewish eligious i uals).12 Allegiance o ace ain na ion also gene a ed dispu es and mis us (wi hin he e i o y o no h-eas e n Slo akia Jews o en decla ed hemsel es Hunga ians, while Ru henian-Uk ainians a a ious imes decla ed hemsel es Slo aks, Uk ainians, bu also Hunga ians). I was p ecisely du - ing he pe iod o aspi a ions o he emancipa ion o he Slo ak na ion ha he Jew- ish popula ion— who u he mo e p edominan ly el an allegiance o he Hunga - ians— began o appea as ‘some hing ha doesn’ belong he e’. This eeling was hen sus ained and cul i a ed also in u he gene a ions (Alne 2011, p.12). Howe e , e en an unequi ocal iden i ica ion wi h one o he na ions was unable o p o ec he Jews om he e e g owing an i-Semi ism. Social class was also asou ce o ension ( he Jew as innkeepe , me chan — con as ing wi h he p ole a ian Ru henian-Uk ai- nian e hnic g oup). In he wo ks analysed he e, acombina ion o anumbe o he abo e-men ioned schema ic con as s was applied. Jewish s e eo ypes do no o m he cen al mo i in he p ose wo ks o Mychajlo Šmajda, al hough in he no el Lemkos we could assume ha his applies, since he i s book is en i led Корчмарський слуга (The Innkeepe ’s Se an ), and he innkeepe , o cou se, is ep esen ed by aJew. The no el was in ended as a amily saga in which he au ho ocuses on he li e o he main cha ac e , Ju ko Holod. Anumbe o his o i- cal up u es a e played ou agains he backd op o he s o y ( he Fi s Wo ld Wa , Ju ko’s a he ’s engagemen in comba on he Russian on , he in e -wa pe iod, he enc oaching collec i isa ion), as well as amily agedies and aumas ( he ape o Ju ko’s mo he by aRussian soldie , ollowed by he bi h o an illegi ima e child— a‘moskalcha a’ (bas a d), as a esul o which he husband h ows he ou o his home, oge he wi h his own wo sons. Ju ko was subsequen ly o ced o en e he se ices o he Jew, while his b o he Feco was employed as ase an a he pa ish unde he p ies ). In he ollowing sec ion we shall ou line he cha ac e is ic mo i s and p oce- du es, in o de o d aw ou conclusions a he end o he s udy ega ding how he s e eo ype o he Jew was modelled by Mychajlo Šmajda in he selec ed wo ks. Im- media ely in he opening lines o he no el Lemkos we a e p esen ed wi h he cha - ac e o Ju ko Holod, who is in oduced as ase an o he innkeepe om Roz oky, Chaim Schön eld. The au ho subsequen ly shi s his a en ion o he innkeepe , and p esen s o he eade s an image o he Jew du ing his ea ly mo ning p aye s: ‘Inside he house he landlo d Chaim was al eady p aying by candleligh , ocking 12 The case o an accusa ion o i ual mu de om 1764 in he illage o O kucany in no h- eas e n Slo akia (Kónya 1997, p.55). OPEN ACCESS ADRiANA AMiR 229 back and o h o e a able, wi h a alli d aped o e his shoulde s. He bea his ches , wa ed his a ms, and wi h asigh mu mu ed ap aye ’ (Šmajda 1964, p.5).13 In he in oduc ion he au ho chooses he pa adigm o he de ou Jew, explaining in he oo no es he pu pose o he alli — aJewish p aye shawl. A ew pages la e , he again e e s o Chaim, who s ands ‘[…] wi h ho oughly w ung payo s[…], in ablack skullcap and awais coa , benea h which his zi zi hung down, he e and he e insing ou bee glasses, looking ou a he cou ya d and hen coun ing some- hing in chalk a he ba ’ (ibid., p.22).14 I appea s as i he au ho wishes o s ess he igou and e sa ili y o he innkeepe Chaim, while a he same ime he c ea es a u he pa adigm, he ype o he sh ewd businessman, hough so a wi hou any accen on his me cena y g eed. He explains he meaning o he exo ic e m zi zi (dialec wo d ‘ si sesy’) in he oo no es. The eadiness and dex e i y o he Jewish me chan is mani es ed no only behind he ba o he inn, bu also on he ma ke , whe e ‘Chaim quickly se ou his wa es, smiled g aciously a e e yone and de ly pou ed abee o one cus ome , spi i s o ano he , now and hen he cu o apiece o sausage and placed i on he ba oge he wi h some whi e bagels’ (ibid., p.9).15 In his na a i e s a egy, Šmajda does no p o ide he Jewish businessman Chaim wi h many oppo uni ies o en e he plo ; o he mos pa he wo ks silen ly be- hind he ba , se ing ou his wa es, opening he doo , o deba ing ‘wi h his own’. Howe e , ou o cu iosi y he occasionally en e s in o he goyim’s con e sa ions: ‘Chaim, wi h a e illin a ached o his o ehead and on his le hand, looked ou om behind he ki chen cu ain. […] I eel so y o he …— mu e ed he inke […] Chaim en e ed he a e n. He sc a ched his whiske s and inqui ed caus ically:— And migh Iknow he eason why he mas e is lamen ing so?— Wha ’s i o you, boy?— e o ed he inke ’ (ibid., pp.61–62). Chaim immedia ely wi hd aws in he ace o his sha p and dis espec ul eac ion on he pa o he inke : ‘– Now, now, I hink so oo. And you, Ju ko, don’ o ge o ap he scy he… […]’ (ibid., p.62), and changes he subjec . Howe e , he inke ixes his gaze upon him o along ime, o which Chaim esponds asse i ely: ‘– And why do you look a me like ha , mas- e ?— asked Chaim, as he inke con inued o look dagge s a him.— Ionly wish you well, mas e . You should a he d ink up some good schnapps o you heal h’ (ibid.). Howe e , he inke was no appeased by he Jew’s paci ica ion, and pound- ing he able ang ily he hunde ed ‘– Iknow ha wi hou you elling me… […] You’ll 13 ‘В хаті при свічці, хитаючись над столом, вже молився господар Хаїм у закинутому через плече таласі. Він бив себе в груди, махав руками і, зітхаючи, бурмотів молит- ву’ (Šmajda 1964, p.5). F agmen s o he no el he e and elsewhe e ha e been ansla ed in o English. In he oo no es hey a e p esen ed in he o iginal language, Uk ainian. Else- whe e only he page numbe is lis ed by exce p s om he no el Lemkos. We quo e acco d- ing o he edi ion lis ed in he bibliog aphy. 14 ‘[…] із старанно підкрученими пейсами… […] в чорній тубатейці і у жилеті, з якого звисали цицеси, то полоскав склянки з-під пива, то заглядав на подвір’я, то крейдою рахував щось на прилавку’ (ibid., p.22). 15 ‘Хаїм, швидко поклавши свій товар, злегка всміхався до кожного і спритно наливав то пиво, то горілку, то відрізав кусень ковбаси і разом з білими булками клав на при- лавок’ (ibid., p.9). OPEN ACCESS 230 SLOVO A SMYSL 39 ea us ali e, you bas a ds!’ (ibid.).16 Šmajda does no pa icula ly d aw a en ion o he physiognomy o his ep esen a i e o he Jewish mino i y, men ioning only his all s a u e and clo hing: ‘The all Chaim, whose ouse s we e always alling down, in ablack wais coa and ma ching black ha wen ou on o he po ch […]’ (ibid., p.8),17 which sugges s ha Chaim was ai ly hin and he e o e a he poo han weal hy. O elsewhe e in he ex he e e s o an encoun e ‘[…] wi h an old, bea ded Jew in as ained black ka an’ (ibid., p.176).18 The w e ched condi ions o he Jewish popula ion a e illus a ed also by adesc ip ion o hei ho ses: ‘Behind he s a ion we e a ew Jewish wagons, hei ho ses d ied o he bone, wai ing o passenge s’ (ibid., p.199).19 I is in e es ing ha wi h o he cha ac e s he au ho does no desc ibe hei ex- e nal appea ance in such de ail. By con as , in he case o he Jews he akes no e o his and accen s i in se e al places h oughou he ex : ‘He e ag oup o men we e al eady wai ing o Chaim, d essed in black coa s, unde which hei d ill ouse s we e whi ening’ (ibid., p.9). D ill is a ype o homespun co on ab ic, which was equally widesp ead among Ru henians and Jews. F om he desc ip ion we can asce - ain ha he local Jews sha ed common elemen s o clo hing wi h he Ru henians, and hus ha hei social s a us was ai ly simila . The clo hing o Jewish child en did no di e in any way om ha o hei Ch is ian coun e pa s. One o he sub- sequen sec ions o he ex illus a es he manne in which Jews e lec ed upon he eligious ce emonies o Ch is ians. Passing by ap ocession: ‘Chaim clea ed his h oa and u ned aside, es ing his chin on his hands’ (ibid., p.8).20 The au ho he eby ex- p esses ha he Jews did no ake an in e es in he Ch is ians, bu silen ly accep ed hem. In he in oduc ion o his book Slo enské pohľady na Žido alebo Židia Slo en- ských pohľadoch (Slo ak Views o Jews o Jews in Slo ak Pe spec i es), Pe e Salne cha ac e ises his wi h he e m ‘ edľaži ie’ (li ing side by side; Salne 2011, p.5). As a ep esen a i e o Jewishness in his wo k, Chaim exempli ies he ole ance o he Jews owa ds he apos a es. Wi hin he ca ego y o nega i e s e eo ypes we may include he speech o Jews, which is equen ly e e ed o by o he s as jus some kind o unin elligible mum- bling (see he example o he p aye ), o ‘[…] he incomp ehensible noise o he Jew- 16 ‘Хаїм з прикріпленим тфлином до чола і до лівої руки зиркнув з-поза фіранта з кух- ні. […] Мені її жаль…— бурмотів дрітар […] Хаїм зайшов до корчми. Пошкрябавшись в бороді, облесно спитав:— Можу знати, на що пан майстер так мулатують?— Тобі що до того?!— відсік дрітар, зразу перейшовши на ‚ти’.— Так, так … і я так думаю.— А ти, Юрку, не забудь наклепати косу […]— А ви чому до мене так дивитесь, пане майстер? […]— Я вам, пане майстер лем добра хочу. Радше випийте на здоров’я до- брої палінки.— Знаю і без тебе…— хитнув дрітар […]— Їсте ви нас, стерви!’ (ibid., pp.61–62). 17 ‘Високий Хаїм, у якого раз у раз сповзали ногавки, у чорній жилетці і такому ж чор- ному капелюсі вийшов на ганок […]’ (ibid., p.8). 18 ‘[…] із старим бородатим євреєм у засмальцьованому чорному кафтані’ (ibid., p.176). 19 ‘За станцією чекало кілька єврейських повозок з на кість висохлими кіньми, чекали на пасажирів’ (ibid., p.199). 20 ‘Хаїм, покашлюючи, обернувся в другий бік, запустив руки в бороду’ (ibid., p.8). OPEN ACCESS ADRiANA AMiR 231 ish abe nacle’ (Šmajda 1964, p.50).21 A his poin we ansla e ‘ abe nacle’ using he wo d bužňa, which was used o e e o he p aye house in Eas Slo ak dialec s. How- e e , a e nine yea s in he se ices o he Jew, he innkeepe ’s se an has now mas- e ed hei language, and e en p omises himsel some employmen om i , decla ing ha : ‘In Aus ia and Ge many Icould ge by on my own. Ican speak abi o Jewish… and I’ e se ed in he a my wi h he Ge mans’ (ibid., p.281).22 He he e o e conside s he Jewish language o be ai ly use ul. By con as , he innkeepe Chaim, in his com- munica ion wi h he Ru henians, uses hei dialec . I is only in he case o a isi o he Russi ied M . S olynskyj ha , in an a emp o adap , he has di icul y inding he igh wo ds, upon which Chaim ‘[…] b oke in o a ious dialec s […]’ (ibid., p.96).23 Ve y widesp ead s e eo ypes wi h nega i e conno a ions included hose si ua- ions in which he gullibili y o he u al popula ion came in o con lic wi h he guile o he Jews. Ru henians we e p edominan ly accus omed o ba e ade, and soon ealised ha he Jews we e well o ien ed no only in his, bu also in inancial and ma ke ope a ions, bonds, p omisso y no es and bills o exchange. In an exce p , he locals complain abou he c a y Jews: ‘You know Dille . Mise ly de il! And wha ’s mo e, ins ead o money he’ll gi e you coupons so you go and buy you g oce ies in his shop.— So he knows how o make ap o i o you wice.— Hm.— Jews a e all he same, Judases… […]’ (ibid., p.59).24 The con lic depic ed he e is p esen ed on he le el o mo ali y. The Ch is ians ep esen he ideal s a e, and a he same ime hey a e opp essed. The Jews, h ough hei compe i i eness, jeopa dise he balance o alues and make money om he po e y o o he s. In ano he passage in he no el, Šmajda p esen s he example o he ingenui y o Jewish ade s ba gaining o e apu chase. To he ques ion om aJew (a ade in panels) ega ding how much he endo wan s o acal , he Ru henian gi es he ollowing answe : ‘– Enough o a leas ou panels, so ha Ican make a unk ou o all new panels’ (ibid., p.176).25 This is an example o an in e ac ion be ween an expe ienced ade and agullible man. Šmajda, in he spi i o Jewish anecdo es, comple es his scene wi h he ollowing si ua ional e- sponse: ‘— You know wha ? I’ll gi e you h ee. Ican’ gi e you any mo e. I’d be making aloss. You don’ need anew panel on he base. You migh ind some hing a home…’ (ibid.).26 Whe he o no acal is wo h mo e panels only emains ama e o deba e. Ne e heless, he majo i y popula ion canno ge by wi hou he Jews, and hey bo - ow money om hem, o example o ajou ney ab oad: ‘– E en i some agen s came looking o people o go o Canada o A gen ina […]— And whe e would Ige money 21 ‘[…] нерозбірливий гомін жидівської бужні’ (ibid., p.50). 22 ‘В Австрії і в Німеччині я би собі вже порадив. Трохи знаю по-жидівськи… та й з нім- цями служив у війську’ (ibid., p.281). 23 ‘[…] ламав Хаїм на різних діалектах […]’ (ibid., p.96). 24 ‘Знаєш Ділера. Скупий, як марія! Та ще замість грошей дає тобі картки, щоб ти ку- пував на них харчі в його магазині.— Значить, два рази хоче на людині заробити.— Мгм.— Всі вони однакові ішкаріотські юди… […]’ (ibid., p.59). 25 ‘— Щоб вийшло хоч на чотири дошки, щоб труна була із всіх нових дощок’ (ibid., p.176). 26 ‘— Знаєш що?Дам тобі три. Більше не можу. Не вийду на тому. На спід не мусить бути нова дошка. Може, дещо знайдеш дома…’ (ibid.). OPEN ACCESS 238 SLOVO A SMYSL 39 You ha e and you build new co age— ahouse, no o wood, bu o s one o b ick, and you co e i no wi h s aw oo bu wi h cemen . And i you need mo e money, go o Medzilabo ce, M . Dille , he gi e you e e y hing (ibid.).46 The physiognomy o he Jew in he passage is no p esen ed as any di e en om he o he cha ac e s. The au ho does no use isually hackneyed s e eo ypes o he ypical hai colou , ype o ace, especially he nose and lips. The b oken speech p e- sen ed he e in ansla ion may be jus i ied by he ac ha he Jew o igina ed om Poland, and had no mas e ed he speech o he locals om a ound Medzilabo ce. An unusual and non-s e eo ypical de ice is he eligious Jew’s e e ence o he com- mon oo o bo h eligions, Judaism and Ch is iani y. The highligh ing o he Old Tes amen p ophe Elijah ( e e ed o by Šmajda as Iľka), who is wo shipped also by Ch is ians, since he appea ed a he scene o he ans igu a ion o Jesus on Moun Tabo , is an ou igh ecumenical elemen . The compensa ion which he honou able Jew con e s upon he abjec Ru henian me ely augmen s he excep ional cha ac e o he en i e passage, especially in he place whe e he s a es ha he man should build abe e quali y, b ick house, no ame e wooden co age, which could again be educed o ashes. The Jew he e o e o e s no only abalancing o wo alues, bu also compensa ion, which is in absolu e con adic ion o he adi ional no ions o he me cena y and eache ous cha ac e o Jewish me chan s, who seek only hei own p o i a all cos s. Howe e , wi h ega d o he compensa ion o e ed by he Jew, he na a o Pe o H yckanyn also hen ma e -o - ac ly ela es he ollowing aside: ‘F om hei con aband, he Jews made pe haps enough o build en co ages like he one ha bu ned down’ (ibid., p.180).47 And a e amomen ’s con empla ion, he jus i- ies he gi en s a e as he sees i : ‘– God lo es he Jews, since hey p ay mo e and don’ d ink like us Ru henians […]’ (ibid.).48 In doing so he denies he well-es ablished s e- eo ypes which o se e al decades po ayed Jewish innkeepe s as solely o blame o he alcoholism o he poo Ch is ians. In u n, his young lis ene conside s he Jewish wo ld iew and alue sys em o be one o he easons p e en ing he assimi- la ion o he Jews: ‘The Jews cas aside he ideology o Ma x and Ch is , e en hough bo h we e Jews. They ha e hei own Semi ic ideology, which has p o ec ed hem om assimila ion o wo housand yea s […]’ (ibid.).49 The old man summa ises his li e expe iences and o mula es hem in o an idea which acknowledges he supe i- o i y o Jewish eligion o Ch is ian mo ali y. He exp esses his espec o he ime- honou ed Jewish solida i y: 46 ‘Ти мати та збудувати нову хату— дім, та не з дровна, а з каменю або цегли, і накри- ти її не соломою, але шіфер-етерніт. А як буде бракувало грошей, то заходи до Мой- шелаборець, до пана Діллер, то він тобі все дати’ (ibid.). 47 ‘Жиди заробили на контрабанді грошей, може на десять таких хат, що згоріла’ (ibid., p.180). 48 ‘Жидів любить бог, бо вони більше моляться і не пиячять, як ми, русини…’ (ibid.). 49 ‘Жиди відкинули ідеологію Маркса і Христа, а вони були обоє жидами. Вони мають свою семітську ідеологію, яка їх оберігає від асиміляції вже на дві тисячки років…’ (ibid.). OPEN ACCESS ADRiANA AMiR 239 The Jewish God allows he Jews o decei e he goyim. And he o de s us Ch is ians o lo e ou neighbou as we do ou sel es. And his is he p oblem.— Bu no e en Ch is ian cle gymen abide by his Ch is ian e hic, le alone o dina y mo als. […] People qua el among hemsel es. We should lea n om he Jews. Then we would no be ay he ai h o ou ances o s, he Ru henian school, he Ru henian language…— We a e igno an o ou his o y, g and a he …— Yes, yes. Ru henians and Slo aks! […]— i onised he old man […] (ibid., p.181).50 He c i icises he weake na ional consciousness o he Ru henians, e alua es assimi- la ion and denounces hose who abandon hei na i e ongue and he c eed o hei ances o s. The au ho poin ed o hese e o s a he h eshold o he 1990s, when as- simila ionis endencies wi hin he en i onmen o he Ru henians we e e y s ong. He app ecia es he solida i y which helped he Jews o o e come open hos ili y and pe secu ion om he majo i y popula ion. Howe e , his did no manage o p e- en he agedy o he 20 h cen u y— he Holocaus , al hough he na a o does no open up his heme in he p ose wo ks examined he e. He ocuses on i in his no el Паразити (Pa asi es, 1953), which o easons o lack o space we do no analyse in his s udy. Th ough an analysis o he selec ed p ose wo ks we ha e documen ed ha Šmajda’s li e a y discou se does no abe he p ejudices and s e eo ypes ha p o ide mo i- a ion o disc imina ion agains mino i y g oups. We may s a e ha he images o Šmajda’s Jews end a he owa ds ambi alence in he in e es o an objec i e li e - a y ep esen a ion o eali y. On one hand, some o he cha ac e s in he no el a e po ayed as nega i e, idiculous and male olen . These cha ac e s mos ly p esen he majo i y opinions o he socie y. On he o he hand, a ew indi iduals om he indigenous popula ion a e app ecia ed o hei dex e i y, ingenui y and honou able app oach. Tole ance is con i med by s a emen s abou he sh ewdness o he Jews, who a e e en able o command he highes one— Yahweh, which we e ci cula ed on he le el o adages o sho s o ies wi h acomic poin . The Jewish cha ac e s in he no el Lemkos s and on he pe iphe y o he plo , wi hou in luencing o o he wise in- e e ing wi h he low o he na a i e in any way. In hei own way hey li e hei li es, hey look a e hei own, p edominan ly business manne s, and li e in pa al- lel alongside he homogeneous majo i y popula ion. The au ho c ea es aposi i e im- age o he Jewish innkeepe Chaim, while he o he Jewish cha ac e s a e minimised. By con as , in he sho s o y Con aband, Jews a e he cen al cha ac e s, and hei s o y is na a ed om he pe spec i e o o he s, o eigne s. Al hough Jewish cha ac- e s se i e o he co age o aGen ile in o de o p o ec hei con aband, he na a- o and his lis ene adop an unde s anding s ance owa ds hem. In he conclusion 50 ‘Жидівський бог дозволяє жидам ошукати гоїв. А наш, християнський, каже люби- ти ближнього, як самого себе. От де тут пропасть.— Але цей християнський кодекс не дотримують ані християнські душпастирі, не то щоб дотримували його звичайні смертні. […] Люди взаємно жеруться. Нам би повчитись від жидів. Тоді би ми не про- давали прадідну віру, руську школу, руську бесіду…— Не знаємо своєї історії, діду…— Так, так. Руські люде, а словаки! […]— заіронізував дідо […]’ (ibid., p.181). OPEN ACCESS 240 SLOVO A SMYSL 39 hey make anumbe o complimen a y obse a ions ega ding he Jewish philoso- phy and app oach o li e. They e en exp ess awish o Ru henians o ake inspi a ion om hem, and o be as p oud o hei na ionali y and language as he Jews a e. I is e iden ha Šmajda’s li e a y discou se, in bo h o he p esen ed wo ks, is ma kedly p o-Jewish. The aim o his s udy has been a leas in pa o unco e he li le explo ed heme o he images o Jewish cha ac e s in he ield o Uk ainian li e a u e in Slo akia. The wo ld o Hasidic Jews, wi hin a egion in which he Pax Romana and Pax O hodoxa mee , sank i e ie ably in o obli ion a e he i s depo a ions in he sp ing o 1942. These hi he o unexplo ed li e a y monumen s e lec ing he legacy o Jews ep esen asou ce o in angible weal h and he only memen os o his e hnic g oup, which once cons i u ed an in eg al componen o he his o y o Eu ope, and na u- ally also o ou own Slo ak his o y. In conclusion we shall quo e Milan Kunde a, om his amous essay ‘AKidnapped Wes , o Cul u e Bows Ou ’, also known as ‘The T agedy o Cen al Eu ope’, which Ibelie e bes cap u es he in luence and p esence o he Jews wi hin ou e i o y: Indeed, no o he pa o he wo ld has been so deeply ma ked by he in luence o Jewish genius. Aliens e e ywhe e and e e ywhe e a home, li ed abo e na ional qua els, he Jews in he wen ie h cen u y we e he p incipal cosmopoli an, in eg a ing ele- men in Cen al Eu ope: hey we e i s in ellec ual cemen , acondensed e sion o i s spi i , c ea o s o is spi i ual uni y (Kunde a 1983, p.14). LITERATURE Alne , Ju aj: Slo enské pohľady na Žido alebo Židia Slo enských pohľadoch. Edícia ÚZ ŽNO Chajim, B a isla a 2011. Balog, Yeshayahu— Mo gens e n, Ma hias: Hasidism: AMys ical Mo emen Wi hin Eas e n Eu opean Judaism. In: Eu opean His o y Online (EGO). Ins i u e o Eu opean His o y (IEG), Mainz 2010 <h p://www. ieg-ego.eu/balogy-mo gens e nm-2010-en> [12.3.2020]. Bube , Ma in: Příběhy abiho Nachmana, ansl. Václa Ond áček. Mal e n, P aha 2018. Büchle , J.Róbe (ed.): Encyklopédia žido ských náboženských obcí. SNM— Múzeum žido skej kul ú y, B a isla a 2010. G osman, Ladisla : Ne es a. SNM— Múzeum žido skej kul ú y, B a isla a 2017. Hla inka, Ján: Žido ská komuni a ok ese Medzilabo ce  okoch 1938–1945. Ús a pamä i ná oda, B a isla a 2007. Holý, Jiří: Nega i ní s e eo ypy Židů české p óze na přelomu 19.a20.s ole í. His o ie— o ázky— p oblémy 5, 2013, no. 1, pp.27–41. Kónya, Pe e : Dejiny Žido na ýchodnom Slo ensku kon ex e celoeu ópskeho ý inu. Me odické cen um, P ešo 1997. K pelec, Ba olomej: Ba dejo ajeho okolie dá no adnes. Mies ny odbo Ma ice slo enskej Ba dejo e, Ba dejo 1935, pp.236–251. Kunde a, Milan: Únos západu aneb T agédie s řední E opy. 1983 <h p://www.sma ana. sk/a chi /clanky/kunde a/milan-kunde a- unos-zapadu-aneb- agedie-s edni-e opy- 1983- o ma -pd / iew> [23. 12. 2020]. Magocsi, Paul Robe : Ch b om kho ám: Dejiny Ka pa skej Rusi aka pa ských Rusíno . Uni e sum, P ešo 2016. Slo ník slo enského jazyka. Slo níko ý po ál Jazyko edného ús a u Ľ.Š ú a SAV OPEN ACCESS ADRiANA AMiR 241 2021 <h ps://slo nik.juls.sa ba.sk/> [23.12.2020]. Said, Edwa d W.: O ien alism. Random House Inc., New Yo k 1979. Salne , Pe e : Pohľady na (Slo enské) pohľady na Žido . In: Ju aj Alne : Slo enské pohľady na Žido alebo Židia Slo enských pohľadoch. Edícia ÚZ ŽNO Chajim, B a isla a 2011. Š o c, Pe e — De iňák, Pa ik: Východné Slo ensko aŽidia medzi ojno om období. P ešo ská uni e zi a, P ešo 2014. Vámoš, Gejza: Odlomená haluz. Vyda a eľs o Spolku slo enských spiso a eľo , B a isla a 2004. Sukalenko, Te jana M.: Linh okul u ni ypazhi uk ainskyj khudozhnij li e a u e. Vyda nyčy dim Dmy a Bu ago, Kyji 2018. Šmajda, Mykhajlo: Lemky. Knyha pe ša. P jaši 1964. Šmajda, Mykhajlo: Tajemnycja ebeno oji ška ulky. Kon aband. P jaši , Exco 2000. OPEN ACCESS