418
PARTISAN REVIEW
The distinction between the latter two epics and the first one
lies in the syntax and rhythm of both the single sentence and the plot
as a whole. They embody ways of thinking about and perceiving the
world. The Hebrew epic could by no means begin in the way the two
others do, since their rhythm is foreign to the Hebrew spirit.
Erich Auerbach's
Mimesis
enlarges on the qualities distinguish–
ing biblical from Homeric narrative, placing the story of Isaac's sac–
rifice opposite that of Ulysses's scar. The biblical tale is multifaceted,
making only what is important to the plot stand out in the foreground,
emphasizing only climaxes, and doing away with minor details. The
background is steeped in a vague dusk of either unexplicit or unelic–
ited thought and feeling. These are derived from what is unsaid. The
wonder remains, as do the obscure allusions. The reader himself must
fill the void with guesswork, scrutiny, and interpretation. Homeric
narrative, on the other hand, knows only foreground, a brightly lit
present throwing equal light over all details without perspective.
Events, sights, thoughts, and feelings are fully and explicitly offered.
Homer hides nothing, conceals no allusions. His narration contains
no depth of time, fate, or consciousness.
But the distinctive qualities of the ancient Hebrew tale set it
apart not only from Homeric epic but also from the other narrative
prose and poetry of the ancient world. The rhythm of Egyptian and
Sumerian narrative differs greatly from that of Homer; these are in–
fused with magic and "spaces" of mystery. However, in spite of the
fact that research has noted their influence on the biblical tale, there
is no analogy in structure and literary quality. Rather, the influence
applies to subject matter, to motif, or to the imaginative exploitation
of a mythological theme. S. N. Kramer writes in
History Begins in
Sumer:
[The Sumerian narrative] is almost entirely lacking in a sense of
tight plot structure. The tales tend to be spinned [sic] out dis–
connectedly and monotonously, with very minor distinctions in
emphasis and tone... . They lack a sense of climax and seem–
ingly place no value on the effect which heightens the story's
strength... . There is no attempt at characterisation and psy–
chological portraiture: the gods and heroes in Sumerian narra–
tive tend to be general types and not flesh and blood creatures
with personal identities.
Thus there is not to be found a more perfect "short story" in an–
cient literature than that of Cain and Abel in Genesis. Fifteen verses
