Cosmopolitanism and Tragic Silence 153of Levinas’s formulations, a more self-reflexive empathy on the read-
er’s part, in which the latter is made aware of epistemic and emo-
tional distance but nonetheless attempts to “bridge the gap.” It is
this “gap” (this “silence” or inscrutability), that is of principal impor-
tance because to “understand” fully the motives and faults of the
tragic hero would bring the reader a sense of mastery over the pro-
tagonist, qualifying and subsequently eclipsing empathy, whereas
the “silence” of Silk and Levov leaves the critical space that is needed
for consideration and care of the reader to take precedence in the
engagement. This point has found expression in numerous studies
on tragedy, perhaps most notably in the work of Franz Rosenzweig,
who maintains that tragic silence is “the mark of the self, the deal of
its greatness and the token that is completely proper to him.”^61
Silence is, of course, a trait seen both in Silk (whose secret restricts
his speech), and in Levov (whom Zuckerman presents as being pres-
sured into conforming to the god-like image he holds in the com-
munity).^62 However, the crucial difference between the two heroes,
and this is also a difference in their tragic flaws, is that Levov is
brought down by his own na ï vet é and lack of awareness of America’s
sociopolitical issues, whereas Silk is in large part ruined by his being
all too aware of America’s social and political injustices. In this sense
the reasons that underlie each of the characters’ silences are mirror
images of one another.
It is this almost willed ignorance of the social and political ramifi-
cations of his life that constitutes Levov’s chief hamartia; but, again,
this tragic flaw is never positively identified by Zuckerman, but is
only hinted at through some vague rhetorical questions:
[Levov never] in his life had occasion to ask himself, ‘Why are things
the way they are?’ Why should he bother, when the way they were was
always perfect? Why are things the way they are? The question to which
there is no answer, and up till then he was so blessed he didn’t even
know the question existed. (p. 70)The rhetorical nature of these questions reveals the fact that
Zuckerman’s own subjective interpretation of Levov is impressing
itself upon the narrative. More specifically, this interpretation of
the character is one that emphasizes Levov’s ignorance of the social