credit

Only a miracle can save us. by Gerardo Muñoz

Joseph Roth’s last novella Die Legende vom heiligen Trinker (The Legend of the Holy Drinker, 1939) places the salvation of the human being through the event of a miracle. More than once, the narrator of The Legend of the Holy Drinker tells us that homeless Andreas had “indeed experienced the miracle of faith” [1]. The fact that this “miracle” is intertwined with the magical reappearance of money alerts to the fact that omnis credit, the belief in all things, might be at the center of the mystery of the adventurous last days of Andreas Kartak, a homeless migrant that one day is given a sum amount of money by a generous stranger with the only condition that he repays it at some point to the sanctuary of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux in a local parish [2]. 

The very essence of the miraculous money is connected to charity as existential expenditure, that allows Andreas to defer from ever repaying to Saint Thérèse of Lisieux at the Batignolles Church, thus tearing apart the modern notion of credit that binds investment and anticipation of the future. And Andreas is never able to repay the debt to the Saint, it is because the miracle is not in abundance, but in the permanent state of poverty that in turns confirms the sanctification of the holy drinker. In all rigor, Roth’s final message, a few days before his own death, seems clear to us: only a miracle can save us from the futurist religion of abundance and capital. 

But first, what is a miracle? This is the notion at the heart of Roth’s secret testament in The Legend of the Holy Drinker (1939). It is obvious that a miracle is always an exception to the ordinary and the predictable; an exceptional occurrence that not only resists to follow a rational causation and calculation, but it is something that betrays it. This is why at times miracles have been displaced to the irrational sphere of a natural occurrence. It has been said that in modernity, capitalist value form is both first nature and rationality where the human shuts himself in and God is expelled out. If there is a humorous or parodic element in The Legend of the Holy Drinker, it is precisely that this nexus is inverted and loosen; in other words, when miracle replaces the naturalization of value it is no longer conditioned by human labour and surplus value, but through the mystery of charity that does not aggregate abundance of goods. This is a charity of absolute poverty and continuous stagnation. 

Andreas’ miraculous charity incarnates the holy life of the saint insofar as he can only experience himself towards the appropriation of his own character, and ultimately his death. According to Esther Steinmann in her important study on Roth, the figural symbolism of the holy drinker was based after the Byzantine model of the sainthood; those madmen followers of God that can only experience the world from outside the world as if were, because they are only concerned with a preparation of towards death, which also speaks to Roth’s Catholicism infused with Hasidic undercurrents [3]. And this can be confirmed by the novella’s last lines: “May God grant such a good and easy death” [4]. 

Why should death be delivered “good and easy”? Here it can be argued how for Roth, the “common good” was not a political project of a distributionist state, but rather a state of being and a form of life that is enmeshed to both death and the dead. This is way that Roth’s solicitation of a resurrection of the Austro-Hungarian empire must be properly understood: not as a political form to save civilization from itself, but rather as a defense a world that, because it is oriented towards decline and expansive exteriority or internal exile – a roaming land of errant beings – it maintains a relation to the humus of the dead [5]. If there is hope for rebirth it is because there are miracles that cut through both history and nature, and in doing so they make apparent the charity of the infancy of humanity, very much like the little girl Thérèse, a transfigured saint, that appears in the final pages: “…about living and dying; and the girl called Thérèse, she too accompanies them”. 

Notes 

1. Joseph Roth. The Legend of the Holy Drinker (Granta, 2022), 11.

2. Gerardo Muñoz. “Charity and Faith”, Infrapolitical Reflections, August 2025: https://infrapoliticalreflections.org/2025/08/16/charity-and-faith-by-gerardo-munoz/ 

3. Berta Ares Yáñez. La leyenda del santo bebedor: legado y testamento de Joseph Roth (Acantilado, 2022), 178.

4. Joseph Roth. The Legend of the Holy Drinker (Granta, 2022), 99.

5. Joseph Roth to Stefan Zweig, letter from July 1935: “I only care for God and the Earth, and what I feel as my terrestrial obligation: contributing to the coming of a Catholic Empire”, in Ser amigo mío es funesto: Correspondencia (1927-1938) (Acantilado, 2014), 56.

Charity and faith. by Gerardo Muñoz

In a letter dated from January of 1962 to his friend Carlos M. Luis, José Lezama Lima makes a case for the intimate relation between language and charity: “What lasts [la cantidad] is only possible through faith. Because what lasts with faith is charity. Omnis credit – believe all things. Charity is belief in anticipation. And what is poetry (the image), but this superabundance of charity that always presupposes creation? [1]. The question in the last sentence – a question that could have only come from a great poet – is not all naive, since it is also a slight displacement from the canonical source underlying the notion of charity. In fact, the expression caritas omnia credit comes from Saint Augustine’s Confessions (Book X, Section 3), where the Church Father treats the reception of his testimony to the rational knowledge of the “hearing of men” who will be attending to his words [2].

This means that for parole to be heard and enunciated in its original presence, there has to be a gathering in charity that makes not just ‘true’, but most importantly, a garment of faith in the occurrence of language. This means that for Lezama Lima, there was no distinction between “theological language” and “language as such”, or “poetic register”, since they are all participants in the mystery of charity, because only charity can welcome language as abode. Poetics as such is understood as facticity of parole. But for Lezama, the word depends on having grasped the motion of charity. 

Lezama’s test for Carlos M. Luis was quite high: if you lose your faith, you would have given up on language as creation. This was not a new problem for the poet who already in his essay “La dignidad de la poesía”, mentions caritas omnia credit, as a process of destruction of representational (merely transactional and duty driven language) communication that arrives at the order of charity through language as intangible and inexistent by virtue of transcending what does not exists, thus manifesting itself as possible [3]. This is the moment in which the charity of language appears as both presence and promise, and what Lezama calls “el resurgimiento del verbo” (the reemergence of the word). Poetics is thus neither the subject matter of poets, nor the master dogma of theologians; rather it is the faith in language that once enunciated it can only move towards a greater opacity of the shadow of mystery. This is why a great Christian theologian says that charity (agape) is partial knowledge of the divine, otherwise there will be only a detestable army of mere academics, scribes, and administrative experts  [4]. 

In other words, charity does not belong exclusively to the Saints, but it runs through All Souls and its dead. The long history of the Church has betrayed the parole of charity, going as far as transforming it into a social mechanism of distributed goods that has become known as the subsidiarity principle. But for Lezama Lima, in an esoteric pauline tone, charity had nothing to do with political absorption and pastoral power; it was fundamentally a problem of language as a relation of reciprocity between beings in order to subsist as species, to paraphrase a well versed French priest on the matter [5].

In our days we see that “believing in language” has become in the public the inverse: non-belief through credit; that is only after possessing it (I do not need to believe in you insofar your credit validates who you are). It has been noted that by a kind of philological accident in the history of secularization, the word charity in English came to be understood one handedly as almsgiving and subsidiarity over the original divine love, which is love supreme in language. A language that does not unify, but that creates ethical relations; in fact, this might be the only uninstructed means of allowing them to fruition. 

.

.

Notes 

1. José Lezama Lima. Cartas a Eloísa y otra correspondencia (Verbum, 2013), 324.

2. Saint Augustine. Confessions (Penguin Books, 1961), 208.

3. José Lezama Lima. “La dignidad de la poesía”, in Obras Completas, Tomo II (Aguilar Editor, 1977), 774.

4. Claude Tresmontant. Saint Paul and the mystery of Christ (Harper & Brothers, 1957), 157.

5.G. Desbuquois, S.J. Charity (Fides Publishers, 1965), 33.