Chapter III: Preface: To the Index Volume (3)

It must be looked upon as providential that the task of first impressing the modern spirit upon the theologic training for the rabbinical office fell to the share of men of such eminent distinction as Frankel, the director of the new institution, and Graetz and Jacob Bernays, its regular teachers. The personality of each of the three was strongly marked. Each one was a _homo trium litterarum_, in the sense that in subordination to his specialty, he had acquired mastery over the Hebrew-rabbinic, the classical, and the modern literature. By deep and earnest thought each had arrived at a conservative view of Judaism. Of the three, Jacob Bernays,[46] a scholar of far-reaching fame in classical philology, doubtless possessed greatest ability as a teacher, which, however, demanded talented pupils for its effective exercise. Frankel’s forte lay in his tact as an organizer and in his practical gifts; he exerted wholesome authority over his disciples in religious as well as scientific matters. Both desired to impress their scientific bias upon those that came under their influence. Graetz, on the other hand, heeded the individuality of his pupils, and in his activity as teacher had in mind especially their stimulation and encouragement. Frankel was desirous of transferring to the Theological Seminary the rigid discipline and detailed supervision of an elementary school,[47] because his dearest object was to turn out thorough Talmudists and professionally well-equipped rabbis. Bernays aspired to the romantic splendor of a theologic faculty, and wanted to educate scholarly theologians. With correct and healthy instinct, Graetz endeavored to reconcile these opposite aims and identify the Seminary with a middle course. Although Frankel grasped the rudder with a firm hand, he was sensible enough to consider prudent counsel and kindly enough to give scope to the wishes and views of his colleagues. In this way harmony prevailed among the Seminary teachers, which reacted beneficially upon the students. As long as he lived, Frankel justly maintained what officially and morally was the dominant position in the Seminary. The prosperity of the institution he considered the consummation of his life-work, and being childless, he regarded his pupils as his children, and took a truly paternal interest in their fortunes. Next to him Graetz exercised the most generous hospitality towards the students. He was ever ready to serve any one of them that needed help and advice. Especially such as had aroused his interest, or had impressed him favorably with their ability and character enlisted his sympathy, which he manifested with all the ardor of his temperament. Like Frankel, he identified himself completely with the Breslau Seminary. After many thwarted plans and years of anxious uncertainty, he felt that, at last, through his position as teacher at the Seminary, his vessel had floated into deep, navigable waters, that he could venture to ply the oars with full force, unfurl all the sails, and, favored by wind and weather and propelled by the buoyant courage peculiar to his sanguine nature, steer straight for the destination whither impulse drew him. It was the first time that his official duties coincided with his inner vocation. Faithful, zealous performance of the service he was engaged to do promoted the work he had set himself as the goal of his life. In regular, uninterrupted succession, volume after volume of his “History” now began to appear in complete realization of his plan.

In 1856 the _third_ volume was published under the title, “History of the Jews from the Death of Judas Maccabæus to the Downfall of the Jewish State.”[48] It formed the complement and justification of his view of the Talmudic epoch, the one with which he had begun as being the period “least understood in its inner relations.” At the same time the third volume distinctly bounds the spiritual territory in which the Jewish history of the diaspora is rooted. For he intended to dispose of the Jewish history of the diaspora down to the present time before beginning the account of the Biblical and the early post-Biblical periods. Therefore, when he published his fifth volume, “History of the Jews from the Completion of the Talmud (500) to the Beginnings of Jewish-Spanish Culture (1027),”[49] he had, as he said in the preface, “got back on the right track.” Now every doubt was bound to vanish; after many years a genuine historian had arisen unto Judaism.

The historian must not be confounded with the scholar. The chief tasks of the latter are the critical examination of historical records, the determining and grouping of facts, the identifying and differentiating of persons, the demarcation of time and place, and the defining and demonstrating of the causal relation between events, their succession, and their interaction. The minute details to which his research happens to be devoted at any moment are as important in his eyes as great and comprehensive principles. Style, form, and manner, moreover, are minor considerations with the scholar; he aims only at accuracy and lucid presentation adapted to the subject-matter. The demands made upon the historian are more numerous and more exacting. He must constantly carry the whole in mind, he must have the ability to mould the historical material with an artist’s creative power and restore the faded features of the past by the life-bestowing word. First of all, he must be equipped with unlimited mastery over the existing material and with easy and sure grasp of all the phases of the historical process, in order to be able to estimate every phenomenon duly, according to its intrinsic value and its external effect, emphasize characteristic and significant points, and allot to persons and events their proper place in the historical succession. He cannot, of course, dispense with the acumen that intuitively arrives at the inwardness of every detail. For it is needful, not only to determine with critical penetration the trustworthiness of existing traditions and documents, but also to discern and demonstrate, as one traces the course of a stream with its tributaries and branches, the presence of the primal forces at work under the surface of things, giving them impetus and direction, and of the factors that impede, strengthen, or divert the action of these forces. From investigations of this kind the historian should derive the chief points of view, those which grow naturally and logically out of the course of events. The true historian must be endowed to a high degree with a faculty for presaging, amounting almost to divination, that he may, like a “backward-looking prophet,” overcome the inadequacy and incompleteness of the material transmitted to him; restore the defective parts by means of his plastic fancy; and everywhere recognize as well as bring to the recognition of his readers, that historical events in their connection are developments from within outward, the outcome, not of a game of chance, but of the workings of absolute law. For such results of his research and insight the historian must then find adequate expression. His presentation of them must serve as the clear, polished mirror reflecting the play of many-hued, chaotic details in distinct and simply grouped pictures, and permitting the peculiarities and characteristics of single persons and events to be apparent, as the warp and the woof are distinguishable in the finished fabric. Real life as it throbbed in the happenings of the past must stand renewed before our eyes, and its fresh, warm breath as it brushes us must constrain our souls to respond at once to its humors and passions.

These qualities are the distinction of Graetz. By reason of their possession and exercise he is a master historian, and his art manifests itself in each of the twelve comprehensive volumes in which he has thrown light upon the history of the Jewish race from its early beginning to the present, a period of more than three thousand years, with every part of the earth as the scene of its events. But we have not yet come to the end of Graetz’s accomplishments as an historian. The lack of special studies in the province of Jewish history made his attempt to write a history of the Jews appear untimely and the prospect of successful execution slight. His undertaking seemed to be opposed not only by well-nigh insuperable inner and outer obstacles, but also by stubborn prejudices. Graetz heeded nothing of all this. Unaided by any committee or corporation, simply by virtue of his exuberant genius, he executed the apparently impossible work. He created the history of their race for his brethren-in-faith, and awakened in the general public sympathetic interest in the past of Judaism. With bold hand he ventured to brush aside the layer of dust and mould encrusting the darkened portraits of the past, and restore freshness and color to the faded, pale contours and forms.

The most important particulars upon which the value and influence of his work depend deserve analysis.

Above all, Graetz, though he did not create it, was the first to define and occupy the point of view from which the historical development of Judaism must be judged. He cleared the whole historical field, so as to be able to examine the various phases of this development with ease and accuracy. As an historian, Graetz had had but a single predecessor[50] who must be taken into account, Isaac Marcus Jost. In 1820, the latter began to publish a “History of the Israelites from the Time of the Maccabees.”[51] Nine years later nine volumes had appeared, bringing the history down to his own time. Under the title, “Universal History of the Israelitish People,”[52] he published, in 1850, a two-volume epitome with corrections and improvements, covering in addition the period from Abraham to the Maccabees. He did not prove himself a real pioneer in either work. Jost was a scholar, but not an historian; a noble man with admirable qualities, whose varied knowledge gave a considerable impetus to Jewish historical work, but he had not been singled out as the proclaimer of an historical revelation to be spread far and wide in joyful, vigorous utterance. In view of the fact, however, that no monographs on special phases of the subject existed at his time, Jost’s achievement cannot be sufficiently admired. He sought out and arranged the more or less obvious, but widely scattered data, appraising their value and assigning to each its due place. He thus produced a manual for the chaos of confusing details and facts. In respect to manner, his presentation of the subject makes the impression of an herbarium. His work consists of a collection of persons and events, heaped up without reference to their inner relations and classified only according to superficial and accidental marks of resemblance. His speculations are prosy, and do not touch the essence of their subject. His style is dry, diffuse, and monotonous, destitute of fire and force, with nothing to indicate that the author had a lively realization of the past. An admirer of the Roman system and impregnated with Christian ideas, he was unconsciously oppressed by the fear that he was not abreast of the times, and dreaded the charge of partiality if he gave due credit to Judaism and Rabbinism. This accounts for his misrepresentation of the Pharisees and their successors, the Rabbis, and for his false, almost caricature-like treatment of the Talmud and the literature depending upon it. He felt that the consideration of Judaism from the point of view of history at once becomes a glorification thereof, and under no circumstances did he care to incur the imputation of being its apologist.[53]

Graetz entertained no such scruples. In the formation of his opinions fear or timidity had no part; they did not curtail the expression of his judgment regardless of the feelings of friend or foe. He was the first to divest himself wholly of Christian prejudices in the consideration of the Jewish past; the first to try to explain the development of Judaism on inherent principles, as all similar phenomena are explained. He was thus able to distribute light and shade justly, without any attempt to gloss or slur facts. Graetz had been in Berlin but a short time when he met Zunz at the house of Michael Sachs. The two visitors had not yet made each other’s personal acquaintance. The host presented Graetz, adding in praise of him, that he was about to publish a Jewish history. “Another history of the Jews?” Zunz asked pointedly. “Another history,” was Graetz’s retort, “but this time a _Jewish_ history.”[54] And, in truth, Graetz was the first to vindicate the fair claims of Jewish history; he did pioneer work in establishing the validity of the Jewish point of view. Christianity considers the belief in the Messiahship of the Son of God and in the miracles reported in connection with his birth and death the completion and fulfillment of the Law of Moses and of the prophetical promises. Only what springs from this dogma can rise to a proper conception of God, to the heights of true morality, and is capable of promoting the advancement of civilization. Accordingly, having begotten Christianity, Judaism fulfilled its religious mission, and the loss of Jewish national independence occurring almost simultaneously with the rise of Christianity, its spiritual importance was extinguished and its historical progress arrested. Its development since then, it is maintained, bears the marks of decrepitude and degeneration--is nothing more than idolatry of the _Torah_ and religious formalism. To this consciously or unconsciously biased view Graetz wished to oppose a faithful presentation of facts, free from partiality, personal predilections, or specious coloring. He held, that an objective, unprejudiced account sufficed to demonstrate the vitality of Judaism, asserting itself again and again in the midst of distress and persecution; continuing to develop its monotheistic doctrines and its ethical system undisturbed by the loss of a national background, and borne onward only by virtue of its spirituality and ideality; producing thinkers, poets, and even statesmen despite untold suffering; and contributing zealously to the solution of the problems of human civilization, uprooted and dispersed though its adherents were. This point of view Graetz assumed energetically and applied consistently in the elaboration of Jewish history, with the result that we owe to him our conscious acquaintance with the various aspects of Judaism in all their abundance and suggestiveness.

Besides making new sources available, Graetz gained fresh points of view and surprising information from the old ones. He was particularly successful in restoring to Jewish accounts that had become hazy or sounded incredible a freshly colored background and life-like reality, or at least in laying bare their kernel of fact, by the discovery of hardly recognizable parallel passages and proofs in non-Jewish authors. He sought everywhere, and was more or less successful in finding and inserting in their place, connecting links and complementary pieces. When he approached his bold undertaking with the courage inspired by enthusiasm, Jewish history was a vast field of debris, over which volcanic events had poured out their lava, and the centuries had scattered their dust. Here and there a gigantic ruin, some literary production, towered in solitude over the wide stretches of the pathless, dismal waste, the only guide-posts to direct the wanderer through the labyrinth of ruins and underbrush. The great creators of Jewish science, to be sure, Zunz and Rapoport, whose extraordinary deserts are not yet duly appreciated by their brethren-in-faith, had already given the world their excellent works of fundamental importance; yet the great tracts explored and made arable by them seemed no more than smaller or larger islands in a vast sea of rubbish. They did not afford vantage-ground from which the whole could be overlooked. Rarely leaving the domain of literary history, these scholars did not lead up to the positions that dominated the field. In this respect particularly Graetz proved himself a pioneer. Whatever epoch he may be considering, and however much he may seem to be absorbed in details, he never takes his eye from the grand whole. His purpose always is to clear a path through the rank underbrush, or to trace on the exposed surfaces of shattered remains the lines and veins that indicate the essential character and the trend of the historical process. He was endowed with a number of qualities that enabled him to introduce light, order, system, and classification into the chaos of the historical material at his disposal. With rare energy he plunged into the consideration of vast systems of thought, and almost without an effort assimilated and grouped them. In his learned notes he opposes varying accounts, proofs, and hints to one another, and with an adroit hand and a perspicacious mind grasps the main idea firmly and unravels the knotted thread. Finally, fear of error did not deter him from taking a decided stand towards events and persons and giving frank and vigorous expression to his views upon them. Let the reader examine the essays that serve as introductions to certain parts of his work, as, for instance, those in the fourth, fifth, and seventh volumes, and he will appreciate the unerring eye that espies and never loses from sight the motive ideas and the dominating points of view, which not merely are sketched in a general, comprehensive way, but are applied in detail. His “History” affords numerous illustrations of the way in which Graetz promoted and enriched historical research. For example, Saadiah Gaon had been discovered, as it were, by Rapoport, and Geiger had made valuable contributions to our knowledge of him, but the chapter about him in the “History”[55] first fully revealed his epoch-making importance and his rich literary activity. Graetz was the first to recognize and appreciate the notable influence exerted by Chasdaï Crescas[56] upon philosophy and social conditions. The great Disputation of Tortosa, of which we have a trustworthy Jewish account, was nevertheless not understood in its historical bearing and political effect until Graetz ingeniously confronted the Jewish source with Christian reports.[57] The cloud of legend enveloping the enthusiasts David Reubeni and Solomon Molcho,[58] whom students were inclined to regard as no more than hallucinations or phantasmagoria, he resolved into the reality of their fantastic adventures. In short, coupled with rare sagacity in perceiving the true meaning of a mutilated text and emending it accordingly, he had a remarkable instinct for piercing to the reality of facts, no matter how grotesque they might appear.

Such endowments qualified Graetz to translate the Talmudic method of thought and expression into the terms of modern feelings and views, and give a model illustration of the critical examination of the literature of Talmudic times and its use as a valuable historical source. Non-Jewish scholars and sciolists were quick to brand the apparently unintelligible or the curious passages abounding in rabbinic literature as evidences of Talmudic ignorance or rabbinic folly, and the Jews of the emancipation period, if they did not subscribe to this verdict, at least hesitated whether or not to endorse it. Graetz showed plainly that precisely the text of the historical narratives had become wretchedly corrupted and would have to be restored. Besides, he called attention to various features of the historical tradition as told by the rabbis. Either they were treated pragmatically, with their causes and results, or their presentation was intentionally biased, or layers of legend had deposited themselves about the kernel of fact, which awaited release from its envelopes. Over and above all this, he urged that the concrete, figurative expressions of the rabbis, derived from a sphere of thought foreign to us, must be translated into modern concepts. For instance, in an ancient rabbinic chronicle, the _Seder olam rabba_, it is reported that the war of Vespasian is separated from that of Titus by an interval of twenty-two years. Aside from the consideration that it is neither historical nor justifiable to distinguish between a war of Vespasian and a war of Titus, it is impossible to give a satisfactory explanation of the period of twenty-two years. The same incomprehensible distinction between Vespasian’s and Titus’ war occurs in the Mishna at the end of the tractate _Sota_. Graetz changed a single letter, ט {Hebrew: tet} into ק {Hebrew: kof}, and instead of טיטוס {Hebrew: Titus} (Titus), he reads קיטוס {Hebrew: Kitus} (Kitus), _i. e._ Quietus. In this way he discovered a rebellion in Palestine against Lucius Quietus. We know none of its details, but its occurrence is beyond the peradventure of a doubt. The conjecture, as simple as it is ingenious, has been corroborated by a manuscript reading.[59] A narrative in tractate _Sabbath_ 17_a_ is no less curious: “A sword was thrust into the academy, with the words: Whoever desires may go in, but none may come out,” etc. Graetz explains the enigma thus: in the first year of the rebellion against Nero a terrorist synod was dominated by the Shammaites.[60] In general, he considered the opposition between the schools of Hillel and Shammai not merely theoretic but also political, and he identified the rabid Zealots with extreme Shammaites.

“Graetz is deserving of great praise for having established this
fact [the existence of the terrorist synod], until then not
sufficiently appreciated. In itself it is an extremely important
result, and its value is heightened by reason of the data growing
out of it.... At all events, Herr Graetz has won a second
distinction of equally great importance by his use of the _Megilla
Taanith_ as a historical source and his verification of its
statements, even though many remain dubious.”

This is the opinion of the historian[61] Jost, surely a competent judge in such matters.

Where so much light is radiated, there cannot fail to be some shadows. Graetz’s admirable qualities have a reverse side. He often permits subjective views to obtrude themselves too much, and in stating his hypotheses he is apt to clothe them in terms too positive and incisive, not heeding that events dovetail into each other; that men yield to changeful humors and motives, often of a contradictory nature; and that illogical, even irrational turns of language and thought may occasionally occur in the texts. It surely is not astonishing to find inaccuracies, human errors, and misconceptions here and there in a gigantic work of twelve bulky volumes. Faults and shortcomings vanish into forgetfulness by the side of the multiplicity of his results and the grandeur of his achievement. Perspective, life-like characterization, distinct outline, glowing color--these Jewish history owes solely to Graetz’s rich fancy. He opened up new problems, created the historical types, constructed the framework of Jewish history. But his greatest achievement, one that cannot be rated sufficiently high, is that of having procured a hearing with all strata of his coreligionists by means of his charming, easy style. He revived the consciousness of an illustrious past, glorious in spite of persecution and degradation, and the belief in a future of spiritual triumph for Israel. Energetic and ardent as his temperament was, he merged his being in the past of his race, as it were, giving devoted study to the most hidden emotions of the national soul. He associated with the rabbis, philosophers, and poets whose features and forms he draws as with companions and intimate friends. When storms are imminent in the course of the history, he is visibly swayed by hope and fear, and when a catastrophe has overwhelmed his people, he is bowed down with anguish and grief. The reader sees his suffering, and cannot withhold passionate sympathy. For instance, he trembles at the thought of the disgrace and misfortune threatening Israel on account of the aberrations of the pseudo-Messiah Sabbataï Zevi, and consoles himself with the brilliant light of Jewish origin irradiating the world through Spinoza. According to his favorite method of setting men and events over against each other and permitting them to elucidate each other by their very opposition, he sharply contrasts the two figures. He represents both as the product of the Jewish passion for speculation on the infinite, and shows how in the end both sever their connection with Judaism; the one, lured on by the will-o’-the-wisp mysticism, to sink into the abyss of deception and immorality; the other, borne upward by philosophic thought, to soar to the calm but cold heights of an ideal sage.[62] His creative, life-dispensing power wafted the warm, liberating breath of spring over the dull apathy settling like an icy crust on the soul-life of the Jewish brotherhood. He re-awakened general interest in the spirit and the history of Judaism. The most popular writer in the field of Jewish science, he could boast of success phenomenal for a Jewish author; in a comparatively short time, his voluminous work, apparently intended for scholars, attained the distinction of a third, in parts even of a fourth, edition, and in its English, French, Russian, and, last though not least, Hebrew translations,[63] it has become the common possession of all the author’s brethren-in-faith.

The only help extended to Graetz in the prosecution of his comprehensive plan proceeded from the “Institute for the Promotion of Israelitish Literature,”[64] founded in 1855 by Dr. Ludwig Philippson, the most genial and most productive journalist among rabbis. In return for a modest subscription price several books were issued annually, among which a volume of Graetz’s “History” usually formed the chief attraction. Through the “Institute,” a large circulation was secured for the “History” from the first. The Society in turn was so dependent upon Graetz’s work for its popularity that when, on account of a misunderstanding with Philippson, Graetz refused to have the last (eleventh) volume published by the “Institute,” it could not maintain itself long.

On the other hand, there was not lack of hostility, jealousy, and petty annoyances. His work was used everywhere, but not infrequently without an open acknowledgment of its helpfulness. Especially at first the faultfinders and finical critics plied their trade vigorously on his work, as though any Talmudist considered a scholar in his small circle needed but to dip his pen into ink to write a history superior to Graetz’s. Even later, when recognition could not be withheld, praise was given grudgingly, in half-hearted accents. The young theologians of both parties, of the right and of the left wing, were indefatigable in picking flaws of all kinds in his details. They did not realize how effectually they were thus demonstrating his pre-eminence, and failed to understand that so monumental a work cannot by any possible means escape blemishes and malformations.

The “History” completed the breach between Graetz and his sometime teacher, Samson Raphael Hirsch. The latter had left Nikolsburg to act as the rabbi of a wealthy private congregation in Frankfort-on-the-Main. Soon after his removal, he began to issue a monthly journal, _Jeshurun_. In the second and third volumes of the magazine appeared a passionate, violent review of the two parts of the “History” then published, in which Hirsch sat in judgment on Graetz’s heresies. The soreness of the critic is unmistakable. It is doubtful whether his thrusts were not meant to strike the Jewish Theological Seminary at Breslau rather than the “History.” Personal attacks usually left Graetz unmoved, though he was in the habit of repelling them with caustic brevity. But he never forgave hostility towards the young institution. Thus the last slender ties that had still bound the two men to each other were snapped asunder forever. For the rest, active and joyous as his nature was, he did not trouble himself about his critics, nor did they thwart the success of his work; its triumph was complete. On the other hand, he was frankly proud of the distinction conferred upon him by the Prussian government in making him, in December, 1869, honorary professor of the Breslau University. This governmental recognition went far towards compensating him for the lack of regular professional advancement in his academic career, the sore point in his life, at which spiteful antagonists delighted to aim their shafts.

With the eleventh volume, published in 1870, he brought the history of the Jews since the Maccabean struggle down to the present time (1848); nine volumes had appeared in uninterrupted succession. To complete and crown the work it was necessary to give an account of ancient Jewish history covering the Biblical and three centuries and a half of post-Biblical times. Graetz devoted scrupulous care to this portion of his work. He considered its importance paramount, and regarded the treatment of the early epochs as a most difficult task, requiring for its adequate performance exegetical studies and original text criticism. Graetz thought himself particularly qualified and endowed for such work; it had always been his favorite pursuit. But before attacking the history of Israel and ancient Judæa, he determined to satisfy his longing to behold the Holy Land with his bodily eye, as he had often sought to picture it to his mental eye. With equal force his artistic impulse drew him to Palestine. He hoped to derive local color and inspiration for the description of hoary events from the sight of consecrated places, which had been their scenes and their witnesses. As early as 1865, he had formed the plan of a journey to Palestine, the execution of which became possible only in March, 1872, when two friends joined him. Limited to his private resources and hampered by consideration for his traveling companions, he was not able to make his trip thoroughly satisfactory from a scientific point of view. After all he obtained what he had journeyed abroad to find; he brought back impressions, enthusiasm, inspiration. In quick succession the two, or more accurately, three[65] parts of his work treating of the Biblical and early post-Biblical time appeared between 1874 and 1876, and his historical work was complete according to the plan he had sketched for himself. It was the brilliant fulfillment of the promise “to furnish a history of the Jews from the most ancient times to the present day elaborated from the original sources,” which he had made in 1854, when he began his career as an historian with the publication of the fourth volume of his “History.” Grand in conception, clear and perspicuous in execution, riveting attention by its charming style, the work has not failed to find entrance into the hearts of the author’s brethren-in-faith. It remains unsurpassed in the present, and the future historian will realize that he cannot deviate from the great lines laid down in it. The little blemishes and errors of various kinds that disfigure all human creations do not affect the impression made by the work as a whole. The discovery of hidden sources, now unsuspected, may necessitate additions and changes in details, but the great points of view, the pragmatic conception, the underlying thoughts, as he deduces them from the intricate complexity of Jewish history, will never be superseded. Graetz’s “History of the Jews,” voluminous though it is, will forever remain an integral part of Jewish literature.

VI.

THE EXEGETE.

The first two, or rather three, parts of the “History” form the transition to Graetz’s exegetical studies. In their excellencies as well as in their shortcomings they betray all the characteristics of his work in Bible exposition. Obviously Graetz had only awaited the completion of the history of Judaism from the end of the Maccabean struggle to the present time to enter, with all the vigor of his intellect, upon the _second phase of his activity as a writer_, that devoted to Bible exegesis and textual criticism. Exegetical studies, no less than historical research, were a distinct life-aim with him. They were begun in 1871, and continued without interruption until unexpected death snatched the pen from his hand. To be accurate, the second phase of his literary activity should be dated from 1869. In that year Zacharias Frankel, wishing to devote all his energy to his work on the so-called Jerusalem Talmud, transferred the _Monatsschrift_ to Graetz. He marked the beginning of his editorial management with an essay on “The Ebionites in the Old Testament,”[66] the first of a series in Old Testament exposition and Hebrew philology. In part, they may be regarded as monographs in preparation for his history of the Biblical times. The series was continued uninterruptedly, year after year, until 1887, when Graetz discontinued the publication of the _Monatsschrift_.

In view of the narrow compass of Biblical literature, comprising the whole residue of ancient Israelitish writings and therefore the whole treasury of the Hebrew language at our disposal, even those expounders that cling to the word and to tradition with slavish faithfulness are granted wide scope for individual judgments and subjective hypotheses, depending for their acceptance not upon precise proof, but upon the inquirer’s will and disposition. It is natural, then, that Graetz with his strongly developed subjectivity, his delicately attuned ear, and his gift of bold conjecture, should have reached conclusions sharply contrasting with all accepted views and incapable of logical, scientific demonstration. His results and explanations, the outcome of a passionate desire for clearness and consistency, are often of startling originality. All sorts of new questions were set on foot by him, many fruitful suggestions may be traced to him, and he bore many a trophy from the battlefields of textual criticism. The boldness of his exegesis is illustrated by his treatment of the two Hagiographic books, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, which, published in quick succession in 1871, introduced him to the world as an exegete. He attributes the composition of _Koheleth_ (or the Preacher, translation and critical commentary)[67] to the reign of Herod, and places the author of _Shir ha-Shirim_ (or the Song of Songs, translation and critical commentary)[68] in the Macedonian-Syrian time. Though the hypotheses concerning the time of the composition of the two books and many other propositions are curious, and overwhelm the reader by their pronounced deviation from all opinions hitherto advanced; still it must be confessed, that the conjecture with regard to the origin of Ecclesiastes is engaging in the extreme, and it cannot be denied, that the translations are good and in unexceptionable taste, that the remarks and references are instructive, and that the older versions were used with care and attention. In the commentary on Ecclesiastes, decidedly more valuable than that on the Song of Songs, he offers besides interesting data with regard to the Greek translation. Moreover, Graetz frequently adduced analogies from the Mishna and the Talmud, made exhaustive use of whatever was advantageous for textual criticism in the Talmudic literature, and thus brought to light new material in such a way as to make it available for the “higher criticism.” This, in fact, constitutes his real and permanent distinction as an exegete.

His expositions were guided by two chief assumptions, both rooted in the depths of his character. He held that in every Biblical work an historical background can be discerned with more or less ease; that even generalizations and reflections cannot conceal their connection with special facts, which must be deduced and determined. Again, he was of the opinion, that a contradiction or obscurity in a Biblical passage cannot be resolved by a twisting of words and phrases or by far-fetched analogies in remote though related idioms. They were evidence to him that the text had come to grief, and that the original text could be restored only by a conjecture, which might be disengaged from the context, or patterned on a Talmudic parallel, or deduced from older translations. He did not doubt that catastrophes, the centuries, and perhaps also the incompetence of copyists, had mutilated the original Bible text, and wrenched it out of shape, and he thought that even later, when it had been fixed with scrupulous care, all sorts of errors might have crept in.

According to these principles Graetz treated the Psalms. In 1881 he published a German translation of them, and in 1882-83 followed a “Critical Commentary to the Psalms with Text and Translation. 2 vols.”[69] The commentary is designed on a generous scale, and gives abundant evidences of ripe scholarship. But by the side of its excellent features it contains many hazardous guesses and vague, even though ingenious hypotheses. Justus Olshausen, an Orientalist highly esteemed on account of his learning and his sobriety, who was occupied with the critical examination of the Old Testament text for philological purposes, says the following about the commentary on the Psalms in a letter to the author:[70]

“On account of its boldness your commentary will certainly arouse
serious objections with the larger number of exegetes, themselves
overbold in exegesis, but weak in criticism. As for me, you know
that I am not affrighted by boldness in criticism when coupled with
knowledge of the language and the subject-matter, with acumen,
and, above all, with sound common sense. Doubtless, I shall not
be able to agree with you in every case in which, overconfident
perhaps, you may believe that you have hit upon the correct
solution of a difficulty. That, however, does not prevent me from
recognizing that your book, by reason of its abundance of excellent
emendations, is a valuable addition to exegetical literature.”

Graetz undoubtedly hit upon many a happy guess, and applause was not lacking, but in general his results met with opposition so decided that we may surely expect a later generation to review the judgment of our time and separate the chaff from the wheat. Not in the least intimidated by the adverse criticism upon his exegetical methods, he was resolved to remove the difficulties attaching to the Old Testament language by all the means at his command. He thought himself justified in his confidence in himself in matters of textual criticism, upon which chiefly he concentrated his explanations in the course of time. He grew more and more unrestrained in his efforts to restore approximately the original text of the Bible by means of audacious conjectures, which his sympathetic mind was never weary of devising. In other fields he was always careful to keep in connection and in touch with tradition; destructive tendencies were not at all characteristic of him. But in his textual criticism he permitted his zeal to run away with him, until he lost the solid ground of the Bible text and of reality from under his feet. His acumen displayed and dissipated itself chiefly in the blinding pyrotechnics of rocket-like emendations. Of this character are his exegetical studies on the prophet Jeremiah,[71] on the Proverbs of Solomon,[72] and his fine essay on Bible exegesis.[73]

This kind of work was so attractive to him, that in the latter years of his life he set about the execution of a long-cherished and widely comprehensive plan for the critical examination and the emendation of the text of the whole Bible. The realization of this plan was to be the consummation and crown of his life’s labors. But he was not destined to celebrate such unquestioned and brilliant successes in this field as in that of history, where he had earned and received the laurels due a pioneer. Yet, we must be careful not to underrate his exegetical and critical achievements as to their intrinsic value and their influence. His exegetical works and essays are replete with new points of view and interesting suggestions. Many a germ that has since proved fruitful can be traced to them, and they have had a lasting effect upon the development of Bible exegesis. His works of this class, original and important enough to fill a life of scholarly research, would suffice to secure to their author an honorable name and a prominent place in the history of Jewish science.

VII.

LAST YEARS.

From year to year Graetz received an increasing number of proofs of the recognition and veneration paid him by a large circle of readers and admirers and a growing band of friends and aspiring disciples. But the enjoyment of his success was not to be unalloyed. In 1879 the feeling against Jews in Germany, always on the point of breaking out, was set free in the shape of an anti-Semitic movement, to serve as an unfailing instrument for political agitation. Heinrich von Treitschke, an historian characterized by patriotic ardor rather than scrupulous adherence to word and truth, a writer with affecting, oratorical pathos and a brilliant style at his command, soon assumed the rôle of challenger in the fray. He was scandalized by the boasting spirit which, he alleged, was in the ascendant in Jewish circles, and was to be regarded as a menace to the German empire. He illustrated his strictures by references to Graetz, who, he maintained, made use of intemperate language in his polemics against Christianity, and in his “History” had been guilty of applying disrespectful expressions to the German nation.[74] Graetz replied, and Treitschke in turn made him the subject of an article,[75] in which he tried to prove his allegations. He quoted passages from the “History,” tearing them from their context, and resorted to all sorts of sophistry. The leaders of the intelligent portion of Berlin Jewry probably did not realize the gravity of the situation. At all events, they were far from having a clear idea of the means necessary for stemming the rapidly swelling tide. They were disinclined, however, to suffer Treitschke’s attacks to pass unrepulsed, for they had reason to suppose them to be more than the venomous utterances of a professor. Thereupon H. B. Oppenheim, a well-known politician and writer on political economy, and highly esteemed for his disinterested and noble character, adopted the mistaken course of sacrificing Graetz to Treitschke’s aggressive charges without examining them. Confessedly he had not read Graetz’s works, yet he disposed of their author summarily as “a man without tact and fanatically one-sided, whose great learning has been rendered nugatory by the absurdity of his practical deductions.”[76] This peculiar defense of Judaism, to be sure, did not excite distressful feeling in any one, but later events prove it to have been symptomatic of the opinions and the mental constitution of the intellectual notabilities of the Berlin Jewish community.

A Berlin Jew had been put at the head of the “Union of German Israelitish Congregations,”[77] when its headquarters had been moved from Leipsic to Berlin. Active and clever in practical affairs, he invested the “Union” with dignity, and stirred it up to work and enterprise. With his help all sorts of useful undertakings were executed; among them, in 1885, a plan to promote the science of Judaism, hitherto wholly neglected, along definite lines. A commission was to be appointed to make means and sources for research into the history of the Jews of Germany available under the protection of the “Union.” The project was hailed with satisfaction by Jewish scholars. It was hoped that it would eventually furnish the center from which other scientific endeavors might radiate. All hopes of this kind were early doomed to grievous disappointment. The leaders of the “Union” lacked perception of the needs of the situation; they permitted an ambitious young scholar of the Jewish faith, an “extraordinary” professor at the University of Berlin, to become the governing spirit. He was familiar with the mediæval government offices, and did valiant service in the study of documents. But he was destitute of the most elementary knowledge of Hebrew, and therefore could have no conception of the peculiar difficulties the writer of Jewish history has to grapple with. Besides, he had so completely identified himself with his specialty and with the academic world of professors that a realizing sense of the condition and needs of German Judaism was out of the question. Under these circumstances serious mistakes were inevitable. In the first place Graetz was disregarded, completely ignored, when the commission which was to organize and superintend the historical investigations was made up. The arbitrary exclusion of the only or, at all events, the most eminent historian the Jews can boast of must be considered a gross offense against good manners. What is more, the good work was thereby deprived of the best and most valuable guarantee of success. Personal animosity may have contributed to bring about the deplorable action, but that does not alter the fact that Graetz was most familiar with the field of work to be cultivated. None recognized more clearly than he the desiderata[78] that occupied the attention and guided the efforts of the scholars interested in Jewish history at the time. Besides, he was an indefatigable, impulsive worker, and his name was one to conjure with. The slight put upon Graetz called forth decided ill-humor among his numerous friends and disciples, a large portion of whom were the rabbinical heads of respected congregations. Their irritation could not long remain without tangible effect. Moreover, though the commission was composed of highly esteemed scholars, among them Christians who were master historians of the first rank, there was not one member who had attained to more than respectable dilettanteism in his acquaintance with Jewish literature, a thorough knowledge of which was indispensable for the proper realization of the plan, and only one member who had given evidence of his special interest in Jewish history by a work of note. This exception was Professor Stobbe, a humane Christian scholar and eminent jurist, who has described the historico-legal status of the German Jews in “The Jews in Germany during the Middle Ages,”[79] a book that has not yet been superseded. The absence of Jewish scholars, specifically of Jewish historians, awakened distrust in the ability of the commission. In fact, its achievements, as displayed in the “Journal for the History of the Jews in Germany”[80] and in separate publications, are far from realizing the expectations awakened by the boastful, arrogant tone of scientific conceit in which the leaders announced the undertaking, and are out of all proportion to the expenditures incurred. The most ambitious production, “Documents on the History of the Jews, etc.,”[81] is a fragment. Quietly, unnoticed, the experiment died one day in the year 1892.[82]

The inconsiderate treatment accorded him by the Berlin coterie or other circles did not cause Graetz much heart-ache, and whatever soreness it may have produced was completely healed by London, whence he received the flattering invitation to open the Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition with a lecture. The honorable reception accorded him in the English capital, the persons whose acquaintance he made, and the impressions he carried home with him, all this refreshed him, and put him into a buoyant frame of mind. The visit to England he accounted one of the happiest and most enjoyable events of his life. The experiences gathered there strengthened the hope, to which he had often given expression, that salvation would arise for Judaism out of England and America.

On October 31, 1887, he celebrated the seventieth anniversary of his birth. His disciples and friends made it the occasion for an extraordinary ovation, and from all countries and climes homage was laid at his feet. An overwhelming number of addresses, gifts, congratulatory letters, and poems proved that his achievements were in the mind and his honor in the keeping of the whole body of intelligent Jews. A particularly gratifying surprise came in the shape of a diploma announcing that on October 27, 1888, he, the Jew, who had not dealt leniently with the Spanish nation in his historical writings, had been elected an honorary member of its section in history by the Spanish Academy at Madrid.

Until the very last his body and mind retained remarkable elasticity and vigor; time seemed to pass him by unnoticed. His indestructible working powers and his literary fertility continued to be astonishing.[83] Even after concentrating his efforts on exegetical research, he was a vigilant reader of the monographs in whatever civilized language, bearing, however remotely, on problems of the science of Judaism. He gave the conclusions reached in them a critical examination, and either noted them for the enrichment and correction of a new edition of his “History,” or refuted them in special articles, if they seemed sufficiently important. For, besides his historical and exegetical works, in number and bulk an imposing array, he published numberless essays and _Programmschriften_ on the most various subjects, many of them real gems, models of clear writing and deep scholarship. In some of them daring theories are advanced, as, for instance, the one which he would never abandon, that the Massora originated with the Karaites, from whose literary works the Rabbanites derived it. The conjecture was received with a great display of indignation, but its refutation was not equally emphatic, and it cannot be denied that certain evidences may be interpreted in its favor.

Among his _Programmschriften_ the following deserve to be singled out: “Visigothic Legislation with Regard to the Jews,”[84] in the annual report of the Jewish Theological Seminary for 1858; “Frank and the Frankists,”[85] in that for 1868; and “The Kingdom of Mesene and its Jewish Population,”[86] in that for 1879. In the _Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums_, of which, as mentioned above, he was the editor from 1869, the greater part of the articles issued from his pen. There is but one way of accounting for his numerous achievements: he understood to perfection the art of utilizing every moment.

Five o’clock in the morning found Graetz at his desk. Until nine he gave uninterrupted attention to his literary work. After that hour he was in the habit of devoting himself to his lectures. He carried on an extensive correspondence, found leisure for all sorts of things, and was fond of the innocent gayeties of social life. He retired late, and in general needed but little sleep. His sound, almost invincible nervous system was supplemented by a constitution calculated to supply his extraordinary capacity for work with a proper physical basis. He was of average height, and habitually bent forward his lean and spare, but sinewy, muscular figure, built upon a strong bony frame. His face was somewhat marred by pock-marks, but his head made a massive, unusual impression. Soft, chestnut-brown, later gray hair, in fair though not clustering abundance, crowned his board-like, square forehead. His sharp, observant eyes, grayish-brown in color, betokened the owner’s enjoyment of life, and a somewhat large, prominent nose with its delicate nostrils, quivering like “feelers,” gave his long, oval, bony face its characteristic searching expression. Sometimes sadness played about his lips, but usually they were curled by mockery, irony, and defiance, as though sarcastic words might dart out at any moment. In point of fact, sharp satire occasionally spiced his conversation, which, as a rule, however, was far from fulfilling the expectations aroused by his writings. In his younger years happy moments found him full of jokes and pranks for the delectation of his domestic circle, and at all times he displayed unquenchable zest for life and cheerful optimism. Love of family was a dominant trait in him. Towards his wife his bearing was always tender and attentive, as though the honeymoon had not passed; towards his daughter it was marked by the perfection of gallantry; towards his sons he exercised forbearance and self-sacrificing devotion, and his aged father he met with the filial respect of Talmudic times. He enjoyed and cultivated intercourse with friends. For a friend, for any person or cause that had enlisted his sympathy, he was ready to pledge himself. Deeply moved by the sad conditions prevalent in Palestine, he had brought thence a plan for the education of Jewish orphans in Jerusalem. He and his traveling companions founded a society, and he exerted himself to secure a fund, small though it might be, for the promotion of its object. For this purpose he took journey after journey, delivered lectures, at first much against his inclination, in many cities, and even accepted an invitation to go to Galicia, where he was received with joyful demonstrations and overwhelmed with flattering homage. Encouraged by such successes, he persisted, until he had put the society upon a modest but secure basis, which enables it to continue its good work to this day.

Robust and vigorous as he felt himself, he undertook in his old age a work in which he meant to sum up his Bible studies of a critical and exegetical character. He counted, not upon the sympathy of his contemporaries, but upon the appreciation of a late posterity. All subordinate occupations were dropped. In 1888 he even discontinued the publication of the _Monatsschrift_, none of his pupils being able then to assume the editorial management. In order to give a clear, comprehensive review of the results of his Biblical text studies, he proposed to print the Hebrew Bible in its entirety with emendations and short notes justifying them. In 1891 all preparatory work was completed, and the printing was begun. How he cherished this life-work of his is evident from the prospectus. Contrary to his custom, he addresses himself to his friends, and requests them to assist him in his venture.

“At the end of my life,” he says in the prospectus, “I have
undertaken the laborious task of _summarizing_ the emendations
of the text of the Holy Scriptures, the admissibility and
justification of which no less than the necessity for which the
accompanying prospectus sets forth.... I beg you to aid my efforts
... in order that the pecuniary risk incurred may not too far
transcend my means.”

This prospectus appeared in July, 1891, and it was the last word that issued from the author’s untiring pen for publication.