Chapter XXVI: Part I: ¹ (10)

An enthusiastic Christian Zionist, Gawler was at the same time a strong advocate of Jewish emancipation which was to him a duty of justice, because: “First, it would be part payment of a heavy debt of retribution that England owes to the Hebrew race for bygone centuries of cruelty and oppression. Westminster Abbey itself was rebuilt by money extorted from the Jews (Maddox’s _History of the Exchequer_, and Hunter’s _History of London_). And, secondly, it would _be taking a part_, which is to the honour and interest of the British Nation to perform, in assisting the great movement of deliverance from oppression and bondage that for many years past has been in operation throughout the whole civilized world, in behalf of the Ancient People of God.”¹

¹ _The Emancipation of the Jews_, by Col. G. Gawler. London,
1847, Preface.

VII. (vol. i., p. 139)

The Rev. Alex. B. C. Dallas (1791‒1869), author of several works, said in a lecture in 1845: ... “The first object is the time when Jerusalem is to be safely inhabited by the people of Judah, as of old. This we learn from Zechariah (XII. 6 and XIV. 11), and from all the prophets. If then the western Jews of Europe were to be placed under some political arrangement, with an independent jurisdiction over the city and suburbs alone, that prophecy would be fulfilled” (_Present Times and Future Prospects_, Rev. W. R. Fremantle. London, 1845, p. 116).

The Rev. W. R. Fremantle (1781‒1859), the editor of this volume and a priest of great learning, dealing with the same subject, remarked: “It has been thought that if cabinets of Europe only agree upon some terms, and draw up a treaty for the restoration of the Jews to Palestine, the whole matter would be speedily arranged. But if the position which our subject holds in the coming future be correctly stated, then are there many steps in this work of restoration. The first is evidently partial and preparatory” (_Ibid._, pp. 253‒4).

The Rev. Williams Cadman said in the same series of lectures: “When the storm is passed, Israel shall be found in peaceful and quiet possession. The desolate land shall be tilled; the ruined places shall be built, and the waste cities become fenced, and be inhabited, and filled with flocks of men” (_Ibid._, pp. 303‒4).

In a Paper¹ read before the British Association of Science at Aberdeen, September 16th, 1859, by Major Scott Philipps, on the Resettlement of the Seed of Abraham in Syria and Arabia, it was shown that the small portion they have hitherto possessed, by no means comprises the whole grant of country given to Abraham, but that the whole of Arabia Felix is included in that grant. Their full inheritance is given in Deuteronomy xi. 24: ‘Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the River Euphrates even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be.’

¹ This paper has recently been reprinted.

“Now rule a line from the northern roots of Lebanon to the southern roots of Sinai, and will not a perpendicular thereto point out the uttermost sea to be the East Sea, or Sea of Oman? And the uttermost sea opposite the River Euphrates, is it not the Red Sea?

“Thus the Euphrates, the Mediterranean, the Nile, and the Red Sea are proved to be the boundaries of the Promised Land.”

The Rev. Jacob H. Brooke Mountain wrote in a letter published by Miss Rosa Rame (_The Restoration of the Jews_, etc., dedicated to the Earl of Shaftesbury. London, 1860):――

“There was a time, when the Duke of Wellington was at the head of affairs, when the Navy of England was absolute on the ocean, and her military glory at its height, and when the Jews would thankfully have paid the whole expense of the expedition, that they might have been put in possession of their own country. And England would have become the first of the nations in Europe――our influence over Turkey, Greece and Egypt rendered paramount――and a devoted ally attached to us. The opportunity was lost; if it is ever vouchsafed to us again, I fervently pray that we may embrace it with zeal and alacrity. The time may yet come, if England has grace to use it.”

VIII. (vol. i., p. 152)

The clause as it is to be found in the General Treaty between Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia and Turkey, signed at Paris, March 30th, 1856, runs as follows:――

“M.T.Maj. the Sultan having in his constant solicitude for the welfare of his subjects, issued a Firman which, while ameliorating their condition without distinction of religion or of race, records his generous intentions towards the Christian population of his Empire,” etc. It is quite clear that the principle was “without distinction of religion or race,” and that the grant of rights to the Christians is only an application of a general principle in a special case.

In the second Protocol of the Conference of the 30th of August, 1860, at Paris, signed by Metternich, Thouvenel, Cowley, Reuss, Kisseleff and Ahmed Vefik, where the autonomy of the Lebanon was decided, reference is made again to this paragraph:――

“Neanmoins ils ne peuvent s’empêcher, en rappelant ici les actes emanes de Sa Majesté la Sultan dont l’article 9 du traité du 30 mars, 1856, a constate la haute valeur,” etc. (_Recueil des Traités de la Porte Ottoman_, 1884, T. 6, p. 45).

IX. (vol. i., p. 160)

It is noteworthy that Palestinian rabbis recognized the activity of the English Consul. James Finn was, indeed, an English pioneer of the idea of the colonization of Palestine and of England’s protection of Palestinian Jews. He was appointed Consul before the death of Bishop Alexander (who was a converted Jew and the first Bishop appointed by the English Government in Jerusalem), in 1848, and the chief reason for his appointment was his known love of the Jewish cause. He was at the time a member of the London Society’s Committee, had published an interesting and learned work on the History of the Spanish Jews, as well as a book upon the Chinese Jews, had devoted himself with great zeal and rare success to the study of Hebrew, which he spoke and wrote with fluency, and was considered on this account to be particularly well qualified for the post of Consul at Jerusalem (another proof of the great appreciation of the National Jewish character of Palestine on the part of the British Government at that time). Finn went out as a devoted friend to the Jewish cause, and as such he proved himself. Though an ardent Christian, he won the sympathy of the most orthodox Jerusalem rabbis, and their moral support for the colonization of Palestine. He was the son-in-law of Alexander McCaul, a distinguished Christian Hebraist who devoted the greater part of his active life to missionary work among the Jews. When the Bishopric of Jerusalem was established in 1842, under the joint protection of the Queen of England and the King of Prussia, McCaul was the first to be offered the See.

“By desire of the King of Prussia, and with the hearty concurrence of the heads of the Church, the bishopric in Jerusalem was tendered to Dr. McCaul, the worthiest, perhaps, of all the Gentiles for that high honour. He demanded, however, but short time for deliberation and refusal, declaring his firm belief that the Episcopate of St. James was reserved, in the providence of God, for the brethren of the apostle according to the flesh.”¹ Bishop Alexander was thereupon offered and accepted the trust.

¹ _Jewish Intelligence_, June, 1842, p. 207.

X. (vol. i., p. 194)

Zionism is not merely an economic, but also, and perhaps primarily, a spiritual movement. The Jewish people must be able to live in accordance with the requirements of its soul in Palestine. Economically it could perhaps live equally well elsewhere, but spiritually only in its own historical and actual home. No people on earth have so highly valued the spiritual as the Jews. The ever-recurring _motif_ of the _Thora_ (the Law) is the most striking proof of this conception. The spiritual capacity of a people is not its all, but certainly its highest possession. For this constituent complements all other possessions and ennobles every other interest. Traditions are of high standing, but ignorance and superstition cause otherwise good and great traditions to become forces which, instead of working for good, only interfere as disturbing, thwarting and perplexing elements in the activities of life.

“The ignorant cannot be pious” was a good old saying of the ancients, but of the impious learned ones, on the contrary, the saying was: “May they but cherish the Law, for the light of the Law will turn them towards the good.” Man must not, of course, regard learning as the goal, but without knowledge his life and existence are blind; only in the light of cognition can the traditions of a people assume the best possible form. Historical reminiscences are of the greatest importance for the consciousness of the people, but even they shrink into pitiful narrowness if the breadth of outlook upon life be wanting. In any case the fundamentally good is only sanctified when the pursuit of learning has widened the horizon of everything human, and has taught the art of building up with the best materials out of the past in harmony with the present. This is the universal function of learning, and in comparison with this sphere of action all other superficial functions sink into mere activities which only acquire value through learning.

This fundamental idea, upon which the whole of Judaism is based, may be illustrated from another aspect. When the Seventy Elders had translated the Pentateuch into Greek, which was the most cultured language of Antiquity, the learned ones complained and even went so far as to assert in a paradoxical sentence: “The day on which this happened is like unto the days of woe at the time of the destruction of the Temple.” We have only succeeded by degrees in grasping the deep truth of this sentence. Translation, generalization, localization may be necessary in the Dispersion. But one must not be deceived: only that which is written in the original tongue of the people is genuinely national. The Law of the Jewish nation can only be preserved in all its originality in the language of that nation.

That the _Shechinah_ (the glory of God) should languish in exile, that the _Thora_ should have to share the hard fate of its bearers, condemned to wander from place to place in foreign lands, seemed to many a mystical idea. But, in reality, this idea is but an expression of the conscious need or longing for the old home. There is not the slightest trace of mysticism in this: it is a clear and illuminating thought. Learning must, in order to be disseminated and perpetuated among the successive generations, have some kind of institution available for the purpose of an adequate interchange of ideas. For the purposes of the formation of scientific, professional classes, for the development of an organized system of education, for the vitalization of the language, for the purpose of entering into relation with natural surroundings, it is necessary to presume a whole series of cultural precedents, which would probably be for the greater part of a practical nature. Not until these conditions have been created will national Jewish culture, ancient but ever young, appear in all its glory. In the Dispersion there are, unfortunately, but a few who are able, through the power of intuition, to realize the sublimity and depth of a chapter from the Hebrew prophetic scriptures. They have preserved the Jewish spirit, partly through atavism, and partly through tradition and long study. But no outsider can experience the same feeling towards the Hebrew bible as a Palestinian Jew. No one else either can rightly understand a “Mishna” of the “Seder Z’raïm,” the part which treats of the Palestinian flora, in spite of the most ingenious commentaries. In the Ghetto, they only extract from the _Thora_ that for which the Ghetto possesses understanding――the disputations concerning business (_Dine momonoth_) or the Dietary Laws, and the laws concerning the sabbath and the festivals. The _Thora_ in its entirety can only be revived in Palestine. The Dispersion only possesses fragments of an ancient national culture, which are, in every country, differently valued, and vague remembrances and surmises of the nature of a national feeling.

It stands to reason that a real national feeling can only develop in Palestine. There this feeling would become what it is among all other sound, healthy and civilized peoples: the joyful consciousness of belonging to a nation that in life, customs and language bears the impress of an ancient and yet new culture. It is in this and not in the superficialities of a state that the centre of gravity of Zionist efforts consists. What Zionists want is to find in the historical fatherland the conditions requisite for the untrammelled development of a Jewish nation. Zionism is in its deepest sense a product of Jewish national consciousness.

What actually is national consciousness? National consciousness, a product of a national common consciousness and of an historically conditioned feeling of unity, is not based upon a single undertaking by a single group of men, or of a single impulse in the history of this group, but upon a certain inborn cultural value of a given people. National consciousness thus expresses this value as a peculiar embodiment of the human soul, which, during the course of special lives enriches humanity so that the right is claimed for the nation in question to safeguard its existence and to develop according to its own individuality within the world of nations. This consciousness is capable of a very varied development in strength, formation and tendency. It manifests itself in the joy felt in the preservation of its own national characteristics, in the promotion of its fitness, in the relation of the efficiency of the individual to the welfare of the whole, and in the willingness to sacrifice for the good of the whole people. This consciousness possesses, besides, certain specific aspects which are peculiar to the one nation more than to any other. It must possess these specific aspects or else it would be nothing more than an imitation or a continuation of its antithesis: assimilation.

Consequently a Jewish national consciousness must likewise lay emphasis upon the specific aspects which are of a spiritual nature. The Jewish people is essentially neither ambitious of domination, nor bent on proselytizing, neither adventurous nor aggressive; it is a people eminently endowed intellectually that wishes to enjoy the blessings of peace. Some of the immoral backwaters of the national consciousness are national pride, presumption, blindness to the qualities and efficiency of foreigners, malicious envy, lust of domination, ill-will. The Jewish people is sufficiently safeguarded against such failings by its spiritual endowment.

XI. (vol. i., p. 205)

Dr. Chas. F. Zimpel published in 1865 an _Appel à la société Chrétienne toute entière ainsi qu’aux Israelites, pour la déliverance de Jerusalem_ (Frankfort-on-the-Main) in which he gave a description of the deplorable conditions in Palestine, and appealed to Christians and Jews to establish a new order of things in that country. He referred to the ideas of Napoleon I., and mentioned a statement that Napoleon III. made some definite promises in this matter: “Que S.M. Napoleon III. en ait le pressentiment ou la conviction, il est certain que, d’après ce qui m’a été communiqué, il a donné, il y a environ trois ans ... sa parole de travailler dans ce but” (p. 12). This statement is evidently related to the propaganda of M. Dunant, which was much stimulated by the beginning of the work on the Suez Canal. Earlier, in 1852, Zimpel had published a pamphlet, _Die Israeliten in Jerusalem_ (Stuttgart, 1852), in which he appealed to his readers for support of the agricultural Jewish settlement established by the Americans in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Zimpel, who declared himself to be a Christian, contributed five hundred florins. He mentioned among the promoters of the idea the American Dr. J. T. Barclay, and a prominent Jerusalemite, John Meshullam. About Meshullam, who was a baptized Jew, born in London, who had had an adventurous career, a part of which was spent in the service of Lord Byron, some interesting particulars are given, under date 20th March, 1852, in _The Sabbath Recorder_ of New York, No. 413, of the 20th of May, 1852. This paper quotes an extract from a journal of Mr. C. S. Minor, an American (Christian) gentleman, who was associated with Meshullam in his agricultural settlement at Bethlehem:

“Through a recent petition of the Turkish Effendis of Jerusalem, the Sultan has lately sent him (Meshullam) an offer of the site of the ancient Cæsarea and its fertile vicinity, if he will undertake and superintend its rebuilding and cultivation. This is greatly surprising and important, as Cæsarea has the most lovely and easily rebuilt ruins in Palestine, and is a point of great commercial importance and entrance to the whole land, and was formerly the chosen port of the Romans. This he declines from his love to Jerusalem and his suffering brethren within its walls.”

Meshullam is again mentioned in Colonel George Gawler’s book, _Syria_, etc. (London, 1853, p. 78): “Some have supposed that the Hebrew people are at present unfitted for field or garden work. Such as think this cannot have witnessed Hebrew labourers, aye, and Hebrew Rabbis, at work in Mr. Meshullam’s farm at Urtan.”

XII. (vol. i., p. 216)

In the year 1884 the delegates of the _Chovevé Zion_ Unions, mostly from Russia, met in conference at Kattowitz in Silesia, close to the Russo-Polish frontier. A _Bne-Brith_ Union had formerly been founded there which had for its object: “To afford moral and material support for the foundation of colonies, to Jews undergoing religious persecution.” The words “In Palestine” were only introduced later. But in the appeal which this Union had circulated in 1882, Palestine was expressly mentioned as the future home of the Jewish nation, and the national future of the Jewish community was exalted with every conceivable distinctness. In this appeal Palestine was opposed to America, towards which the main stream of emigration was flowing, and was represented as a suitable land of immigration on account of all the reasons which it is usual to adduce: the low cost of the journey, the value of the concentration of Jewish masses upon common territory; the country’s fertility, among others. The president of this _Bne-Brith_ Lodge, M. Moses, was known as a zealous _Chovev Zion_. This circumstance, and the proximity of the town to the Russo-Polish frontier, were the reasons for its selection for the Conference.

The Conference had elected a central committee, whose seat should originally have been in Berlin, but it turned out differently. Odessa remained the centre of the Friends of Zion. It also determined that henceforward a better administration of the funds was to be carried through. An attempt was to be made to obtain the recognition of the Society by the Russian Government; the position of the colonization was to be tested on the spot, and it was only then to be determined which colonies were to be supported. New foundations were not to be considered in the meantime. Finally, a delegation was to be sent to the Turkish Government to effect the removal of the difficulties standing in the way of Jewish colonization in Palestine. Although, as had been foreseen, it was not yet possible to gather all the threads into one hand, the organizing thought and a Zionistic programme were proclaimed here for the first time. The newly founded institution was given the name “Maskereth Moshe,” or “Montefiore Foundation for Supporting Colonies of the Holy Land,” so named in remembrance of Montefiore, whose hundreth birthday had been celebrated with widespread enthusiasm, especially in Russia. Through the sale of Montefiore pictures, the first common fund, 40,000 roubles, had been raised.

The Conference had no great real success. In spite of the propaganda undertaken by the central committee the movement came to a standstill. Already, in 1887, a Conference was arranged at Drusgenik, Russia, whose practical result differed but little from that of Kattowitz. It was decided to support certain colonies, and an office was set up in Palestine from which the negotiations with the Turkish Government were to be conducted and the land purchases controlled. Though this Conference was followed by a certain increase of the propaganda, the undertaking on the whole was in such a bad way, partly on account of the distressing condition of the Palestine colonies, that Pinsker finally resigned. Not till the Conference at Wilna was a change brought about, and when, in 1890, in consequence of the endeavours of the tenacious and energetic friend of Zion――M. Zederbaum――the authorization of the Russian Government had been obtained, the first general meeting of the Odessa Committee, “The Society for Supporting Jewish Agriculturists in Syria and Palestine” (as it called itself), was held, and Pinsker assumed again the leadership of the movement. At this point begins the really extensive activity of _Chovevé Zion_, chiefly in Russia, although there were _Chovevé Zion_ Unions in nearly every country, even in America. At the beginning of the last decade of the nineteenth century the organization had reached its culminating point of activity. But the formal foundation of this committee had taken place at Kattowitz.

The Kattowitz Conference was, as Pinsker said, only a small beginning. But still it was a beginning. It created a principle and a method which only prevailed later. The insignificant real importance of the Conference is not inconsistent with its great historic significance. Result did not follow immediately upon this event, but the historian must trace back all the recent development of the Zionist idea to that date, because for the first time in a Jewish assembly the new spirit assumed shape and expression. Thus in the end history must consider the Kattowitz Conference as the seed out of which first of all a tender plant grew, but which, after wearisome development, spread out into a tree beneath whose shade Israel will some day find repose.

XIII. (vol. i., p. 276)

In the year 1840, Luzzatto wrote to Jost: “... and when at last, oh, Jewish scholars of Germany will the Lord open your eyes? How long will you refuse to see how wrongly you act by following the crowd, extinguishing national pride, allowing the language of our forefathers to fall into oblivion and letting Hellenism (Atticism) grow up in our midst? As long as you allow your brethren to persevere in the delusion that the ideal of perfection is nothing else than imitation of neighbours and the consideration gained therefrom; as long as you will not have attained enough self-consciousness to instruct the people out of full zeal for God, truth and Jewish confraternity to uphold that the greatest good is not anything visible but that which is felt deep within the heart, that the happiness of our nation is not dependent on emancipation but on our love to one another, on our holding together in brotherly union, and that this feeling of correlation is gradually dwindling as a result of emancipation; as long as you maintain that emancipation countries are paradisaic countries for the Jews, the saying of the prophet Malachi will necessarily apply to you:

“‘Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.’”

In a letter of the year 1855, Luzzatto writes to one of his disciples: “Your Hebrew letter gave me real pleasure.... Honour be to you for wishing to accustom yourself to write and speak Hebrew. For the language of our ancestors is the bond which links together the sons of the Jewish nation who are scattered all over the world, and it is that which conjoins all generations, and brings us nearer our ancestors as well as the generations which will come after us.”

On another occasion Luzzatto expressed himself on the idea of a Jewish mission in the Diaspora: “These are indeed words which charm the ear flatteringly, but in fact they are just empty phrases. The Bible has already been propagated among peoples for many generations, and gains in diffusion from day to day without Jewish assistance. Now, if the propagation of the Bible within a space of time of eighteen hundred years has not brought humanity perceptibly nearer perfection, what can the Jews contribute thereto, especially those who do not believe in the divinity of the _Thora_? But apart from the fact that, as I have expounded, it is a delusion to believe that the only purpose of existence of Judaism is to lead humanity towards perfection, as the author (Philipsohn) and his adherents believe, it is also a vain delusion to think that humanity will ever reach the state of perfection which the author describes in his writings.”

When Luzzatto heard, in the year 1854, that Albert Cohn, of Paris, was going to Palestine, he wrote to him:――

“Only unthinking people can suggest that Jewish children should be sent from Asia to large European cities to be brought up there, and thus diffuse our culture among our brethren in Asia; that is heartless egoism and unbelief, fine outer forms and inward corruption.”

“Judaism must be relieved of foreign pressure. The Jews of the Holy Land must be provided with soil to till and means of exploitation. Care must also be taken that their crops are not robbed by the Pashas and Beduins. Then they will cultivate the soil as in the times of the Bible, Mishna and Talmud. This cannot succeed in Jerusalem, since, as a place of pilgrimage, it has become the abode of people who divest themselves of all worldly cares and true social duties. Judaism has never built cloisters for recluses and has never countenanced idleness. But is it to be wondered at that whilst all nations from far and wide went on pilgrimage to the Sepulchre, Jehuda Halevy, Nachmanides and other devout men, after a life of strenuous toil, should have wished to pay honour to the seat of holiness and to end their lives in saintly seclusion? Jerusalem will necessarily remain a sacred city for all peoples. Therefore, for the present, it cannot be regarded as a possible capital of the country. Otherwise all Palestine should be tilled and cultivated by the Jews, that it may flourish from an agricultural and industrial point of view and arise again in its old splendour. The main consideration is that no impediments should be placed by the Government in the way of the free development of Jewish industry. The Jews are known all over the world as particularly industrious and capable. Why, then, should they be loungers in Palestine? That they are so at present has two local reasons; the one, the pressure of neighbouring nations and the negligence of the administration, and the other the Indian as well as Mohammedan, but not at all Jewish, conception of the holiness of inactive life. The local pressure must be removed as far as possible. But we must rouse our brethren to useful activity, urge them onwards in every way, and breathe into them the spirit of a new life.”¹

¹ Prof. D. Kauffmann, _Correspondence of Samuel David Luzzatto_,
Dr. J. Klausner. Haschiloach, April, 1901.

XIV. (vol. i., p. 280)

The eloquent passion with which Bialik expresses the woe of the Jewish people runs like a red thread through all his national poems; but it reaches its climax in _The Poems of Wrath_――a series of these poems written on the occasion of the Kishineff massacre in 1903. This series above all other poems of his is the most terrible expression of the national grief, despair and rage accumulated during the centuries of persecution, and is a masterpiece of vigour and impetuosity.

XV. (vol. i., p. 280)

Achad Ha’am’s writings offer an abundance of instructive historiosophic thoughts, mostly propounded in fragmentary, aphoristic form, which point in their entirety to a common root and a uniform outlook and system of ideas on the part of this thinker, and show the way thereto to many a reader. The stimulus of his theories lies in the fact that they have nearly always had a background of actuality. Achad Ha’am is no historiosopher within the narrow meaning of the word; his aim is primarily directed towards present-day problems of Judaism, but he often seeks their solution in the past. Thence he traces the primordial causes of what occupies us at present. This trait alone makes him not only national, like nearly all authors of our present Hebraic Renaissance period, but even more, it invests him with the sanction of a learned Hebrew thinker and an inspired intellectual leader. His methodology is philosophic and somewhat attuned to the Hegelian dialectic of thought, and in this connection too, apart from the community of national fundamental conception, it brings him close to Nachman Krochmal. Evolution is the idea which chiefly directs him, and psychology――particularly of human groups, parties and nations――appeals most to his refined mind. In all his endeavours he affirms the fluidity of the national character, and its adaptability under the pressure of historio-cultural factors. But it is just on this account that he is so firmly convinced of the necessity of Jewish individuality and its free development. He perceives the essence of this individuality in Jewish intellectual life, and he longs for a centre for it in Palestine.

Achad Ha’am expounded the essential Zionist idea long before the Zionist Organization was established, but opposed some political methods proposed by the Zionist Organization. He rejected the kind of Zionism which had its adherents mostly in Western Europe, and is inspired merely by anti-Semitism and its outrages, and he advocated Zionism as an expression of Judaism, of Jewish feeling, of a revival of the people by virtue of a great Jewish national idea――with a spiritual centre in Palestine.

XVI. (vol. i., p. 313)

Jews may have native countries, the Jewish nation has none, and this is its misfortune. The Jewish nation must again feel its own stretch of earth under its feet, and draw new material and moral forces from the native soil. But this must not be understood as if it were demanded that all Jews should leave their present homesteads in order to populate their chosen land. This is not what is meant. The Jewish idea of nationality does not aim at uniting the Jews in one country or at giving them a national status in their Dispersion, but at creating a national centre for Judaism. A considerable part of the nation, which will naturally be recruited first of all in the countries where Jewish oppression is heaviest, is to settle upon the soil which is intended to be the home of the Hebrew race. There it will win through agriculture that attachment to the soil which preserves a country to a nation, and it will find that bodily and moral welfare which must be the proper aim of all Jewish aspirations. The advantages of such an eventuality, also for those Jews remaining outside the national area and status, are self-evident. The foremost attainment would be that the Jewish population in the countries of European civilization would be constantly maintained as to numbers, through periodic eliminations, below that point of saturation, above which experience shows that the Jews are no longer welcome. Naturally this would also bring about a considerable relief to anti-Jewish tension, a decrease of the intensity of the struggle for life of the Jewish masses, and also, possibly, render easier the juridical equalization of the Jews in the countries of greatest pressure.

In addition to these will come the effect of the development of the Jewish land upon the Jews of other countries. The consciousness of the existence of a living Jewish people possessing a country of its own, a field of cheerful activity for sons at home, a refuge for sons from afar, will also ennoble and elevate, fortify and temper the Jews of the Diaspora. The curse of exciting ridicule, which makes misfortune doubly hard to bear, will recede from them: their whole status among the nations will become normal and healthy. The relations between Jews and Gentiles which, for all assimilations and emancipations, and notwithstanding all goodwill on both sides――why not admit it?――still retain so much of what is forced and painful, will only then become unconstrained and unaffected. Dislike of the Jews may possibly not cease; but, at any rate, it will lose all justification for existing in its peculiar shape and acuity. Should this dislike nevertheless prevail, the importance of a centre will become all the more apparent. The smallest national autonomous community has a seat and voice in the concert of nations. A nation without national worth is a nation outlawed. However pessimistic one may be with regard to the possibility of a small national centre to exert any material political influence in other countries, its moral authority is certain.

XVII. (vol. ii., p. 47)

The interest of Mr. C. P. Scott, Mr. H. Sidebotham, also of _The Manchester Guardian_ but now of _The Times_, and other non-Jewish friends in Manchester in the Zionist Movement led to the establishment in that city, in the autumn of 1916, of the British Palestine Committee, formed to further the establishment of a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine, under British protection. In the words placed in the forefront of its programme: “The British Palestine Committee seeks to reset the ancient glories of the Jewish nation in the freedom of a new British dominion in Palestine.” The activities of this Committee have displayed themselves for the most part through its press organ, _Palestine_, which, appearing weekly, supplies the influential public among which it circulates with valuable information on all matters relating to Palestine, and at the same time discusses all the phases of international politics which touch upon the Palestine question in any of its facets. In addition to _Palestine_ the Committee is responsible for two publications, _England and Palestine_, by Mr. H. Sidebotham, in which the author puts the case for a British mandateship, and _British Projects for the Restoration of the Jews_, a pamphlet by Mr. Albert M. Hyamson, wherein he sketches the attitude of British statesmen and publicists towards the projected restoration of the Jews to Palestine during the century and more that preceded the outbreak of the European War of 1914.

XVIII. (vol. ii., p. 54)

In the earlier part of the year 1917, about the date of the opening of the London Bureau of the Zionist Organization, the present writer, being the only member of the Inner Actions Committee in England, felt it desirable to give some definite status to those trusted supporters of the Zionist cause to whose advice Dr. Weizmann and he were continually informally having recourse. The constitution of the Organization did not permit of any definite responsibility being assigned to them. It was therefore possible to form only an Advisory Committee, without any executive authority. The Political Committee that came into existence at that time, and continued its existence until the arrival in England of a number of the members of the Greater Actions Committee enabled that constitutional Organization to resume its functions, was composed originally of Ahad Ha’am, Mr. Leopold Kessler, Mr. Joseph Cowen, Mr. Herbert Bentwich, Mr. Albert M. Hyamson, Mr. Simon Marks (who acted as Honorary Secretary), Mr. Harry Sacher, Mr. Israel Sieff, Mr. Leon Simon, two foreign Zionists――M. J. Ettinger, of the Jewish National Fund, and M. S. Tolkowsky, of Rechoboth, Palestine――who were temporarily resident in London, together with Dr. Weizmann and the present writer as chairman.

♦CORRIGENDA

VOLUME I.

Page xxvii. Six lines from the bottom. _For_ “See the Chapter on
Zionism and the War” _substitute_ “See Volume II.,
pp. 1 ff.”

Page xl. Line 9. _Delete_ “Arthur,” _substitute_ “Albert.”

Line 22. _Delete_ “Moro,” _substitute_ “Morot.”

Line 23. _Delete_ “Andre,” _substitute_ “André.”

Five lines from the bottom. _For_ “Frederick”
_substitute_ “Frederic.”

Page 8. The last three lines of the note contain the title of
the Yiddish translation of “The Merchant of Venice.”

Page 12. Insert quotation marks (“) before “It” at opening of
last paragraph.

Page 23. Line 12. _For_ מרה _substitute_ מרא.

Page 26. Three lines from the end. _For_ “Gebirol” _substitute_
“Gabirol.”

Last line. _For_ “Kalonymus” _substitute_ “Kalonymos.”

Page 27. Line 1. _For_ “Kalonymus” _substitute_ Kalonymos.”

Page 35. Line 2. _Insert_ “shall” _at end of line_.

Page 59. Line 9. _After_ “Manuel” _insert_ “Noah.”

Page 82. Five lines from the end. _Omit_ “_de la Gironde_.”

Page 95. Note 2. _Transfer_ date “(1835‒1906)” _to end of
first line_.

Page 126. Line 5. _For_ “Reschid” _substitute_ “Reshid.”

Page 144. First note. _Delete second sentence. Substitute_ “He
appeared as a pseudo-messiah about the year 1160.”

Line 24, and second note. _Delete_ “1918.” Lord Morley
is fortunately still alive.

Page 182. The three lines from the end. _For_ “1826‒1887”
_substitute_ “1826‒1882.”

Page 193. Last line but one. _For_ שחטה _substitute_ שחטא.

Page 213. Line 18. _After_ “poet” _insert_ “and novelist.”

Page 222. Line 11. _For_ אמתי _substitute_ אימתי.

Page 235. Line 4. _For_ “hoards” _substitute_ “hordes.”

Page 254. Line 2. _For_ “Frederick” _substitute_ “Frederic.”

Page 257. Line 1. _After_ “Jockey Club” _insert_ “of Paris.”

Page 258. Line 13. _For_ “Petrograd” _substitute_ “St. Petersburg.”

Page 266. Line 3. _For_ “Uganda” _substitute_ “East African.”

Page 269. Line 22. _For_ “Bahar” _substitute_ “Behar.”

Page 275. Line 2 of note. _For_ “Hakalah” _substitute_
“Haskalah.”

Page 278. Line 22. _For_ “Petrograd” _substitute_ “St.
Petersburg.”

Page 280. Line 3. _For_ “Noach” _substitute_ “Nachman.”

Line 27. _For_ “Scernichowsky” _substitute_
“Tschernichowsky.”

Page 284. Line 22. _For_ “Shmarya” _substitute_ “Shemaryah.”

Line 24. _For_ “Viktor Jakobsohn” _substitute_
“Victor Jacobsohn.”

Page 292. Line 38. _For_ “Slouchz” _substitute_ “Slousch.”

Page 296. Line 15. _For_ “Jewish Territorial Association”
_substitute_ “Jewish Territorial Organization.”

Line 6 from the end. _For_ “Uganda in East Africa”
_substitute_ “British East Africa.”

Page 297. Last line. _For_ “Uganda” _substitute_ “British East
Africa.”

Page 302. First line of note. _For_ “Araber” _substitute_
“Arab et.”

Page 304. Paragraph 3, line 1. _For_ “the first” _substitute_
“an early.”

Paragraph 3, line 11. _For_ “invasion” _substitute_
“revolt.”

VOLUME II.

Page 44. Line 4. _For_ “Uganda” _substitute_ “a territory in
East Africa.”

Page 62. Line 4. _After_ “harmful” _insert_ “but he afterwards
withdrew his resignation.”

Mr. Gilbert did not resign from the Conjoint Committee,
of which he was not a member. He resigned his membership
of the Board of Deputies in order that the prospective
president, Sir Stuart Samuel, might be elected in his
place.

Line 24. _Omit_ “late.”

Page 80. Line 9. _For_ “judge” _substitute_ “justice.”

Line 24. _For_ “Shmaria” _substitute_ “Shemaryah.”

Page 82. Line 1. _For_ “Levin” _substitute_ “Lewin.”

Page 87. Line 4. _After_ “by any means” _insert_ “a desert.
But a little Jewish state in Palestine would serve as.”

Page 134. Line 18. _For_ “Levin” _substitute_ “Lewin.”

Page 140. Line 8 from the end. _For_ “Jewish Territorial
Association” _substitute_ “Jewish Territorial
Organization.”

Page 152. Line 3 from the end. _For_ “_Essalt_” _substitute_
“Es-Salt.”

Page 161. Line 4 from the end. _For_ “generations” _substitute_
“centuries.”

Page 215. Note 1. _After_ “Breslau” _insert_ “Jewish Theological.”

By a misunderstanding, words have in many instances in the first volume and in the earlier half of the second volume of this work been printed in italics quite unnecessarily. Chronological dates have also in some instances been supplied where they have not been called for.

♦ All noted corrections have been made in the text. None of
the italicized words have been changed because a detailed
list was not given and some words may have been italicized
correctly.

CATALOGUE
OF THE
ENGRAVINGS, LITHOGRAPHS, PAINTINGS, PHOTOGRAPHS, Etc.

From which the illustrations in this book have been taken.
=(Prepared by Mr. ISRAEL SOLOMONS).=

* * * * *

=★ Israel Solomons’ Collection. B.M. British Museum.=

_Sizes are in inches and refer exclusively to the
engraved surface._

* * * * *

=★ABOAB, Isaac [da Fonseca] de David.= (1605‒1693.)

=Doctissimo y Clarissimo Señor H. H. Yshack Aboab=
=Rabino del K. K. de Amsterdam.
Ydade sua 81 Anno 5446.=

חרות בְעט ברזל וְעופרת
.צורת תְמונת איש בעודו חי
יצחק לְיום אחרון בְכותרת
.לפני יְאָל י――עֳמד וחי

Aernout Naghtegael. Deling et fesit (_sic_).
(_Mezzotint Engraving_ 11 × 7.)¹ _p._ 44.

¹ This portrait, done seven years before his death, frequently
forms the frontispiece to “Parafrasis Comentado Sobre el
pentateucho por el illustrissimo Sʳ Ishac aboab. H. del K. K.
de amsterdam estampado en caza de Iaacob de cordova, 5441.”
(Folio. 3 _ll._ + 634 _pp._★)

A posthumous portrait executed in 1697 is to be found in
the Seminary _Ets Haim_ of the Portuguese Israelites at
Amsterdam (David de Raphael Montezinos Collection). It is
apparently unique, and was engraved in mezzotint by Jacob
ben Abraham, a convert to Judaism.

=ABRAHAM VITA de Cologna.=

=_See_ Cologna, Abraham Vita de.=

=ADAMS, John.= (1735‒1826.)

=His Excellency John Adams,
President of the United States of America.=
Respectfully dedicated to the Lovers of their Country and
Firm Supporters of its Constitution.

Drawn & Engrav’d by H. Houston.
Published by D. Kennedy, 288 Market St., Philadᵃ.
(_Line Engraving_ 11⅛ × 8¾. B.M.) _p._ 92.

=★ADLER, Nathan Marcus [Nathan ben Mordecai Hacohen].=
(1803‒1890.)
=Dr. Nathan Markus Adler Chief Rabbi.=
My flesh and my heart may fail
the rock of my heart my portion――God
will remain for ever.
_N. Adler._
(_Facsimile autograph._)

St. Blatt zum Album Jsraels herausgegeben v. A. B. Perlmann.
(_Lithograph_ 7 × 6½.) _p._ 268.

=ALLENBY, Edmund Henry Hynman.=

[=General Sir Edmund Henry Hynman=, G.C.B., G.C.M.G.,
=Grand Officer of the Legion of Honour, Knight of Grace
of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem=.]

(_Photograph by H. Walter Barnett and Co., Ltd.,
12 Knightsbridge, S. W._) _p._ 84, ii.

=AVIGDOR, Elim Henry d’ [Adam de Solomon].= (1841‒1895.)

[=Elim Henry d’ Avigdor=, B.A., C.E.]

E. _d’_ A. [18]90.
(_Lithograph_ 7 × 6½.)¹ _p._ 234.

¹ Published in _Palestina_, The Chovevi Zion Quarterly,
No. 11 ... March, 1895.

=BALFOUR, Arthur James.=

[=The Right Honourable Arthur James Balfour=,
M.P., P.C., F.R.S., O.M., M.A., LL.D., D.C.L., F.R.S.]

(_Photograph by Olive Edis, F.R.P.S._) _p._ 82, ii.

=★BEN-ISRAEL, Manasseh de Joseph.= (1604‒1657.)

=Menasseh Ben Israel,
Theologvs Et Philosophvs Hebrævs
Peregrinando Qværimvs.=

Doctrina hic voluit, voluitque Modestia pingi.
An poterit vultus charta referre duos?
Hos oculos, hæc ora vide. Conuenit utrinque:
Ilia suos vultus dixit, & ilia suos.
D. I.

Ætatis Svæ Anno
Anno XXXVIII. Salom Italia. Sculpsit. MDCXLII.
(_Line Engraving_ 7⅜ × 5.)¹ _p._ 44.

¹ Manasseh’s portrait had been etched by his friend Rembrandt ★
in 1636, the copper plate being-subsequently converted
into a mezzotint ★; but this engraving by Salom de Mordecai
Italia, taken at the age of thirty-eight, was his favourite
portrait. It was this likeness he sent to Abraham von
Franckenberg, the Silesian mystic, as a token of his
friendship. (Bonum Nuncium Israeli [P. FELGENHAWER] ...
Amsterodami ... 1655. _p._ 92.)

At the upper left corner of the engraving is a small
vignette of a pilgrim with staff and water wallet, and at
the corner opposite is a lighted candle in a metal holder on
a shelf, alongside an open volume inscribed ♦נר דברך לרגלי (Psalm
cxix., 105). A similar design to the vignette was used as
the printer’s mark of several volumes from Manasseh’s press
with the motto “Apercebido Como Hv Romeiro.”

In the Hermitage at St. Petersburg a painting of an old
Rabbi by Rembrandt (1645) is suggested to be a portrait of
Manasseh, but this is extremely doubtful.

Of Salom Italia very little indeed is known. The only other
portrait he engraved was that of Haham Jacob Judah Aryeh de
Leon, who in 1641 completed a model of Solomon’s Temple. In
1885 J. L. Joachimsthal sold by auction at Amsterdam a מגילה
dated 1665, written and embellished with forty pen-and-ink
drawings, signed

יצרתיו אף עשיתיו שלום בכמר מרדכי מאיטאליאה זל פה אמשטירדם ט׳ לחדש אדר התך לפק

♦ The actual verse says: נר לרגלי דברך

=★BICHENO, James.= (1751‒1831.)

=Revd. J. Bicheno, Newbury.=

Theological Magazine.
Published by C. Taylor, 108, Hatton Garden, Octr. 1, 1809.
(_Stipple Engraving_ 3¾ × 3.) _p._ 92.

=BOSELLI, Paolo.=

[=His Excellency Paolo Boselli=,
=Order of Annunziata, President of the Order of
S. Maurizio and Lazzaro, Premier 1916‒1917.=]

(_Phototype._) _p._ 128, ii.

=BRIGHTMAN, Thomas.= (1562‒1607.)

=Mr. Brightman Etat: suæ: 45:=

Loe here A Brightman, Or A man of bright
Who that from darkeness brought this heauenly light
Thus shaddowed here turne ore and you shall see
Hee was A man was bright in prophecy.

Printed and are to be sould by Peter Stent at the Crowne in
guilt spur street.
(_Line Engraving_ 6⅜ × 4¾. B.M.)¹ _p._ 52.

¹ Frontispiece of “A Revelation of Mr. Brightman’s Revelation,
... 1641.”

=★BUENO (BONUS), Ephraim Hezekiah de Joseph.= (_ob._ 1665.)

=Dor. Ephraim Bonvs, Medicvs Hebrævs.=
Alter Avenzooar grandi sub judice magnus
in medicis, magni discipulus que patris.

Ioannes Lyvyus fecit. Iohannis de Ram Excud.
(_Etching_ 12 × 10½. _Seventh State._)¹ _p._ 44.

¹ The original from which this portrait is taken is unknown.
Dr. M. Kayserling in the Jewish Encyclopedia, 1902, vol.
iii., _p._ 422, erroneously attributes it to Rembrandt.
It was etched by a fellow pupil of his, Jan Lievens, who
probably was also the delineator. Rembrandt’s portraits of
Bueno at about the age of thirty-five are the celebrated
etching known as the “Jew Doctor,” 1647, and an oil-painting,
somewhat similar in style, head and bust only, but reversed,
probably done at the same time and now in the collection of
Baron de Six at Amsterdam. It has recently been etched by
William Steelink (signed artist’s proof on Japanese paper,
with the armorial bearings of the Baron de Six on the margin,
7½ × 6¼ ★ ), and also illustrates Kayserling’s biography
of Bueno in the Jewish Encyclopedia, _ibid._ It has been
suggested that a daughter of Bueno was the model for
Rembrandt’s etching “The Jewish Bride.” Bueno became a
Burgher of Amsterdam in 1651, and died on the 30 _Hesvan_
5426 = 8 Nov., 1665; and his wife Jeudit Buena i _Sivan_
5430 = 20 May, 1670.

=CAMBON, Jules-Martin.=

[=M. Jules-Martin Cambon,
Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour, Ambassador of France.=]

(_Photograph by Henri Manuel, Paris._) _p._ 128, ii.

=CHAMBERLAIN, Joseph.= (1836‒1913.)

[=The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain=,
P.C., LL.D., D.C.L., F.R.S., J.P., M.P.]

_(Photograph by the Stereoscopic Company, London_,
_3 Hanover Square, Regent Street, W._)

=CLEMENCEAU, Georges-Eugène-Benjamin.=

[=M. Georges-Eugène-Benjamin Clemenceau,
President of the Council.=]

(_Photograph by Henri Manuel, Paris._) _p._ 128, ii.

=★COHN, Albert [Abraham].= (1814‒1877.)

_Albert Cohn._
(_Facsimile autograph._)

“... Und mir dem Sohne Ahrons ist ein Vorrecht noch geblieben
das――zu segnen....”

(_Lithograph_ 6 × 6.)¹ _p._ 180.

¹ From “Beth-El.” Ehrentempel verdienter ungarischer
Israeliten. Von Ignaz Reich, Lehrer des hebr. Faches an
der isr. Normalhauptschule zu Pest. Zweites Heft (Mit zwei
Portraits), Pesth 1859. Druck von Alois Bucsánszky.

=★COLOGNA, Abraham Vita de= (1755‒1832.)

=Abraham de Cologna, né à Mantoue.
Chevalier de l’Ordre Royal de la Couronne de Fer.
Membre du Collège Electoral des Dotti du Royaume d’Italie.
Grand-Rabbin du Consistoire Central des Israélites
et du Consistoire de Turin.
Dedie Au Consistoire Central des Israélites.=

Dessiné d’apres nature par Marchand. Mariage Sculpt.
Déposé à la Bibliothèque Imperiale.
Se vend à Paris, chez l’Auteur, rue des Vieilles-Audriettes,
No. 6, au Marais.
(_Line and Stipple Engraving_ 7½ × 6¼.) _p._ 84.

=CONDER, Claude Reignier.= (1848‒1910.)

[=Colonel Claude Reignier Conder=,
D.C.L., LL.D., M.R.A.S., R.E.]

(_Photograph, copyright._)¹ _p._ 62.

¹ No portrait of Col. Conder has hitherto been published.

=★CRÉMIEUX, Isaac Moses Adolphe.= (1796‒1880.)

=Ad. Crémieux,
Advocat am königlichen Gerichtshofe zu Paris,
Vice Präsident des israelitischen Central Consistoriums
in Frankreich.
Avocat à la Cour royale de Paris,
vice president du Consistoire central des Israélitès français.=

Druck u. Verlag den Steindruckerei des H. Engel in Wien.
(_Lithograph_ 9¾ × 8¼.) _p._ 180.

=★DEUTZ, Emmanuel [Menachem].= (1763‒1842.)

=Mr. Emmanuel Deutz,
Grand Rabbin du Consistoire Central des Israélites de France.=

(_Lithograph_ 8¼ × 6⅝.) _p._ 84.

=★DISRAELI, Benjamin de Isaac.= (1804‒1881.)

=Benjamin Disraeli, Esquire=, M.P.

Painted by A. E. Chalon, R.A. Engraved by H. Robinson.
London, George Virtue.
(_Stipple Engraving_ 8¾ × 6¾. _Octagonal._)¹ _p._ 176.

¹ This engraving is the thirteenth in “Portraits of Eminent
Conservatives and Statesmen, with Genealogical and
Historical Memoirs. Second Series. London: George Virtue,
26 Ivy Lane.” [1841.] The original water-colour drawing
by Alfred Edward Chalon, R.A., was executed in 1840, when
Disraeli was thirty-six years of age. It is now at Hughenden
Manor, in the possession of his nephew, Major Coningsby
Ralph Disraeli.

=DUNANT, Jean Henri.= (1828‒1904.)

=[Johannes Heinrich Dunant.]=¹ _p._ 234.

¹ Die Welt, 29 Oct., 1897, No. 22, p. 7.

=★ELIASBERG, Mordecai ben Joseph.= (1850‒1898.)

הרב הגאון ה״ג ר׳ מרדכי עליאסבערג זצ״ל אב״ד דבייסק

(_Lithograph_ 4⅛ × 3½.)¹ _p._ 202.

¹ One of the portraits from:――

גאיני ישראל מזמנינו הידועים והמפורסמים בכל קצוי תבל

Published by A. Lipschitz, 41, Cheetham Hill Road,
Manchester, September, 1898. Copyright registered. Nachdruck
verboten.

=ELIOT, George [Mary Ann Cross, _née_ Evans].= (1819‒1880.)

=[George Eliot.]=

(_Photograph by the Stereoscopic Company, London_,
_3 Hanover Square, Regent Street, W._) _p._ 208.

=FINN, James.= (1806‒1872.)

[=James Finn,
Her Britannic Majesty’s Consul for Jerusalem and Palestine=,
M.R.A.S.]

(_Photograph by Macandrew, 44 Regent Circus, W._)¹ _p._ 208.

¹ No portrait of James Finn has hitherto been published.

=FUENN, Samuel Joseph.= (1819‒1891.)

=Samuel Joseph Fuenn.=¹
_p._ 217.

¹ Jewish Encyclopedia, 1903, vol. v., _p._ 526.

=★FURTADO, Abraham.= (1756‒1816.)

=Mr. Furtado de la Gironde,
President de l’Assemblée des Députés Français &
du Royaume d’Italie, Professant le Culte Mosaique 1806.=

Dessiné d’après nature par Mr. Lheman. Gravé par L. C. Ruotte.
A Paris chez l’Auteur Quai de l’Horloge du Paris près le Pont
Neuf No. 75.
Déposé à la Bibliothèque Imperiale.
(_Stipple Engraving_ 7¾ × 6.) _p._ 84.

=GEORGE, David Lloyd.=

=_See_ Lloyd George, David.=

=GOLDSMID, Albert Edward Williamson [Michael ben Aaron Halevi].=
(1846‒1904.)

[=Colonel Albert Edward Williamson Goldsmid=, M.V.O.]¹
_p._ 234.

¹ Die Welt, 16 Oct., 1903, No. 42, _p._ 10.

In Arab costume, when one of the members of the commission
of enquiry into the adaptability of El Arish in the Sinai
peninsula as a territory for Jewish colonization in 1898.

=GORDON, David ben Dob Baer.= (1826‒1886.)

ר׳ דוד גארדאן נולד בשנת תקצ״ב¹
_p._ 217.

Columns 1111 & 1112. ¹כנסת ישראל שנת תרמ״ו לפ״ק ווארשא

=★GOUGE, William.= (1578‒1653.)

=Dr. William Gouge,
Effigies Guil. Gouge S.S. Theologiæ Professor Qui Obiit Ano.=
{ Dui 1653. { Ministerij in } 46.
{ Ætatis. 79 { Black-fr. Lon. }

John Dunstall fe.
(_Etching_ 5¾ × 4⅜.) _p._ 52.

=★GOUGUENHEIM, Baruch.= (1752‒1842.)

=Baruch Gouguenheim,
Grand Rabbin de Nancy, Membre du Consistoire
du Grand Sanhédrin.=

צורת הרב מהו׳ ברוך גוגענהיים אבד דקונסיסטאריום דק״ק נאנסי׃

C. Pannetier fecit. Lith de C. Labouré à Nancy.
(_Lithograph_ 4¼ × 4⅛.)¹ _p._ 84.

¹ Rabbi at Phalsbourg, and a member of the _Sanhedrin_ convoked
by Napoleon. On the 14th of April, 1812, he was elected
Grand Rabbin de Nancy. His portrait after a lithograph by
Drouin appears in “Histoire de Nancy” par Chr. Pfister ...
Tome iii. ... Paris ... Nancy 1908, _p._ 336. He died on
the 7th October, 1842, aged 90; and on the 31st his funeral
oration was delivered at the Temple in Paris by his pupil
Grand Rabbin Marchand d’Ennery (1792‒1852). Another portrait
is a “Lith. de Simon fils à Strasbg. (7 × 6). ”★ Grand
Rabbin (adjoint) Israel Lévi of Paris is a distant relative.

=★GROTIUS, Hugo [Huig van Groot].= (1583‒1645.)

=Hugo Grotius.=

Engraved by I. Tookey, from a Copy by P. van Gunst.
(_Line Engraving_ 4⅝ × 4¾. _Oval._) _p._ 52.

=HERZL, Theodor.= (1860‒1904.)

[=Theodor Herzl.=]¹
(_Facsimile autograph._)

_Frontispiece_, vol. i.

¹ Die Welt, 28 July, 1904, No. 28 Supplement.

=HERZL, Theodor.= (1860‒1904.)

[בנימן זאב בן יעקב]

Leopold Pilichowski.
(_Oil Painting_ 100 × 50, _copyright_.) _p._ 263.

=HESS, Moses [Moritz].= (1812‒1875.)

=Moses Hess.=¹

Geb. 21, Jan. 1812. gest. 6 April, 1875.
_p._ 268.

¹ Ost und West ... 1904, column 584.

=HILDESHEIMER, Israel [Ezriel ben Löb].= (1820‒1899.)

=The late Dr. Israel Hildesheimer.=¹ _p._ 202.

¹ Jewish World, 30 June, 1899, _p._ 210.

=HIRSCH, Maurice (Moritz) de [Moses ben Joseph].= (1831‒1896.)

=The late Baron Hirsch.=

(_Photograph by Mayall and Co._)¹ _p._ 268.

¹ Illustrated London News, 25 April, 1896, _p._ 518.

=IGNATIUS, Father [Joseph Leycester Lyne].= (1837‒1908.)

[=Father Ignatius, O.S.B.=]

(_Photograph by W. and D. Downey, 61 Ebury Street,
London, S. W._) _p._ 234.

=★JESSEY (JACIE), Henry.= (1601‒1663.)

=The Revd. Henry Jessey.=

I. Caldwall sculp.
(_Line Engraving_ 4⅝ × 3½.) _p._ 52.

=KAHN, Zadok.= (1839‒1905.)

=[Zadok Kahn, Grand Rabbin de France.]=

J. F. Aktuaryus [18]95.
(_Pastel_ [_copyright_] 21 × 16¼.) _p._ 180.

=KALISCHER, Zebi Hirsch.= (1795‒1874.)

=Zebi Hirsch Kalischer.=¹
_p._ 202.

¹ Jewish Encyclopedia, 1904, vol. ii., _p._ 241.

=KITCHENER, Horatio Herbert.= (1850‒1916.)

[=Field Marshal Horatio Herbert,
1st Earl Kitchener of Khartoum=,
K.G., K.P., G.C.B., O.M., G.C.S.I., G.C.M. G., G.C.I.E.,
D.C.L., LL.D.]

(_Photograph by the Stereoscopic Company, London,
3 Hanover Square, Regent Street, W._) _p._ 62.

=LAZARE, Bernard [Lazare Bernard]= (1865‒1903.)

=Bernard Lazare.=

Drawn from life by Paul Renouard.¹ _p._ 176.

¹ Graphic, 3 Dec., 1898.

=LAZARUS, Emma.= (1849‒1887.)

=_Emma Lazarus._=
(_Facsimile autograph._)

Engraved by T. Johnson. Photographed by W. Kurtz.
(_Wood Engraving_ 6¾ × 4⅞.)¹ _p._ 241.

¹ Century, October, 1888.

=★LEON (LEÃO) [TEMPLO], Jacob Judah Aryeh de Abraham de.=
1603‒1675 ?)

=Iaacob Ievda Leon Hebreo Ætat Svæ XXXVIIII.=

(_Line Engraving_ 7 × 5⅜.)¹ _p._ 44.