History of the Jews, Vol. 5 (of 6)

"The Jews cannot perish, nor can Judaism be utterly destroyed. But in the great movement of the whole, it is to seem to have perished, still it is to continue to live, as the stream lives on in the ocean."

The Society desired to assist in demolishing the wall of separation dividing Jews from Christians, and the Jewish world from the European. It wished to abolish every dissimilarity existing between the Jewish and the universal system.

The journal of the Society for Culture testified to the uncertainty and obscurity of its aim. Its articles consisted chiefly of indigestible Hegelian phraseology, or of learned matter of use to an exceedingly limited circle as material for further work. Heine, who called a spade by its name, bluntly declared to the editor of the journal, "That the greater part of it is useless owing to its obscure form."

"Did I not know by chance what Marcus [one of the contributors] and Gans are aiming at, I should not understand anything of what they write… Insist upon culture of style with your contributors. Without this, the other culture cannot thrive."

Yet with this farrago of nonsense the Society hoped to elevate not only the Jews, but even Judaism, and were indignant that the former paid no regard to their efforts. Gans, in an article giving an account of their plans, complained that the founders were not understood. The reproach which he cast upon the Jews in general was especially true of the Society for Culture —

"Enthusiasm for religion, together with the solidity of ancient institutions, has vanished, but no new enthusiasm has come to light, and no new state of affairs has established itself. We have not gone beyond that negative enlightenment, which consists in despising and contemning things as they are, without troubling to infuse a new spirit."

This marvel could least of all be brought about by the Society for Culture, because it was deaf to the voice of God, which speaks in Jewish history, in Jewish law from its very commencement, and in the Jewish people. The Society inveighed against the whole world, and relieved its feelings in elegiac effusions. Gans, the chief mover, poured out his wrath over the rich men in Israel, who showed no sympathy with his world-awakening dreams.

Great was the disappointment of the founders of the Society for Culture. Its supporters diminished rather than increased in number. The journal with its curiously confused language found no readers, supplies ran short, and the members themselves forsook the standard, and in spite of the tacit oath embraced Christianity. Edward Gans himself secretly cherished the idea of obtaining a professorship by means of baptism. The dissensions among the German Jews, the contemptuous tone in which the sons of Judaism spoke of their religion, and the numerous examples of baptism in their midst – up to the year 1823 there were no less than 1,236 conversions in Berlin, comprising half of the members of the community, and in other parts of Prussia there were 1,382 – and the pietism of the Prussian court, brought about the formation in Berlin of a Society, "For the Promotion of Christianity among the Jews," which hoped to see the whole body of the Jews enter the Church. The election of talented Jews to academic posts was strenuously opposed. In vain did Hardenberg, the minister, intercede for Gans, to obtain for him the chair of historical jurisprudence, which was his specialty. Gans considered the possibility of becoming baptized whilst delivering long addresses before the Society for Culture. The Society dissolved, and at length died out quietly, uncared for, and unregretted. Gans, the chief mover, who possessed sufficient wealth to enable him to remain true to his vow, increased the number of sceptics and infidels professing Christianity. This so exasperated Heine, although he himself was a convert to Christianity, that two decades later, even after the grave had closed over him, he could not forgive Gans.

"The apostasy of Gans was the more revolting, because he played the part of agitator, and accepted the positive duties of a president. It is a traditional duty for the captain to be the last to leave the sinking ship; Gans, however, was the first to save himself."

Moser, the second of the triumvirate of the Society for Culture, remained more steadfast to his views, although he doubted the possibility of saving Judaism, and proclaimed the wholesale baptism of the Jews. The third member of the triumvirate was the most steadfast, and alone remained thoroughly true to his word. He was also filled with doubts, but he did not despair of improvement. He pointed out how the cure or the completion of the new revival must commence. "What alone survives and is imperishable in the midst of this 'Mabul' (deluge) is the science of Judaism; it continues to live, even though for centuries no finger has been raised on its behalf. I confess that next to my submission to the justice of God, my hope and support consist in the cultivation of this science. These storms and experiences shall not so influence me as to bring me into collision with myself. I have done what I thought my duty. Because I saw that I was preaching in a wilderness I ceased to preach, but not in order to be faithless to the purport of my own words. There remains naught for the members of the Society to do, save to remain true, each man to the work of his own limited sphere, and leave the rest to God."

If the Society for Culture, which started on its career with high aspirations, and ended so lamentably, succeeded in producing only this one result, stirring up love for the science of Judaism, then its dreams and attempts have not been entirely vain. In history not even the slightest seed is wasted; but no plant could blossom in soil covered with the dust cast on it by Friedländer and Jacobson in Berlin. As if smitten with a curse, the spot where Mendelssohn began the work so full of promise, nothing could be made to thrive or be of service in the revival of Judaism. The rabbinical academy, which the rabbinical assistant in Berlin, in conjunction with excellent men, desired to call into existence, never saw the light. From another quite unexpected quarter, however, there arose the prospect, if not of salvation, yet of its beginning.

CHAPTER XVI.

AWAKENING OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE SCIENCE OF JUDAISM

Dawn of Self-respect – Research into Jewish History – Hannah Adams – Solomon Löwisohn – Jost – His History – The Revolution of July (1830) – Gabriel Riesser – His Lectures – Steinheim – His Works – His "Revelation" – Nachman Krochmal – Rapoport – Erter – His Poems – Rapoport's Writings – Zunz – Luzzatto – His Exegesis – Geiger – The "Nineteen Letters" of Ben Usiel – New School of Reform – Joel Jacoby.

1830–184 °C. E

If for a moment fancy is allowed full play, one can imagine, not only that the houses, utensils, and pictures excavated from the ruins of Herculaneum and Pompeii were renewed, but also that the entombed men were suddenly aroused from their sleep of centuries, and enabled to collect their thoughts. If these resurrected Romans could recall their condition when the catastrophe befell them, could conjure up before their mind's eye the splendor of their greatness, remember the mighty institutions which they and their ancestors called into existence, realize the heroic power which the Roman people developed, and if they felt the same power still stirring within them, a not altogether unjustifiable self-esteem would seize them. This supposition is no fantastic idea: a nation actually did arise from the darkness of the tomb, the only example chronicled in the annals of man. This resuscitated people, the Jewish race, endeavored at its resurrection to collect its thoughts and memories, and recall a vision of its glorious past; feeling itself to be at once old and young, rich in memories and lacking in experience, chained to hoary antiquity by a perfect sequence of events, yet seeming as if of yesterday. The Jews first examined the monuments of their intellect, which had influenced the history of nations, and had brought forth a wealth of peculiar products. They served as signposts in the labyrinth of Jewish history. That is the science of Judaism – a vivid realization of its great history, and its peculiar doctrines. This effort of memory is not merely an amusing game, a pleasant pastime, the satisfaction of a desire for knowledge akin to curiosity, but an irresistible impulse of self-examination. It aroused the dormant strength in the breast of the inquirer, and inspired him with self-confidence to act in the future as in the past. Self-consciousness – the consciousness of being the people of God – was awakened in this old, resuscitated nation, and it at once entered into competition with the young nations, to assert its peculiar powers.

But history has not yet gone so far: it only shows that self-respect was awakened; that the Jews no longer blush for their origin and confession; no longer hesitate when questioned about them; no longer, from false shame and their own evil plight, take a false step, pretending belief in a faith certainly more distasteful to them than to those born therein. As if this feeling of self-esteem were to be particularly favored by the generative force of history, there arose from the midst of the Jewish nation artists of great ability – artists in tone and color, and poets of the first rank, who by their steadfastness secured public recognition for their race. This self-respect of the Jews was the outcome of political maturity, the latter in turn being due to the wonderful inventions and the increase of general intelligence during the last decades, but it has chiefly been awakened, strengthened, and fostered by the science of Judaism and the achievements of talented Jews in connection therewith.

Although the history of this period is still in progression – at many points touches the fleeting present – and its results cannot be summed up like those of bygone days, yet the fact cannot be denied that the aim of Jewish life has been the attainment of those two precious acquirements – self-reliance and self-knowledge. These qualities are intimately connected, the one completing and promoting the other. Knowledge of their own experiences and of history enabled the Jews to make a careful, unprejudiced study of the origin and growth of their nationality, and of the peculiarity of their teaching, and to hide and ignore nothing. Insight into their own doctrines increased their self-reliance, and induced them to remove the burdens assumed by the generations that had lived under oppression. The struggles in which the Jews had just been engaged to secure civil, political, and social equality and to bring about the reformation and refinement of Judaism, stand in closest connection with these two qualities – on the one hand, with the better appreciation of their own nature, on the other, with their growing self-reliance – influencing them, or being influenced by them.

Step by step the mountain heaps of obstructive rubbish had to be cleared away, an open space cut out, new building materials procured or collected, before it was possible, to think, not of putting the crowning stone to the edifice, but of erecting the frame of the structure. Unconsciously the entire generation, many members of which are still active, set to work upon this gigantic task, which had not been dreamed of fifty years before, still less considered in any way practicable. Deep but almost unconscious attachment to Judaism on the part of enthusiastic spirits enabled them to attain a goal which must be regarded as a marvel by posterity, even though it has itself advanced beyond it. Jewish science by laborious research and investigations has developed three important points: the course of Jewish history in its long chain of events and its significance, the precious basis of Jewish teaching in all its bearings, and, finally, the enduring faculty of the Jewish race, which defied so many persecutions, rendered certain qualities hereditary, accomplished such wondrous miracles of history, and was the means of bringing salvation to the world. These three aspects, the comprehension of history, of the tenets of Judaism, and of peculiar nationality, were developed one after the other. Each of these branches of knowledge had to be pursued from its commencement, and followed through a long course, and if not brought to a conclusion, it at least reached a state in which it could be clearly grasped and understood.

All nations desirous of asserting their independence and vitality seek to prove their age: they interest themselves in remembrances of the past, and bring to light their ancestral portraits and their armorial bearings, to demonstrate that they have passed through the vicissitudes of fortune and misfortune, the alternations of strength and weakness, victory and defeat, that they have given evidence of intellectual capacity, and therefore may lay claim to continued existence and development. The Jewish people had no need to make search for their famous exploits or the monuments of their intellectual powers; even in their apparently servile condition these were not wanting. Each century proclaimed this fact to the next, and it was only needful to give ear to, or not wholly to disregard this voice amid a crowd of selfish interests. The history of the Jews naturally bore most eloquent testimony to the people's greatness; but it was not easy to present it in its brilliancy. The history of the Jewish nation had been distorted by the thousand unjust prejudices of the ages. Under the cruel persecutions of their tormentors, the Jews could not retain the accumulated reminiscences of their great past; they knew them only in distorted fragments. Christian scholars, attracted by the grandeur of the theme, had indeed formed these disjointed fragments into a picture; but it could not be a true one, seeing that many component parts were wanting. The bright colors had faded, and there was a preponderance of shadow, perhaps intentionally placed there. Even to well-disposed defenders of the Jews, like Dohm and Grégoire, who had zealously studied the annals of Jewish history, they did not give a clear idea of its course. More than a century had elapsed since the worthy French Protestant clergyman, Basnage, after diligently studying Jewish history, had given to the world his somewhat fragmentary researches, when the wife of an American clergyman, Hannah Adams, of Boston, struck by the marvelous fate of the Jewish nation, delineated their history from the time of the return from Babylon to recent days. For many reasons she was not qualified to give an intelligible outline of Jewish history, but could only string together a number of rough sketches without connection or sequence. This crude work, nevertheless, was good enough for the purposes of the London Society for the Promotion of Christianity among the Jews, which besides made several alterations in the book in order to serve its ends. Fidelity to history and truth were entirely disregarded in the changes.

It was high time for Jews to take away the historian's pen from the hands of Christians who only trifled with it. However feeble might be their first attempts, and inadequate though their conception of the peculiarity of Jewish history was, yet it was meritorious to remove the Christian seal, impressed upon it by unconscious forgers, in order to claim it as the property of the Church. The first Jew who bore in his heart the great characteristics of the history of his race, and in part published it, deserves a place of honor. He was a talented youth whose early death was due to insanity, so often the mark of a true poet. Solomon Löwisohn (born in Moor, Hungary, 1789, died 1822) had succeeded under most unfavorable circumstances in acquiring secular culture, and thereby had qualified himself to appreciate the value of his nation's treasures. Löwisohn had a much truer comprehension of the beauty and sweetness of Hebrew poetry, of its sublimity and simplicity, than Herder, because he was better acquainted with it. He regarded the history of his people from the standpoint of poetry, as from that of faith. In his "Lectures upon the Modern History of the Jews," from their dispersion till the present day, he succeeded in unrolling a charming picture. He also distinguished certain important points, and correctly showed the lines to be followed, to avoid losing oneself in this apparent chaos.

Jewish history assumed a better form in the hands of Isaac Marcus Jost (born at Bernburg, 1793; died at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1860). He had greater courage than a more gifted contemporary, and although not possessed of sufficient resources he undertook the gigantic task, and he deserves credit for having pointed out a way through the vast labyrinth. When the bigoted Teutomaniacs desired to banish the Jews from Teutonic soil, and the Jew-haters searched the pages of history for an excuse to slander them, Jost determined to show them in a better light. He desired to prove that they had always been peaceful citizens and faithful subjects. They had certainly opposed the Roman Emperors, and had maintained a vigorous war against them, but this was the act of a few boisterous brawlers, whose folly should not be visited upon the entire people. On the whole, the Jews had proved themselves honest men, who had not slaughtered Christian children, nor in any way deserved the reproaches leveled against them. Only the Pharisees and their descendants, the rabbis, detestable men, filled with superstition, darkness, and arrogance, had made hell hot for the people, the property of the rabbis. This is the basis of Jost's delineation of Jewish history. He wished to confute at the same time the admirers and the antagonists of Jewish history. No one at the present day can deny the one-sidedness of his representation. Nevertheless Jost performed a real service to his people by his historical labors. He offered something new to his age, and as accurately as possible laid down the indispensable foundations of history – time and space. He cannot be reproached for utilizing the sources of history without having investigated them; his generation was not endowed with the faculty of carefully testing historical evidences. Jost's "History" proved a good guide and instructor to statesmen engaged in the amelioration of the condition of the Jews.

But the main objection to Jost's narrative cannot be disregarded, seeing that even in his old age, and in spite of instructive criticism, he stubbornly pursued his method. He gave to Jewish history, undeniably heroic, a dry, Philistine character, despoiling it of the brightness with which it was endowed even in the eyes of unprejudiced Christian observers. He tore to shreds the heroic drama of thousands of years. Between the old Israelites, the ancestors and contemporaries of the Prophets and Psalmists, and the Jews, the disciples of the rabbis, Jost hollowed out a deep chasm, making a sharp distinction between them, as if the latter were not the descendants of the former, but of entirely different stock. And why? Because Jost, the pupil of Friedländer and Jacobson, denied all miracles, not only those involving changes in the laws of nature, but also such as are brought about through inspiration and steady endurance, the miracles of history, arising out of the peculiar combination of circumstances, blow following on blow, reaction on action. He saw in history only an accumulation of contingencies subject to no law. Therefore the Jews were not to be considered the sons of the Israelites, nor the rabbis the successors of the Prophets, nor the Talmud the outcome of the Bible, otherwise the intervention of miracles had to be conceded.

In Europe, which had fallen into a state of almost glaring stupidity, there now occurred a historical marvel which caused a sensation from one end of the continent to the other. From the serene sky in the West there came a lightning flash; a thunderclap and terrifying crash followed, as if the end of the world had come – the Revolution of July (1830) was indeed a miracle. No one had expected it, or was prepared for it. Even the men who brought it about, and fought in it, were impelled by some dark feeling, were not aware of the force of their actions, were only the blind agents of the Ruler of history.

This revolution affected the Jews and consequently Judaism, like every important change in history. The equalization of the Jews in France, although sealed by the constitution, had suffered somewhat under the two Bourbons, Louis XVIII and Charles X, as the nobility and the Catholic clergy were possessed of great influence, and the officials understood their hint not to be too friendly to the Jews. The reactionary Catholic clergy began to renew their intolerance towards the Jews, and the police displayed hostility to the Jewish ritual. Had the Bourbons been able to gratify their own wishes by discrediting the constitution as well as liberty and equality, the French Jews would have been the first victims, and like their German co-religionists would once more have been placed under exceptional laws. The July Revolution was thus of momentous importance to them. The first assembly of deputies under King Louis Philippe, who desired to execute the Charter, at once considered the abolition of all existing inequalities, however slight, between Jews and Christians. One of the deputies, Viennet, proposed (August 7, 1830) to remove from the constitution the recognition of a state religion. His proposition was supported on all sides. A few months later (November 13) the minister of public education, Mérilhou, brought forward a motion to place Judaism upon an equal footing with the other two creeds, to pay salaries from the public treasury to the Synagogue and the rabbis, as well as to the Church and its ministers. He praised the French Jews, saying that since the removal of their disabilities by the Revolution they had shown themselves worthy of the privileges granted them. He exhorted the deputies to agree to the law of equality for the three creeds. His motion was adopted by a large majority.

In the chamber of peers it was more difficult to pass the law decreeing the equality of Judaism and Christianity. The advocates of the motion were eloquent in their recognition of Jewish virtues. The names of those Jews who had left behind them a glorious reputation in history were mentioned, such as Philo, the representative of Jewish philosophy in ancient times; Maimonides, of that of "the Middle Ages and modern days"; Mendelssohn, "the sage, whom philosophic Germany was in the habit of comparing with Plato."

When the division was taken in the chamber of peers (January 1, 1831), the law for the complete equalization of the Jews was carried by 89 votes to 57. Thus the last barriers between the adherents of Judaism and their Christian neighbors were removed in France. King Louis Philippe, on the 8th of February, ratified the law, which enacted that the French rabbis, like the Catholic and Protestant clergymen, should receive part of their salary from the public exchequer. The High School (Collège Rabbinique) for the training of rabbis, which a short time before had been founded in Metz, was also recognized as a state institution, and partly supported from the public budget. At the same time, the Senate at Frankfort-on-the-Main brought forward a motion to grant civil rights to the Jews, particularly abrogating the limitations to marriage. But of the 90 members of the legislative body, two-thirds voted against it.

The shock caused by the events of July, which was felt also in Germany, awakened a feeling of self-dependence; it dispelled all timidity and false shame in speaking about Jews and Judaism, which had hitherto been avoided, as if a loud word would have precipitated the avalanche of Judæophobia with destructive force. Even Jews belonging to so-called good society, who, for the sake of some material advantage, had been anxious to have people forget that they were members of an oppressed race, and had preferred to conceal or ignore the injustice done them, began to appreciate their own worth and ceased to be ashamed of being recognized as Jews. This change of sentiment manifested in different ways, like every change, was brought about by influential personalities.

Gabriel Riesser (born 1806, died 1860), a man of noble mind and great energy, took a prominent part in awakening this self-respect. However bitter the complaints of the German Jews of the disgrace brought upon them by immigrant Polish Jews, they were amply compensated by Riesser. His spirit of firm determination he derived more from his maternal grandfather, Rabbi Raphael Cohen, who had emigrated from Poland, than from his weak, good-natured German father. Gabriel Riesser in every respect belonged to modern times. Unlike most of the promoters of the new spirit, he was not rooted in the old order of things. His thoughts, feelings, and dreams were German, and only slight traces of his Jewish origin are perceptible. To Judaism in its national form, as the leaven of history, Riesser was indifferent; only the recollections of his youth and his parental home bound him to the faith. Beyond that, he looked upon it as an attenuated system of diluted doctrines, which he tacitly professed without desiring to defend them. He suspected, however, that Judaism might continue to flourish in a rejuvenated healthy form, though he did not define clearly wherein this revival should consist. To promote it was altogether outside his sphere. Had he not been hampered in his chosen vocation, he would have been a quiet German citizen, a conscientious judge or lawyer, without troubling himself to improve the world or rectify a corrupt state of affairs. German Jew-hatred roused him to defend the derided cause of his fellow-sufferers. His first work as a jurist attracted attention, and he tried to become an attorney in his native town, but was rejected. He next sought to deliver lectures upon jurisprudence in Heidelberg, but the professor's chair was refused him likewise. His gentle, peaceable nature revolted against such foolish exclusions. Thus Riesser, who felt no particular call to work for the general good, was driven to become an agitator, not alone for the freedom of his co-religionists, but also for that of the whole German nation. He made it his duty in life to secure equal privileges for the Jews, and to defend them whenever attacked. "The unspeakable sufferings throughout two centuries of many millions of persons who patiently waited for deliverance" weighed heavily upon him. His ideal was Lessing. In his first pamphlet (1831) he spoke with conscious pride, not alone against German rulers, but against the people, who refused permission to the Jews to ascend even the lowest rung on the ladder of distinction. Nor did he spare his co-religionists who, on account of superior education and social position, contemptuously looked down upon the mass of Jews, and were ashamed of the name of Jew. "If unjust hatred," he exclaimed, "clings to our name, should we not, instead of denying it, rather use all our strength to secure honor for it?" He contributed freely towards the removal of the contempt cast upon this name. Riesser aimed chiefly at defending the honor and dignity of the Jews. No selfish attainment of advantages withheld stimulated his action; but a desire to take part in the unceasing contest between freedom and oppression, justice and injustice, truth and falsehood. Filled with indignation he openly represented to the German rulers that the reason for depriving the Jews of their rights as men was the hope that they might thereby be induced to accept baptism. He also reproached the faint-hearted Jews who, having a comfortable position, separated themselves from the main body of their brethren, or by a false confession purchased equality, or handed over their children to the Church to smooth their path through life. Riesser desired to see societies established which should energetically work for the emancipation of the Jews. Sympathizers were to be united in a kind of covenant that, from a sense of honor, they might remain true to their fellow-sufferers, until the contest was decided. Ten years previously the Berlin Society for Culture had not dared to publish such a programme. But between Edward Gans and Gabriel Riesser came the July Revolution. Riesser also invited Christians to join, inasmuch as it behoved well-disposed men of every belief to participate in the release of an enslaved people.