In the present essay a short sketch will be given of the life and works of
Immanuel di Roma, the Heine of the Middle Ages, as Graetz terms him,
commonly called Immanuel ben Shelomoh; and reference will also be made to
his literary and friendly relationship to the poet Dante Alighieri. It
ought, however, to be stated at the outset that, although Immanuel was the
composer of several Italian sonnets, he owes his fame mainly to his Hebrew
production entitled _Machberoth_. Apart from its value as an entertaining
book it is at the same time the chief source from which information about
its author's life is obtainable. But as such the volume is not always
entirely reliable, as certain episodes mentioned therein have hitherto not
been fully authenticated. Modern writers, however, among whom Graetz and
Güdemann may be especially mentioned, have ably utilized the old and new
material available, and, thanks to their fruitful labours, a more complete
and trustworthy sketch of Immanuel's life and works can now be given.
According to Graetz's ingenious combination of dates and circumstances
(cp. _Die Geschichte der Juden_, VII, note 3), it would seem that Immanuel
was born in the year 1265, which is also the year of Dante's birth.
Immanuel's parents, Solomon and Justa by name, belonged to a renowned
Jewish family called Ziphroni, and occupied an honourable position in the
Jewish community of Rome. They devoted great care to their son's early
education. One of his earliest teachers was Benjamin ben Yechiel, a clever
physician and a great Hebrew scholar, who made him acquainted with the
works of Maimonides. Later on he was taught by a relative, Leone Romano by
name, who held the post of Hebrew instructor to Robert, king of Naples,
and was also the translator of the works of Albertus Magnus and of Thomas
Aquinas. He had another master in Judah Siciliano, author of several
pretty Italian poems, who cultivated in his pupil's mind a taste for
poetry and literature. Through these teachers, who mingled with the best
society of Rome, Immanuel often came in contact with the members of a
secret literary and political society called “Young Italy.” It was
composed of young men of education and talent, and its object was to
propagate liberal ideas among their less enlightened countrymen, and to
induce them to shake off the yoke of the dominant Church, which at that
time pressed heavily upon them. Dante, during his brief stay in Rome, used
to attend the meetings of this society; and there young Immanuel seems to
have first entered on a friendly relationship with the poet, whose genius
and personality could not fail to impress themselves on him. In fact, he
has so many points in common with Dante, that it may well be believed that
he took him for his model. There is also a curious similarity in the
history of their life and death. Both of them, who had in the prime of
life occupied prominent positions, were obliged in their declining years
to wander forth into exile, and both found their last resting-place far
from their native city. From the literary point of view they, too,
resembled one another; but of this more will be said later on. Reference
will also be made to some recent publications which seem to show that
Dante, for his part, also entertained friendly feelings for Immanuel. The
following two lines, which occur in _Paradiso_ (Canto v. 80 and 81), show
that their author may have been favourably disposed to the race from which
Immanuel sprang. They run thus:—
Uomini siate, e non pecore matte,
Si ch'il Giudeo di voi tra voi non rida.
Act ye as men, and not as stupid cattle,
Lest the Jew in your midst should scorn you.
It is not known whether Immanuel underwent any special training to obtain
his medical qualifications. There is, however, no doubt that he practised
successfully for a number of years in his native town. On reaching manhood
he married the daughter of Rabbi Samuel, president of the Jewish community
of Rome, whose functions seem to have been secular as well as religious.
His marriage was a happy one. Immanuel considered his wife a model of
womanhood, and never wearied of singing her praises. With the exception of
the untimely death of their only son Moses, which naturally caused them
intense sorrow, nothing occurred during the greater part of their married
life that could have seriously interfered with their happiness. In his
leisure hours Immanuel continued to enlarge his acquaintance with books
treating of grammar, exegesis, mathematics, astronomy, medicine,
philosophy, and cabbala, and acquired at the same time some knowledge of
Latin, Greek, and Arabic. He occasionally wrote essays on some of these
subjects, but his favourite occupation was the composition of verses,
either in his native tongue or in Hebrew. The rhymed prose (מליצה),
which he wrote in Hebrew, was his best work. In the year 1315, when
Immanuel was just fifty years old, his father-in-law was murdered by
robbers whilst travelling in the country, and Immanuel succeeded him. In
his new position, as the spiritual head of the Jewish community of Rome,
he enjoyed a continuance of his popularity, his kindness of heart and his
great literary attainments procuring for him a large following of admirers
and friends. His fame as a scholar and a poet spread even as far as France
and Spain.
In the midst of his prosperity, however, a misfortune occurred, which
changed the whole tenor of his life. According to Immanuel's own account,
he had stood security for some friends of his, and, as the latter failed
to redeem their obligations, he himself was obliged to satisfy the demands
of the creditors. Being thus reduced to poverty he emigrated, and turned
his back for ever on the scene of his unmerited misfortune. This
explanation, however plausible it may appear, does not throw any light on
the mystery of Immanuel's forced resignation of the post he held in the
community. But it would seem that there were among his flock several
persons who hated him as the author of erotic poems, and of other
compositions in which certain religious rites were lightly spoken of.
While he had ample means at his disposal, and was independent of the
community, they dared not attack him publicly. However, they took
advantage of his monetary embarrassment to denounce him as an unbeliever
and heretic, who in their opinion was unfit to occupy his position; and
they ultimately succeeded in effecting his removal.
But, whatever the explanation, the fact remains that Immanuel left Rome as
a prematurely aged and broken-hearted man, and that he wandered about for
some time with his wife until he arrived at Fermo, a town situated in the
district of Ancona. There a wealthy and liberal-minded man, Benjamin by
name, and at the same time a great admirer of Immanuel's poems, took him
and his wife into his house, and provided for their wants. But this
happiness did not last long, for in the year 1321 he lost both his wife
and his friend Dante. Bosone da Gobbio, a renowned lawyer in his time, and
a friend of both Dante and Immanuel, on hearing of this sent him the
following lines as a token of his sorrow and sympathy:—
Bosone to the Jew Manuello after Dante's Death.
Two lamps of life have waxèd dim and died,
Two souls for virtue loved and blessèd grace;
Thou, friend, may'st smile no more with happy face,
But weep for him, sweet song's and learning's pride.
And weep for her, thy spouse, torn from thy side
In all her charm of native loveliness,
Whom thou hast sung so oft ere thy distress,
That is mine, too, and with me doth abide.
Not I alone bewail thy hapless lot,
But others too: do thou bewail thine own,
And then the grief that all of us have got,
In this the direst year we e'er have known;
Yet Dante's soul, that erst to us was given,
Now ta'en from earth, doth glisten bright in heaven.
Manuello's Answer.
The floods of tears well from my deepest heart;
Can they e'er quench my grief's eternal flame?
I weep no more, my woe is still the same;
I hope instead that death may soothe the smart.
Then Jew and Gentile weep, and sit with me
On mourning-stool: for sin hath followed woe;
I prayed to God to spare this misery,
And now no more my trust in Him I show.
When Immanuel's time of mourning was over his host suggested that he
should devote himself to a collection and revision of his compositions.
Immanuel gladly accepted this proposal, partly because he wished to
perpetuate the memory of his beloved wife and that of his friend Dante,
and partly because he thought that this would be the best occupation for
his declining years.
The work occupied him till his death in 1330, when he was sixty-five years
old. Bosone received some lines referring to Immanuel's death, composed by
Cino da Pistoza, a noted lawyer and poet of some renown in his time. These
lines are interesting in so far as they contain an unmistakable reference
to the friendly relationship that existed between Dante and Immanuel. They
run as follows:—
Cino to Bosone after the Death of Dante and the Jew Manoel.
Bosone, your friend Manoello is dead,
Still keeping fast to his false, idle creed;
Methinks to the regions of hell he is sped,
Where no unbeliever from anguish is freed.
Yet not 'mongst the vulgar his soul doth abide,
But Dante and he still remain side by side.
Bosone's Answer.
Manoel, whom thou hast thus consigned
Unto the dark domains of endless night,
Has not within those regions been confined,
Where Lucifer holds sway with awful might.
Lucifer, who once 'gainst Heaven's lord,
In lust for empire drew rebellion's sword.
And though he in that loathly prison pine,
Where thou hast brought him though he willed it not;
What fool will trust this idle tale of thine,
That he and Dante should be thus forgot;
Well, let them for a time endure their fate,
God's mercy will be theirs or soon or late!^[87-1]
As already stated Immanuel wrote various books on Hebrew grammar,
exegesis, and cabbala, and composed, in addition to several Biblical
commentaries, a collection of Hebrew novelettes and poems. But while his
_Eben Bochan_ and _Migdal Oz_—which exist only in MSS. and treat of Hebrew
grammar and cabbala respectively—would, at the present day, hardly be
considered to have any literary or scientific value, his commentaries on
the Bible, and more especially those on the Book of Proverbs (published at
Naples in 1487), deserve some attention. The latter is particularly
interesting, inasmuch as it throws some light on the author's views on the
study of secular subjects by his Italian co-religionists, and gives us
some idea of the general feeling and spirit of the time. The following
example will give an idea of Immanuel's method when commenting on a
passage that seemed to him to offer an opportunity for adding a thought of
his own. Thus, in the commentary on the Book of Proverbs (xxvi. 13),
Immanuel explains the passage, “The slothful (man) saith, There is a lion
in the way; a lion in the street,” as follows:—
“This passage refers specially to those persons who are too slow in the
acquirement of knowledge and wisdom, which they consider as dangerous as
it is to meet a fierce lion in the street. They say, How should we apply
ourselves to the study of general science, since among its most prominent
devotees there are so many sceptics and unbelievers; or how should we be
expected to study logic, as it is a subject that infatuates the student
and leads him to erroneous conclusions? As to philosophy (they say) we
must shun it altogether, since it owes its existence to Aristotle, who,
like the rest of the ancient philosophers, did not believe in the divine
origin of our law. But these fools (Immanuel continues) forget that we
must accept truth from whatever quarter it may come. Moreover, every kind
of science which these sluggards describe as ‘foreign’ (חיצונים),
belonged originally to the Jewish people, and was first taught in our
sacred tongue. Unfortunately those very books were lost during our
perilous wanderings through the world. Of King Solomon's numerous poetical
and scientific works we only possess three. It is more than a mere legend
that kings and learned men of different countries came to him with the
express purpose of being instructed by him in those subjects, and that
they subsequently committed to writing the information they received.
These teachings are still in the possession of other nations, while we,
ourselves, lost them during our wanderings; and it is even a wonder that
the twenty-four volumes of Holy Writ have been preserved by us up to the
present day. It is, therefore, most probable that natural science,
metaphysics, and philosophy were originally taught by Solomon, although
their origin is nowadays ascribed to Plato and Aristotle. With regard to
the excellent art of music it is well known that it originated in our
religion, and has found keen votaries in men like Asaph and Samuel; but in
our own time it is exclusively practised by Christians, while the Jews
have very little knowledge of it. As for logic, it certainly does _not_
lead the student astray, but, on the contrary, it cultivates his mind and
prepares him for the study of other sciences. Therefore, whoever calls
logic a ‘foreign’ science, or speaks contemptuously of Plato and
Aristotle, because they did not belong to the Jewish nation, is like the
sluggard who exclaims: ‘A lion is in the way.’”
This extract, being a specimen of the contents of Immanuel's commentaries
on various parts of the Bible, shows that there is nothing particularly
noteworthy in the author's exposition of the text, but that the interest
lies rather in his interpolations.
His reputation chiefly depends on his collection of Hebrew novelettes and
poems, called _Machberoth_. This volume stands unrivalled in the whole
domain of Hebrew literature. It consists of twenty-eight chapters, in
almost all of which the so-called Makāmāt form is used, that is to say,
they are written in rhymed prose, interspersed with poems. Some of these
are composed in the melodious form introduced by the Italian poet Fra
Guittone di Arezzo (about 1259), the principal characteristics of which
are _rima chiusa_ and _rima alternata_. But, although his poetry is full
of charm for style and expression, it must yield to his rhymed prose. The
principal feature of this kind of composition lies in the application of
short Biblical phrases to profane objects or actions. It was first used by
certain Arabian poets, who treated the text of the Koran after this
fashion, and who subsequently found several imitators among Hebrew
writers, especially among those belonging to the so-called Spanish school.
In fact, according to Rabbi Moses ben Chabib (about 1486), the writing of
rhymed prose in Hebrew was in his time a universally approved rhetorical
device. But there was a vast difference between Immanuel and the other
writers of this school. While the latter, as a rule, endeavoured to
preserve a spirit of reverence towards the Hebrew text, Immanuel placed no
restraint upon his pen. Not seldom he sacrificed good taste and decency to
his point, and many a simple Biblical phrase he turns into a vehicle for a
pun or satirical remark of a coarse description. His favourite subjects
were Love, Wine, and Song, and he was not less fond of occasionally making
mock of sacred things. Even the sight of an old churchyard with a heap of
ruined tombstones could not check his buffoonery. It seems to have become
a second nature with him, so much so that having once begun to scoff at
the follies of other people, he does not hesitate to make merry over his
own vanities, and it is in this sense that the strange expressions of
self-approbation, which are found here and there in the _Machberoth_, must
be construed. That Immanuel's self-praise should be regarded as serious
seems scarcely compatible with the frequent eulogies of others with which
his book abounds.
It would be at once vain and superfluous to offer an apology for the
frivolities and the uncouth wit which characterize the _Machberoth_.
Immanuel, although a Hebrew by descent and training, and eminently
proficient in Jewish lore and tradition, was at the same time thoroughly
imbued with the spirit of the Italian nation and literature. The character
of his writings will be recognized from the fact that the principal
representative of the Italian novelists belonging to the period was
Boccaccio, the author of that collection of humorous but licentious tales,
the _Decameron_. It seems reasonable to suppose that Immanuel, in adopting
the style of the Italian novelists of his time, thought he would attract
and amuse Jewish readers by reproducing in a Hebrew garb popular ideas and
expressions. In this he attained considerable success, though he was
placed at a disadvantage as compared with his Italian rivals. For, while
they had the whole world for their field, Immanuel had to content himself
with using as the objects of his satire persons and things known only to
the small circle of his own acquaintances. Thus he mostly ridiculed the
vanities and follies of his Jewish neighbours, the petty quarrels of
husband and wife, or the jealousies of the would-be literary man. But,
notwithstanding their defects, the _Machberoth_ possess a lasting charm.
They have always found a great number of readers, although they were
condemned by Moses di Rieti (died about 1500), the author of a short
history of Hebrew literature called _Mikdash Me'at_ (מקדש מעט), and
their perusal was interdicted a century later by Joseph Caro, the compiler
of the well-known code, the _Shulchan Aruch_. The best proof of their
popularity lies in the fact that they have gone through several editions,
the first being produced at Brescia, in the year 1492, and the last at
Lemberg in 1870. In recent years parts of them have been translated into
German by Steinschneider, Stern, Geiger, Fürst, and others.
As regards the title of the book and the arrangement of its parts, the
following remarks are offered. The word _Machberoth_, or, as some people
would read it _Mechabroth_, is the plural of the singular noun
_machbereth_, formed of the radix חַבֵּר, which originally means “to
join” or “to put together,” so that in the present sense the noun
signifies “collections.” Immanuel purposely used the plural form as the
title of his book to prevent it from being confounded with a similar work
composed by Alcharizi, which is entitled _Machbereth Ithiel_, where the
same term appears in the singular. Immanuel's work consists, as already
stated above, of twenty-eight chapters, which seem to have been written at
different times, and to have then been loosely strung together. Only the
second, third, and the last three chapters of the book bear a
superscription to indicate the subject of which they treat. Several of
these chapters were composed by the author when he was still comparatively
young, and are distinguished by the same genial Epicureanism which Horace
displayed when he sang:—
Quid sit futurum cras fuge quaerere, et
Quem Fors dierum cunque dabit lucro
Appone.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that the greater part of the
_Machberoth_ must belong to a later period in the author's life, when he
had experienced the caprices of fortune, and his troubles had disturbed
the serenity of his mind. But even then his laughter does not entirely
desert him. It ought, moreover, to be remembered that injustice would be
done to Immanuel, if his private life and character were to be judged in
the light of his writings. In these he certainly appears as an absolute
libertine, and as a scoffer at religion and religious practices; but in
real life he was very different. One would rather think that the
_Machberoth_ were intended to serve as a mirror, in which the culpable
habits of a certain class of his Jewish contemporaries were reflected. And
it is for this reason that they have more than a mere literary value. They
furnish the reader with a description of the moral and social condition of
an important section of the Italian Jews during part of the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries, and have been referred to by our modern Jewish
historians in this connexion^[92-1]. Thus, for instance, we gather from
some passages occurring in the _Machberoth_ (chap. 1) that the Jewish
community of Rome was at that period in a flourishing condition, that many
of its members lived in large and magnificently furnished houses, and that
some of them also possessed estates in the country. Further, we are told
(ibid. chap. 23) that general science, philosophy, and poetry were
assiduously studied and appreciated by the Jews of Rome, and that those
who attained great learning among them were held in high estimation. How
eager Jewish young men in Italy were in those days to increase their
knowledge of books may be seen from the following incident recorded in the
_Machberoth_ (chap. 8). A Jewish bookseller, travelling from Spain to
Rome, left at Perugia one of his boxes containing various books, together
with a list of their titles. Immanuel and his young friends were so
anxious to read the contents that, in the absence of their owner, they
broke the box open, and read the books it contained with the greatest
delight. When on his return the bookseller learnt what had happened,
Immanuel appeased his wrath by the witty remark, “that the Prophet Moses
on his once breaking the two tablets of the Covenant, not only did not
arouse God's anger, but was even praised for the act.”
Of the Jewish women of the time Immanuel does not always draw a flattering
picture. They, or rather those belonging to the best and most educated
families, mixed freely with men; but their desire for beautiful and costly
apparel led the girls to prefer the wealthy suitor to his poorer, though
perhaps more deserving, rival. A great many Jewish ladies, however, were,
according to him, modest and simple in their taste; and if he satirizes
the luxurious habits of Jewish women, and their laxity in point of good
manners, it need not be supposed that they were in the majority.
To convey to English readers some idea of the contents of the _Machberoth_
a few extracts are here given, which cannot of course be expected to
present the charm of the original, but are accurate in themselves.
After a short prologue, in which Immanuel speaks of the tendency of the
_Machberoth_ and of the reason which induced him to publish them, the
author addresses his muse in a passage, of which the following lines form
a part:—
Oh, let thy teachings softly flow like heaven's dew,
That they inspire mankind with what is good and true;
And let “Immanuel” a potent watchword be,
Ever to make all men in soul and body free.
The first chapter of the _Machberoth_ was apparently written at a late
period of the author's life, when he was in exile. He speaks bitterly of
his open and secret enemies, who were the direct cause of his ruin; but he
consoles himself with the thought that he is their superior in culture,
and that he had a wife and comforter, who excelled their wives in virtue
and beauty, and who might serve to all women as a model for imitation.
That virtue and beauty do not always go hand in hand is a frequent maxim
of his:—
Virtue dwells rarely in the bright-eyed and fair,
But in wrinkled old crones with silver-white hair.
The author is now in his proper element, and pretending to stand with a
friend of his on the public promenade, where the ladies of the town are
walking to and fro, he singles out two of them. The one, called Tamar, he
describes as a model of perfect beauty; and the other, Beriah by name, he
designates as the personification of ugliness. The merits of the one, and
the demerits of the other, are described by Immanuel in the following
manner:—
Tamar looketh up, like the stars shine her eyes,
Beriah appears, and Satan's self flies.
Tamar's form divine excites angels' desire,
Beriah e'en crows with dismay might inspire.
Tamar, like the sun, makes all things bright appear,
Beriah were an omen, if seen at New Year.
Tamar is most lovely and fair to distraction,
Beriah gives mankind of love not a fraction.
Tamar, bright as the moon, is yet e'er full of light,
Beriah might be queen 'mongst the fiends of the night.
Tamar, would I were a flower, tender and sweet,
To be trampled to earth by her pretty feet.
Beriah 'tis from fear of beholding her face
That Messiah delayeth in showing his grace.
Tamar is enchanting, delighting the eyes,
Beriah a nightmare in woman's disguise.
Some beautiful lyrics devoted to the same subject are to be found in the
sixteenth chapter of the _Machberoth_, two of which, under the respective
headings “Thine Eyes” and “Paradise and Hell,” run as follows:—
Thine Eyes.
Thine eyes are as bright, O thou sweetest gazelle,
As the glittering rays of the sun's golden spell,
And thy face glows as fair in the light of the day
As the red blushing sky when the morning is gay.
Thy tresses of gold are as neatly bedight,
As though they were wrought by enchantment's kind might;
Thou openest thy lips in a smile or a sigh,
And thy pearly teeth gleam like the stars in the sky.
Ah, shall I praise the bright charm of thine eyes,
That move every heart, that win all by surprise?
For peerless thy charms, and unequalled thy birth;
_Thou_ art of heaven, all _others_ of earth.
Paradise and Hell.
At times in my spirit I fitfully ponder,
Where shall I pass after death from this light,
Do heaven's bright glories await me, I wonder,
Or Lucifer's kingdom of darkness and night?
In the one, though 'tis perhaps of ill reputation,
A crowd of gay damsels will sit by my side;
But in heaven there's boredom and mental starvation,
To hoary old men and old crones I'll be tied.
And so I will shun the abodes of the holy,
And fly from the sky, which is dull, so I deem;
Let hell be my dwelling; there is no melancholy,
Where love reigns for ever and ever supreme.
There are several novelettes in the _Machberoth_ dealing with various
piquant incidents, but the two following are perhaps most suitable for
quotation. In themselves they are slight enough, but they become a ready
vehicle for the author's satire. In one of them (chap. 14) a clever trick
is described; how a certain legacy hunter succeeded in obtaining a large
gift from some trustees. A wealthy Jew living in Rome had a quarrelsome
woman for a wife and a spendthrift and a fool for a son, both of whom
embittered his life. One day, the wretched man fled from his native town
with all his movables, and settled in Greece, where he lived for a number
of years in peace and contentment. Shortly before his death he made his
will, leaving all his property to his prodigal son. As executors of his
will he nominated some elders of the local community. When in due course
the father died, and the intelligence of his death and testament was made
known in Rome, the son took no steps to have the will executed. Meanwhile
a certain swindler, hearing of this, presented himself before the
executors with every sign of grief, and claimed the legacy as the son and
heir of the deceased. The executors, without troubling themselves very
much about his credentials, handed over the legacy to him. When some time
after the rightful heir appeared, he was laughed to shame, in spite of his
producing genuine credentials.
In the second novelette (chap. 23) an incident is recorded that occurred
to the author in his practice as a physician. He was once called in to a
patient, who was suffering from indigestion. Immanuel prescribed some
medicine, and advised him to remain in bed till the following morning,
when he hoped to see him again, and to find him completely recovered. Now,
the patient was by way of being a poet, and on that particular night,
feeling himself inspired, he got out of bed and composed a long poem. This
he proudly showed Immanuel on the following morning, telling him at the
same time that the medicine had done him no good. “Pardon me, my friend,”
said Immanuel, “my medicine has had an excellent effect upon you: it has
removed from your brain a large quantity of rubbishing poetry.”
Wit of another kind is shown in Immanuel's exegetical dialogue (chap. 11),
in which he explains some Biblical passages and phrases that had been
misunderstood by various persons, who had come to ask him for his opinion.
The following will serve as a specimen of the whole.
A man, who apparently considered himself an expert in Biblical lore, asked
the author quite seriously how it was that, having always been told that
the “law” had been given on Mount Sinai, in another passage, occurring in
the Book of Esther (iii. 15), it is expressly stated that “the law was
given in Shushan,” thus mistaking the Mosaic law for that promulgated by
King Ahasuerus (for the destruction of all his Jewish subjects). But
Immanuel was equal to the occasion, and in an equally serious manner said:
“You are quite right, my friend, but you seem to have misunderstood the
meaning of the word “Shushan.” The latter does not refer to the _place_,
but to the _time_ in which the law was given. This was in the
Shushan-season (שושן=“rose”), when the rose is in its full bloom, which
is, as everybody knows, in spring time.”
On another occasion Immanuel treats satirically of the theme which Horace
dealt with in his first satire, beginning:—
Qui fit, Maecenas, ut nemo quam sibi sortem, &c.
The author represents a number of persons, each of whom is dissatisfied
with his position. They learn, however, that those very persons who had
been the objects of their envy, themselves suffered from various
unimagined evils, and accordingly declare on oath that they would never
consent to change from what they actually are.
Immanuel does not, however, restrict himself to humorous subjects. He
shows himself possessed of tender sensibility, which finds expression in
several pathetic passages. The sight of tombstones and graves, the death
of a near relative or friend, or any kindred event, at once brings with it
serious reflections. He then addresses himself to God in fervent prayer,
and pours out his innermost soul in strains that are full of warmth and
feeling, and impress the mind by their earnestness and devotion. There are
nineteen prayers and hymns to be found in the _Machberoth_, most of which
bear the stamp of the author's religious sentiments; the one that occurs
in chapter 26, beginning with the words אלהים נפלו פני בזכרי וכ׳, has
been inserted in the so-called Roman _Machsor_ (published in the year
1436), which proves its effectiveness as a liturgical poem, and shows at
the same time that even a century after the author's death his name was
honourably remembered by the Jews of Italy.
To this class of poetry may be added a lengthy epitaph (chap. 21),
composed by Immanuel as a kind of “In Memoriam” of himself. In the same
chapter is also to be found a funeral oration in rhymed prose, which the
author set down as an exemplar of the one he expected would be delivered
at his bier after his death. But, even when discussing so serious a topic
as death and burial, Immanuel cannot abstain from making jokes on himself
and his supposed mourners. Why, he asks mockingly, should he himself fare
better than Noah and Solomon, who had to leave behind them, the one a
splendid vineyard, and the other a number of beautiful wives? Those who
mourn for him, will, he thinks, no doubt forget how to laugh after he is
no more, but he expects that they will regain their spirits when they read
his posthumous work.
The last, and in some respects, perhaps, the most interesting chapter in
the _Machberoth_, is the one entitled _Ha-Topheth-ve-Ha-Eden_, or “Hell
and Paradise.” If, after all that has been said, there is still any doubt
about the friendship between Dante and Immanuel, this chapter, as well as
the circumstances in which it was written, will effectively dispel it.
According to recent investigations (cp. Ersch and Gruber's
_Real-Encyklopädie_, _sub_ “Dante”), it would seem that Dante's _Inferno_
and _Purgatorio_ were not published before the years 1314 and 1318
respectively, because certain incidents and events that happened during
those years are mentioned therein. At that time Immanuel was about fifty
years old, and had just begun his wanderings in a state of destitution.
Now, considering that in those times, before the invention of printing, a
written copy of any important work could only be procured by wealthy
people, the question naturally arises, From whom did Immanuel obtain a MS.
copy of the _Divina Commedia_ that enabled him to compose an imitation of
it in Hebrew? This perplexing question can, however, be answered in the
following manner. Although Immanuel was not in possession of a copy of
Dante's poem, he had most likely heard it read and recited by the author
himself before the members of the political and literary society called
“Young Italy,” to which reference has already been made. And he was no
doubt so deeply impressed by the work that it remained fresh in his memory
for a number of years. It may, perhaps, be supposed that he was thus able
to write his Hebrew imitation without actually having a written copy
before him.
As regards the merits, the conception, and the style of the
_Ha-Topheth-ve-Ha-Eden_ it may be said that it holds a unique position in
Hebrew literature. In the introduction the author states that, having
reached his sixtieth year, the sudden death of a younger friend caused him
much anxiety about his own future, and he wished to know the fate that
awaited him beyond the grave. To effect this he invoked the spirit of the
Prophet Daniel. Thereupon the vision of a venerable old man appeared to
him amidst thunder and lightning, and told him that he had come to show
him his future place in the world of spirits. Immanuel asked to be first
conducted to the regions of hell, and the old man led him there. On the
way they passed through several places, which are reminiscent of Dante's
_Inferno_, such as “a valley of corpses,” and “the gate of rejection,” in
front of which “a flaming sword turned in every direction.” Myriads of
souls were then being dragged through the gate by evil spirits to receive
their punishment for sins committed by them in life, and on that gate the
words were inscribed: “Here is an entrance only, but no outlet.” These
words recall the passage in Dante (_Inferno_, iii. 9):—
Abandon hope all ye who enter here.
Passing through the gate into hell Immanuel sees tortures inflicted upon
sinners, among whom are specially mentioned sceptics, gamblers,
adulterers, misers, spendthrifts, and hypocrites. A certain class of
Jewish preachers and precentors are also placed by Immanuel in the
infernal regions, because they were in the habit, whilst preaching or
reciting prayers, of lifting up their eyes to the women's gallery instead
of heavenwards. At the mention of these hypocrites Immanuel, remembering
his own failings, became pale with fear. But his conductor reassured him
by saying that, though he could not pronounce him quite free from sin, yet
he hoped that his virtues and his merits as an author of several excellent
books would procure for him a seat in Paradise. Presently Immanuel and his
leader leave Hell and betake themselves to Paradise. Looking round him, he
sees the souls of all the Biblical and post-Biblical personages, who have
in some way or other reflected credit on the Jewish race, either by their
literary works or by their valour, honesty, and virtue. He is greeted with
great joy by Moses, David, and Solomon, who eulogize the commentaries he
had written on their literary productions. On leaving them, Immanuel
notices another group at some distance, which was enveloped in a dazzling
blaze of glory. And asking his leader who they were, he was told that they
were _the pious of all nations_ (חסידי אומות העולם) who, during their
life on earth, had been pre-eminent in charity, virtue, and learning, and
were in consequence rewarded with seats of honour in Paradise. Close to
them Immanuel noticed a magnificent throne in the course of erection,
which he was given to understand was to be occupied by a friend, or rather
a brother of his, as he is called, Daniel by name. It is still a matter of
uncertainty to whom the author referred. But, on reading the context, it
seems an inevitable conclusion that he must, as Geiger suggested, have
alluded to Dante (Daniel). Near the throne of his friend, he was told, his
own would be erected, so that they might both be united again after death
and enjoy together heavenly bliss ever after.
The few special passages bearing on this friendship are so characteristic
of Immanuel's liberal-mindedness that a reproduction of them here may not
be out of place. They run somewhat as follows:—
“I do not know what has caused me to think of my friend Daniel, who, as an
associate and friend, was to me of inestimable worth. It was he who showed
me the path of truth and righteousness, who helped me greatly when fortune
had forsaken me, and whose gigantic intellect is still spoken of on earth
with unqualified admiration. On my asking my guide where my own throne
would be placed after my death, he said: ‘You are certainly far inferior
in greatness to your friend, whose name and fame will always be held in
great honour by posterity. Yet, because you have both lived after the same
pattern, and have both striven after truth, you shall be united again
after death. Your throne shall be erected near to his, and, sitting
hereafter close to each other, you will be like Joshua, who once was the
attendant and disciple of Moses. Having been united in life by a mutual
bond of friendship, no power shall separate your souls for ever.’ When I
heard this my joy was unbounded, so happy was I in the thought that my lot
would be like his, and that we should both have seats in Paradise. And
having asked my conductor to let me see the throne destined for my friend,
he took me by the hand, and led me to a tent where the hand of a master
builder had erected a monument wonderful to view. Angels passed to and
fro, women ornamented it with different costly textures, and numerous
spirits made it ablaze with gold, rubies, and sapphires. And soon there
stood before my wondering eye a throne formed of ebony, covered with
purple and gold, and surmounted by a beautiful, glittering crown, which
shone like the beams of the sun. This, said my guide, is Daniel's throne.
You see, my son, the work that he has erected in the world is full of fame
and renown, and equally great and glorious shall be the throne which he is
to occupy in the world of spirits.”
The _Ha-Topheth-ve-Ha-Eden_ closes with the guide's request that he should
write down for the benefit of posterity all that he saw in his wanderings
through Hell and Paradise. Thereupon he vanishes in the tumult of a storm,
which causes the author to awake from his dream.
From what has been said it will be seen that a marked mental affinity
existed between Dante and Immanuel. To both history, scholasticism, and
romanticism provided materials for their work. They were both influenced
by the new national spirit that had inspired the members of “Young Italy”
to struggle for the liberation of their countrymen—bodily and
mentally—from the yoke of priestcraft and superstition. Finally, it will
be admitted that the _Ha-Topheth-ve-Ha-Eden_ in style, dramatic effect,
and graphic description has much in common with the _Divina Commedia_,
although the condensed imitation is, of course, vastly inferior to the
original. Yet there are several features in it which are peculiar to
Immanuel. The most remarkable one is this: while Dante is narrow-minded
enough to exclude from Paradise all and every one who does not profess
Christianity, including even his leader, Virgil, Immanuel assigns places
of honour there to the good and righteous of all nations and of all ages,
provided they do not deny the existence of God and of a divine spirit in
man.
Professor Th. Paur refers to this point in the essay that was mentioned
above, and writes as follows:—
“If we closely examine the sentiments set forth in the little poetical
volume (_Ha-Topheth-ve-Ha-Eden_), we must confess that the Jew Immanuel
need not blush in the presence of the Christian Dante. It is true that he,
like Dante, condemns those philosophical theories in which the personality
of God, the creation of the world by his power, and the existence of a
divine spirit in man are denied. But Immanuel shows more courage than
Dante by effectively stigmatizing hypocrisy in all its various shapes and
forms. He also possesses a greater spirit of tolerance than the latter had
shown towards men professing creeds different from his own—a beautiful
human _naïveté_ in matters of religion—which must be sought after with the
lantern of Diogenes among the Christians of that period.”
In the introduction to the present essay mention was made of some sonnets
composed by Immanuel in the Italian language, which show that he must have
been well versed in the literature of his native country. Three of them
were published for the first time some thirty years ago in a book entitled
_Letteratura e filosofia, opuscoli per Pasquale Garofalo, Duca di Bonita_
(Naples, 1872). Perhaps it will not be out of place, in conclusion, to
quote one of them here. Its English translation is somewhat as follows:—
“Love has never read the _Ave Maria_. It knows no law, no creed, neither
does it hear nor see: it is boundless. Love is an unrestricted, omnipotent
power, which insists on obtaining what it craves for. . . . Love does not
suffer itself to be deprived of its pride and power by a _Paternoster_, or
by any other charm; neither is it afraid of carrying into effect what it
is fond of. _Amor_ alone knows what causes me grief; whatever I may offer
him as an excuse, he meets me always with the same answer: It is my will
and wish.”
Footnotes:
[87-1] It should be added that the eminent Dante scholar, Theodor Paur,
was strongly inclined to doubt the authenticity of these poems, and that
he was sceptical with regard to the whole question of the friendship
between Immanuel and Dante. On the other hand, he readily admitted that
Immanuel imitated the _Commedia_ in his _Ha-Topheth-ve-Ha-Eden_. (See
_Jahrbuch der deutschen Dante-Gesellschaft_, III, 1871, pp. 423–462.)
[92-1] See Graetz, _Geschichte_, VII; and Güdemann, _Geschichte des
Erziehungswesens und der Cultur abendländischen Juden während des
Mittelalters_.
X