influence of Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Maimonides paid hero-worship to
Aristotle, the autocrat of the middle ages in the realm of speculation.
There is no question that the dominion wielded by the Greek philosopher
throughout mediaeval times, and the influence which he exercises even
now, are chiefly attributable to the Arabs, and beside them,
pre-eminently to Maimonides. For him, Aristotle was second in authority
only to the Bible. A rational interpretation of the Bible, in his
opinion, meant its interpretation from an Aristotelian point of view.
Still, he does not consider Aristotle other than a thinker like himself,
not by any means the infallible "organ of reason." The moment he
discovers that a peripatetic principle is in direct and irreconcilable
conflict with his religious convictions, he parts company with it, let
the effort cost what it may. For, above all, Maimonides was a faithful
Jew, striving to reach a spiritual conception of his religion, and to
assign to theology the place in his estimation belonging to it in the
realm of science. He stands forth as the most eminent intermediary
between Greek-Arabic thought and Christian scholasticism. A century
later, the most prominent of the schoolmen endeavored, in the same way
as Maimonides, to reconcile divine with human wisdom as manifested by
Aristotle. It has been demonstrated that Maimonides was followed by both
Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, and that the new aims of philosophy,
conceived at the beginning of the thirteenth century, are, in part, to
be traced to the influence of "Rabbi Moses of Egypt," as Maimonides was
called by the first of these two celebrated doctors of the Church.
What a marvellous picture is presented by the unfolding of the
Aristotelian idea in its passage through the ages! And one of the most
attractive figures on the canvas is Maimonides. Let us see how he
undertakes to guide the perplexed. His path is marked out for him by the
Bible. Its first few verses suffice to puzzle the believing thinker. It
says: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." What! Is this
expression to be taken literally? Impossible! To conceive of God as such
that a being can be made in His image, is to conceive of Him as a
corporeal substance. But God is an invisible, immaterial Intelligence.
Reason teaches this, and the sacred Book itself prohibits image-worship.
On this point Aristotle and the Bible are in accord. The inference is
that in the Holy Scriptures there are many metaphors and words with a
double or allegoric sense. Such is the case with the word "image." It
has two meanings, the one usual and obvious, the other figurative. Here
the word must be taken in its figurative sense. God is conceived as the
highest Reason, and as reason is the specific attribute which
characterizes the human mind, it follows that man, by virtue of his
possession of reason, resembles God, and the more fully he realizes the
ideal of Reason, the closer does he approach the form and likeness of
God. Such is Maimonides' method of reasoning. He does not build up a new
system of philosophy, he adopts an existing system. Beginning with Bible
exegesis, he leads us, step by step, up to the lofty goal at which
philosophy and faith are linked in perfect harmony.
The arguments for the existence, unity, and incorporeity of God divide
the Arabic philosophers into two schools. Maimonides naturally espoused
the view permitting the most exalted conception of God, that is, the
conception of God free from human attributes. He recognizes none but
negative attributes; in other words, he defines God by means of
negations only. For instance, asserting that the Supreme Being is
omniscient or omnipotent, is not investing Him with a positive
attribute, it is simply denying imperfection. The student knows that in
the history of the doctrine of attributes, the recognition of negative
attributes marks a great advance in philosophic reasoning. Maimonides
holds that the conception of the Deity as a pure abstraction is the only
one truly philosophic. His evidences for the existence, the
immateriality, and the unity of God, are conceived in the same spirit.
In offering them he follows Aristotle's reasoning closely, adding only
one other proof, the cosmological, which he took from his teacher, the
Arab Avicenna. He logically reaches this proof by more explicitly
defining the God-idea, and, at the same time, taking into consideration
the nature of the world of things and their relation to one another.
Acquainted with Ptolemy's "Almagest" and with the investigations of the
Arabs, he naturally surpasses his Greek master in astronomical
knowledge. In physical science, however, he gives undivided allegiance
to the Aristotelian theory of a sublunary and a celestial world of
spheres, the former composed of the sublunary elements in constantly
shifting, perishable combinations, and the latter, of the stable,
unchanging fifth substance (quintessence). But the question, how God
moves these spheres, separates Maimonides from his master. His own
answer has a Neoplatonic ring. He holds, with Aristotle, that there are
as many separate Intelligences as spheres. Each sphere is supposed to
aspire to the Intelligence which is the principle of its motion. The
Arabic thinkers assumed ten such independent Intelligences, one
animating each of the nine permanent spheres, and the tenth, called the
"Active Intellect," influencing the sublunary world of matter. The
existence of this tenth Intelligence is proved by the transition of our
own intellect from possible existence to actuality, and by the varying
forms of all transient things, whose matter at one time existed only in
a potential state. Whenever the transition from potentiality to
actuality occurs, there must be a cause. Inasmuch as the tenth
Intelligence (_Sechel Hapoel_, Active Intellect) induces form, it must
itself be form, inasmuch as it is the source of intellect, it is itself
intellect. This is, of course, obscure to us, but we must remember that
Maimonides would not have so charming and individual a personality,
were he not part and parcel of his time and the representative of its
belief. Maimonides, having for once deviated from the peripatetic
system, ventures to take another bold step away from it. He offers an
explanation, different from Aristotle's, of the creation of the world.
The latter repudiated the _creatio ex nihilo_ (creation out of nothing).
Like modern philosophers, he pre-supposed the existence of an eternal
"First substance" (_materia prima_). His Bible does not permit our rabbi
to avail himself of this theory. It was reserved for the modern
investigator to demonstrate how the Scriptural word, with some little
manipulation, can be so twisted as to be made to harmonize with the
theories of natural science. But to such trickery the pure-minded guide
will not stoop. Besides, the acceptance of Aristotle's theory would rule
out the intervention of miracles in the conduct of the world, and that
Maimonides does not care to renounce. Right here his monotheistic
convictions force him into direct opposition to the Greek as well as to
the Arabic philosophers. Upon this subject, he brooked neither trifling
nor compromise with reason. It is precisely his honesty that so exalted
his teachings, that they have survived the lapse of centuries, and
maintain a place in the pure atmosphere of modern philosophic thought.
According to Maimonides, man has absolute free-will, and God is
absolutely just. Whatever good befalls man is reward, all his evil
fortune, punishment. What Aristotle attributes to chance, and the
Mohammedan philosophers to Divine Will or Divine Wisdom, our rabbi
traces to the _merits of man_ as its cause. He does not admit any
suffering to be unmerited, or that God ordains trials merely to
indemnify the sufferer in this or the future world. Man's susceptibility
to divine influence is measured by his intellectual endowment. Through
his "intellect," he is directly connected with the "Active Intellect,"
and thus secures the grace of God, who embraces the infinite. Such views
naturally lead to a conception of life in consonance with the purest
ideals of morality, and they are the goal to which the "Guide" leads the
perplexed. He teaches that the acquiring of high intellectual power, and
the "possession of such notions as lead to true metaphysical opinions"
about God, are "man's final object," and they constitute true human
perfection. This it is that "gives him immortality," and confers upon
him the dignity of manhood.
The highest degree of perfection, according to Maimonides, is reached by
him who devotes all his thoughts and actions to perfecting himself in
divine matters, and this highest degree he calls prophecy. He is
probably the first philosopher to offer so rationalistic an explanation,
and, on that account, it merits our attention. What had previously been
regarded as supernatural inspiration, the "Guide" reduces to a
psychological theory. "Prophecy," he says, "is, in truth and reality, an
emanation sent forth by the Divine Being through the medium of the
Active Intellect, in the first instance to man's rational faculty, and
then to his imaginative faculty; it is the highest degree ... of
perfection man can attain; it consists in the most perfect development
of the imaginative faculty." Maimonides distinguishes eleven degrees of
inspiration, and three essential conditions of prophecy: 1. Perfection
of the natural constitution of the imaginative faculty, 2. mental
perfection, which may partially be acquired by training, and 3. moral
perfection. Moses arrived at the highest degree of prophecy, because he
understood the knowledge communicated to him without the medium of the
imaginative faculty. This spiritual height having been scaled, the
"Guide" needs but to take a step to reach revelation, in his estimation
also an intellectual process: man's intellect rises to the Supreme
Being.
In the third part of his work, Maimonides endeavors to reconcile the
conclusions of philosophy with biblical laws and Talmudical traditions.
His method is both original and valuable; indeed, this deserves to be
considered the most important part of his work. Detailed exposition of
his reasoning may prove irksome; we shall, therefore, consider it as
briefly as possible.
Maimonides laid down one rule of interpretation which, almost without
exception, proves applicable: The words of Holy Writ express different
sets of ideas, bearing a certain relation to each other, the one set
having reference to physical, the other to spiritual, qualities. By
applying this rule, he thinks that nearly all discrepancies between the
literal interpretation of the Bible and his own philosophic theories
disappear. Having passed over the domain of metaphysical speculation, he
finally reaches the consideration of the practical side of the Bible,
that is to say, the Mosaic legislation. These last investigations of his
are attractive, not only by reason of the satisfactory method pursued,
but chiefly from the fact that Maimonides, divesting himself of the
conservatism of his contemporaries, ventures to inquire into the reasons
of biblical laws. For many of them, he assigns local and historical
reasons; many, he thinks, owe their origin to the desire to oppose the
superstitious practices of early times and of the Sabeans, a mythical,
primitive race; but all, he contends, are binding, and with this solemn
asseveration, he puts the seal upon his completed work.
When Maimonides characterized the "Guide of the Perplexed" as "the true
science of the Bible," he formed a just estimate of his own work. It has
come to be the substructure of a rational theology based upon
speculation. Maimonides cannot be said to have been very much ahead of
his own age; but it is altogether certain that he attained the acme of
the possibilities of the middle ages. In many respects there is a
striking likeness between his life and work and those of the Arabic
freethinker Averroes, whom we now know so well through Ernest Renan.
While the Jewish theologian was composing his great work, the Arabic
philosopher was writing his "Commentaries on Aristotle." The two had
similar ends in view--the one to enthrone "the Stagirite" as the
autocrat of philosophy in the Mosque, the other, in the Synagogue. We
have noted the fact that, some centuries later, the Church also entered
the federation subject to Aristotelian rule. Albertus Magnus uses
Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas joins him, and upon them depend the other
schoolmen. Recent inquirers follow in their train. Philosophy's noblest
votary, Benedict Spinoza himself, is influenced by Maimonides. He quotes
frequently and at great length the finest passages of the "Guide."
Again, Moses Mendelssohn built his system on the foundations offered by
Maimonides, and an acute critic assures us that, in certain passages,
Kant's religious philosophy breathes the spirit of Maimonides.[40]
The "Guide of the Perplexed" did not, however, meet with so gracious a
reception in the Synagogue. There, Maimonides' philosophic system
conjured up violent storms. The whole of an epoch, that following
Maimonides' death, was absorbed in the conflict between philosophy and
tradition. Controversial pamphlets without number have come down to us
from those days. Enthusiasts eulogized, zealots decried. Maimonides'
ambiguous expressions about bodily resurrection, seeming to indicate
that he did not subscribe to the article of the creed on that subject,
caused particularly acrimonious polemics. Meir ben Todros ha-Levi, a
Talmudist and poet of Toledo, denounced the equivocation in the
following lines:
"If those that rise from death again must die,
For lot like theirs I ne'er should long and sigh.
If graves their bones shall once again confine,
I hope to stay where first they bury mine."
Naturally, Maimonides' followers were quick to retort:
"His name, forsooth, is Meir 'Shining.'
How false! since _light_ he holds in small esteem.
Our language always contrast loveth,--
Twi_light_'s the name of ev'ning's doubtful gleam."
Another of Maimonides' opponents was the physician Judah Alfachar, who
bore the hereditary title _Prince_. The following pasquinade is
attributed to him:
"Forgive, O Amram's son, nor deem it crime,
That he, deception's master, bears thy name.
_Nabi_ we call the prophet of truths sublime,
Like him of Ba'al, who doth the truth defame."
Maimonides, in his supposed reply to the Prince, played upon the word
_Chamor_, the Hebrew word for _ass_, the name of a Hivite prince
mentioned in the Bible:
"High rank, I wot, we proudly claim
When sprung from noble ancestor;
Henceforth my mule a _prince_ I'll name
Since once a prince was called _Chamor_."
It seems altogether certain that this polemic rhyming is the fabrication
of a later day, for we know that the controversies about Maimonides'
opinions in Spain and Provence broke out only after his death, when his
chief work had spread far and wide in its Hebrew translation. The
following stanza passed from mouth to mouth in northern France:
"Be silent, 'Guide,' from further speech refrain!
Thus truth to us was never brought.
Accursed who says that Holy Writ's a trope,
And idle dreams what prophets taught."
Whereupon the Provencals returned:
"Thou fool, I pray thou wilt forbear,
Nor enter on this consecrated ground.
Or trope, or truth--or vision fair,
Or only dream--for thee 'tis too profound."
The homage paid to Maimonides' memory in many instances produced most
extravagant poetry. The following high-flown lines, outraging the canons
of good taste recognized in Hebrew poetry, are supposed to be his
epitaph:
"Here lies a man, yet not a man,
And if a man, conceived by angels,
By human mother only born to light;
Perhaps himself a spirit pure--
Not child by man and woman fostered--
From God above an emanation bright."
Such hyperbole naturally challenged opposition, and Maimonides'
opponents did not hesitate to give voice to their deep indignation, as
in the following:
"Alas! that man should dare
To say, with reckless air,
That Holy Scripture's but a dream of night;
That all we read therein
Has truly never been,
Is naught but sign of meaning recondite.
And when God's wondrous deeds
The haughty scorner reads,
Contemptuous he cries, 'I trust my sight.'"
A cessation of hostilities came only in the fourteenth century. The
"Guide" was then given its due meed of appreciation by the Jews. Later,
Maimonides' memory was held in unbounded reverence, and to-day his
"Guide of the Perplexed" is a manual of religious philosophy treasured
by Judaism.
If we wish once more before parting from this earnest, noble thinker to
review his work and attitude, we can best do it by applying to them the
standard furnished by his own reply to all adverse critics of his
writings: "In brief, such is my disposition. When a thought fills my
mind, though I be able to express it so that only a single man among ten
thousand, a thinker, is satisfied and elevated by it, while the common
crowd condemns it as absurd, I boldly and frankly speak the word that
enlightens the wise, never fearing the censure of the ignorant herd."
This was Maimonides--he of pure thought, of noble purpose; imbued with
enthusiasm for his faith, with love for science; ruled by the loftiest
moral principles; full of disinterested love and the milk of human
kindness in his intercourse with those of other faiths and other views;
an eagle-eyed thinker, in whom were focused and harmoniously blended the
last rays of the declining sun of Arabic-Jewish-Spanish culture.
JEWISH TROUBADOURS AND MINNESINGERS
A great tournament at the court of Pedro I.! Deafening fanfares invite
courtiers and cavaliers to participate in the festivities. In the
brilliant sunshine gleam the lances of the knights, glitter the spears
of the hidalgos. Gallant paladins escort black-eyed beauties to the
elevated balcony, on which, upon a high-raised throne, under a gilded
canopy, surrounded by courtiers, sit Blanche de Bourbon and her
illustrious lord Dom Pedro, with Dona Maria de Padilla, the lady of his
choice, at his left. Three times the trumpets have sounded, announcing
the approach of the troubadours gathered from all parts of Castile to
compete with one another in song. Behold! a venerable old man, with
silvery white beard flowing down upon his breast, seeks to extricate
himself from the crowd. With admiring gaze the people respectfully make
way, and enthusiastically greet him: "Rabbi Don Santo! Rabbi Don Santo!"
The troubadour makes a low obeisance before the throne. Dom Pedro nods
encouragement, Maria de Padilla smiles graciously, only Dona Blanca's
pallid face remains immobile. The hoary bard begins his song:[41]
"My noble king and mighty lord,
A discourse hear most true;
'Tis Santob brings your Grace the word,
Of Carrion's town the Jew.
In plainest verse my thought I tell,
With gloss and moral free,
Drawn from Philosophy's pure well,
As onward you may see."[42]
A murmur of approval runs through the crowd; grandees and hidalgos press
closer to listen. In well-turned verse, fraught with worldly-wise
lessons, and indifferent whether his hortations meet with praise or with
censure, the poet continues to pour out words of counsel and moral
teachings, alike for king, nobles, and people.
Who is this Rabbi Don Santob? We know very little about him, yet, with
the help of "bright-eyed fancy," enough to paint his picture. The real
name of this Jew from Carrion de los Condes, a city of northern Spain,
who lived under Alfonso XI and Peter the Cruel, was, of course, not
Santob, but Shem-Tob. Under Alfonso the intellectual life of Spain
developed to a considerable degree, and in Spain, as almost everywhere,
we find Jews in sympathy with the first intellectual strivings of the
nation. They have a share in the development of all Romance languages
and literatures. Ibn Alfange, a Moorish Jew, after his conversion a high
official, wrote the first "Chronicle of the Cid," the oldest source of
the oft-repeated biography, thus furnishing material to subsequent
Spanish poets and historians. Valentin Barruchius (Baruch), of Toledo,
composed, probably in the twelfth century, in pure, choice Latin, the
romance _Comte Lyonnais, Palanus_, which spread all over Europe,
affording modern poets subject-matter for great tragedies, and forming
the groundwork for one of the classics of Spanish literature. A little
later, Petrus Alphonsus (Moses Sephardi) wrote his _Disciplina
Clericalis_, the first collection of tales in the Oriental manner, the
model of all future collections of the kind.
Three of the most important works of Spanish literature, then, are
products of Jewish authorship. This fact prepares the student to find a
Jew among the Castilian troubadours of the fourteenth century, the
period of greatest literary activity. The Jewish spirit was by no means
antagonistic to the poetry of the Provencal troubadours. In his didactic
poem, _Chotham Tochnith_ ("The Seal of Perfection," together with "The
Flaming Sword"), Abraham Bedersi, that is, of Beziers (1305), challenges
his co-religionists to a poetic combat. He details the rules of the
tournament, and it is evident that he is well acquainted with all the
minutiae of the _jeu parti_ and the _tenso_ (song of dispute) of the
Provencal singers, and would willingly imitate their _sirventes_ (moral
and political song). His plaint over the decadence of poetry among the
Jews is characteristic: "Where now are the marvels of Hebrew poetry?
Mayhap thou'lt find them in the Provencal or Romance. Aye, in Folquet's
verses is manna, and from the lips of Cardinal is wafted the perfume of
crocus and nard"--Folquet de Lunel and Peire Cardinal being the last
great representatives of Provencal troubadour poetry. Later on,
neo-Hebraic poets again show acquaintance with the regulations governing
song-combats and courts of love. Pious Bible exegetes, like Samuel ben
Meir, do not disdain to speak of the _partimens_ of the troubadours, "in
which lovers talk to each other, and by turns take up the discourse."
One of his school, a _Tossafist_, goes so far as to press into service
the day's fashion in explaining the meaning of a verse in the "Song of
Songs": "To this day lovers treasure their mistress' locks as
love-tokens." It seems, too, that Provencal romances were heard, and
their great poets welcomed, in the houses of Jews, who did not scruple
occasionally to use their melodies in the synagogue service.
National customs, then, took root in Israel; but that Jewish elements
should have become incorporated into Spanish literature is more
remarkable, may, indeed, be called marvellous. Yet, from one point of
view, it is not astonishing. The whole of mediaeval Spanish literature is
nothing more than the handmaiden of Christianity. Spanish poetry is
completely dominated by Catholicism; it is in reality only an expression
of reverence for Christian institutions. An extreme naturally induces a
counter-current; so here, by the side of rigid orthodoxy, we meet with
latitudinarianism and secular delight in the good things of life. For
instance, that jolly rogue, the archpriest of Hita, by way of relaxation
from the tenseness of church discipline, takes to composing _dansas_ and
_baladas_ for the rich Jewish bankers of his town. He and his
contemporaries have much to say about Jewish generosity--unfortunately,
much, too, about Jewish wealth and pomp. Jewish women, a Jewish
chronicler relates, are tricked out with finery, as "sumptuously as the
pope's mules." It goes without saying that, along with these accounts,
we have frequent wailing about defection from the faith and neglect of
the Law. Old Akiba is right: "History repeats itself!" ("_Es ist alles
schon einmal da gewesen!_").