and occupy the point of view from which the historical development
of Judaism must be judged. He cleared the whole historical field,
so as to be able to examine the various phases of this development
with ease and accuracy. As an historian, Graetz had had but a single
predecessor[50] who must be taken into account, Isaac Marcus Jost. In
1820, the latter began to publish a “History of the Israelites from
the Time of the Maccabees.”[51] Nine years later nine volumes had
appeared, bringing the history down to his own time. Under the title,
“Universal History of the Israelitish People,”[52] he published, in
1850, a two-volume epitome with corrections and improvements, covering
in addition the period from Abraham to the Maccabees. He did not prove
himself a real pioneer in either work. Jost was a scholar, but not an
historian; a noble man with admirable qualities, whose varied knowledge
gave a considerable impetus to Jewish historical work, but he had not
been singled out as the proclaimer of an historical revelation to be
spread far and wide in joyful, vigorous utterance. In view of the fact,
however, that no monographs on special phases of the subject existed
at his time, Jost’s achievement cannot be sufficiently admired. He
sought out and arranged the more or less obvious, but widely scattered
data, appraising their value and assigning to each its due place.
He thus produced a manual for the chaos of confusing details and
facts. In respect to manner, his presentation of the subject makes
the impression of an herbarium. His work consists of a collection
of persons and events, heaped up without reference to their inner
relations and classified only according to superficial and accidental
marks of resemblance. His speculations are prosy, and do not touch the
essence of their subject. His style is dry, diffuse, and monotonous,
destitute of fire and force, with nothing to indicate that the author
had a lively realization of the past. An admirer of the Roman system
and impregnated with Christian ideas, he was unconsciously oppressed
by the fear that he was not abreast of the times, and dreaded the
charge of partiality if he gave due credit to Judaism and Rabbinism.
This accounts for his misrepresentation of the Pharisees and their
successors, the Rabbis, and for his false, almost caricature-like
treatment of the Talmud and the literature depending upon it. He felt
that the consideration of Judaism from the point of view of history at
once becomes a glorification thereof, and under no circumstances did he
care to incur the imputation of being its apologist.[53]
Graetz entertained no such scruples. In the formation of his opinions
fear or timidity had no part; they did not curtail the expression
of his judgment regardless of the feelings of friend or foe. He was
the first to divest himself wholly of Christian prejudices in the
consideration of the Jewish past; the first to try to explain the
development of Judaism on inherent principles, as all similar phenomena
are explained. He was thus able to distribute light and shade justly,
without any attempt to gloss or slur facts. Graetz had been in Berlin
but a short time when he met Zunz at the house of Michael Sachs. The
two visitors had not yet made each other’s personal acquaintance. The
host presented Graetz, adding in praise of him, that he was about to
publish a Jewish history. “Another history of the Jews?” Zunz asked
pointedly. “Another history,” was Graetz’s retort, “but this time
a _Jewish_ history.”[54] And, in truth, Graetz was the first to
vindicate the fair claims of Jewish history; he did pioneer work in
establishing the validity of the Jewish point of view. Christianity
considers the belief in the Messiahship of the Son of God and in
the miracles reported in connection with his birth and death the
completion and fulfillment of the Law of Moses and of the prophetical
promises. Only what springs from this dogma can rise to a proper
conception of God, to the heights of true morality, and is capable of
promoting the advancement of civilization. Accordingly, having begotten
Christianity, Judaism fulfilled its religious mission, and the loss
of Jewish national independence occurring almost simultaneously with
the rise of Christianity, its spiritual importance was extinguished
and its historical progress arrested. Its development since then, it
is maintained, bears the marks of decrepitude and degeneration--is
nothing more than idolatry of the _Torah_ and religious formalism.
To this consciously or unconsciously biased view Graetz wished to
oppose a faithful presentation of facts, free from partiality,
personal predilections, or specious coloring. He held, that an
objective, unprejudiced account sufficed to demonstrate the vitality
of Judaism, asserting itself again and again in the midst of distress
and persecution; continuing to develop its monotheistic doctrines and
its ethical system undisturbed by the loss of a national background,
and borne onward only by virtue of its spirituality and ideality;
producing thinkers, poets, and even statesmen despite untold suffering;
and contributing zealously to the solution of the problems of human
civilization, uprooted and dispersed though its adherents were. This
point of view Graetz assumed energetically and applied consistently in
the elaboration of Jewish history, with the result that we owe to him
our conscious acquaintance with the various aspects of Judaism in all
their abundance and suggestiveness.
Besides making new sources available, Graetz gained fresh points
of view and surprising information from the old ones. He was
particularly successful in restoring to Jewish accounts that had
become hazy or sounded incredible a freshly colored background and
life-like reality, or at least in laying bare their kernel of fact,
by the discovery of hardly recognizable parallel passages and proofs
in non-Jewish authors. He sought everywhere, and was more or less
successful in finding and inserting in their place, connecting links
and complementary pieces. When he approached his bold undertaking
with the courage inspired by enthusiasm, Jewish history was a vast
field of debris, over which volcanic events had poured out their
lava, and the centuries had scattered their dust. Here and there a
gigantic ruin, some literary production, towered in solitude over the
wide stretches of the pathless, dismal waste, the only guide-posts to
direct the wanderer through the labyrinth of ruins and underbrush.
The great creators of Jewish science, to be sure, Zunz and Rapoport,
whose extraordinary deserts are not yet duly appreciated by their
brethren-in-faith, had already given the world their excellent works of
fundamental importance; yet the great tracts explored and made arable
by them seemed no more than smaller or larger islands in a vast sea
of rubbish. They did not afford vantage-ground from which the whole
could be overlooked. Rarely leaving the domain of literary history,
these scholars did not lead up to the positions that dominated the
field. In this respect particularly Graetz proved himself a pioneer.
Whatever epoch he may be considering, and however much he may seem to
be absorbed in details, he never takes his eye from the grand whole.
His purpose always is to clear a path through the rank underbrush,
or to trace on the exposed surfaces of shattered remains the lines
and veins that indicate the essential character and the trend of the
historical process. He was endowed with a number of qualities that
enabled him to introduce light, order, system, and classification into
the chaos of the historical material at his disposal. With rare energy
he plunged into the consideration of vast systems of thought, and
almost without an effort assimilated and grouped them. In his learned
notes he opposes varying accounts, proofs, and hints to one another,
and with an adroit hand and a perspicacious mind grasps the main idea
firmly and unravels the knotted thread. Finally, fear of error did not
deter him from taking a decided stand towards events and persons and
giving frank and vigorous expression to his views upon them. Let the
reader examine the essays that serve as introductions to certain parts
of his work, as, for instance, those in the fourth, fifth, and seventh
volumes, and he will appreciate the unerring eye that espies and never
loses from sight the motive ideas and the dominating points of view,
which not merely are sketched in a general, comprehensive way, but are
applied in detail. His “History” affords numerous illustrations of the
way in which Graetz promoted and enriched historical research. For
example, Saadiah Gaon had been discovered, as it were, by Rapoport,
and Geiger had made valuable contributions to our knowledge of him,
but the chapter about him in the “History”[55] first fully revealed
his epoch-making importance and his rich literary activity. Graetz was
the first to recognize and appreciate the notable influence exerted by
Chasdaï Crescas[56] upon philosophy and social conditions. The great
Disputation of Tortosa, of which we have a trustworthy Jewish account,
was nevertheless not understood in its historical bearing and political
effect until Graetz ingeniously confronted the Jewish source with
Christian reports.[57] The cloud of legend enveloping the enthusiasts
David Reubeni and Solomon Molcho,[58] whom students were inclined to
regard as no more than hallucinations or phantasmagoria, he resolved
into the reality of their fantastic adventures. In short, coupled with
rare sagacity in perceiving the true meaning of a mutilated text and
emending it accordingly, he had a remarkable instinct for piercing to
the reality of facts, no matter how grotesque they might appear.
Such endowments qualified Graetz to translate the Talmudic method of
thought and expression into the terms of modern feelings and views,
and give a model illustration of the critical examination of the
literature of Talmudic times and its use as a valuable historical
source. Non-Jewish scholars and sciolists were quick to brand the
apparently unintelligible or the curious passages abounding in rabbinic
literature as evidences of Talmudic ignorance or rabbinic folly, and
the Jews of the emancipation period, if they did not subscribe to
this verdict, at least hesitated whether or not to endorse it. Graetz
showed plainly that precisely the text of the historical narratives had
become wretchedly corrupted and would have to be restored. Besides,
he called attention to various features of the historical tradition
as told by the rabbis. Either they were treated pragmatically, with
their causes and results, or their presentation was intentionally
biased, or layers of legend had deposited themselves about the kernel
of fact, which awaited release from its envelopes. Over and above
all this, he urged that the concrete, figurative expressions of the
rabbis, derived from a sphere of thought foreign to us, must be
translated into modern concepts. For instance, in an ancient rabbinic
chronicle, the _Seder olam rabba_, it is reported that the war of
Vespasian is separated from that of Titus by an interval of twenty-two
years. Aside from the consideration that it is neither historical
nor justifiable to distinguish between a war of Vespasian and a war
of Titus, it is impossible to give a satisfactory explanation of the
period of twenty-two years. The same incomprehensible distinction
between Vespasian’s and Titus’ war occurs in the Mishna at the end of
the tractate _Sota_. Graetz changed a single letter, ט {Hebrew: tet}
into ק {Hebrew: kof}, and instead of טיטוס {Hebrew: Titus} (Titus), he
reads קיטוס {Hebrew: Kitus} (Kitus), _i. e._ Quietus. In this way he
discovered a rebellion in Palestine against Lucius Quietus. We know
none of its details, but its occurrence is beyond the peradventure
of a doubt. The conjecture, as simple as it is ingenious, has been
corroborated by a manuscript reading.[59] A narrative in tractate
_Sabbath_ 17_a_ is no less curious: “A sword was thrust into the
academy, with the words: Whoever desires may go in, but none may
come out,” etc. Graetz explains the enigma thus: in the first year
of the rebellion against Nero a terrorist synod was dominated by the
Shammaites.[60] In general, he considered the opposition between the
schools of Hillel and Shammai not merely theoretic but also political,
and he identified the rabid Zealots with extreme Shammaites.
“Graetz is deserving of great praise for having established this
fact [the existence of the terrorist synod], until then not
sufficiently appreciated. In itself it is an extremely important
result, and its value is heightened by reason of the data growing
out of it.... At all events, Herr Graetz has won a second
distinction of equally great importance by his use of the _Megilla
Taanith_ as a historical source and his verification of its
statements, even though many remain dubious.”
This is the opinion of the historian[61] Jost, surely a competent judge
in such matters.
Where so much light is radiated, there cannot fail to be some shadows.
Graetz’s admirable qualities have a reverse side. He often permits
subjective views to obtrude themselves too much, and in stating his
hypotheses he is apt to clothe them in terms too positive and incisive,
not heeding that events dovetail into each other; that men yield to
changeful humors and motives, often of a contradictory nature; and
that illogical, even irrational turns of language and thought may
occasionally occur in the texts. It surely is not astonishing to
find inaccuracies, human errors, and misconceptions here and there
in a gigantic work of twelve bulky volumes. Faults and shortcomings
vanish into forgetfulness by the side of the multiplicity of his
results and the grandeur of his achievement. Perspective, life-like
characterization, distinct outline, glowing color--these Jewish history
owes solely to Graetz’s rich fancy. He opened up new problems, created
the historical types, constructed the framework of Jewish history.
But his greatest achievement, one that cannot be rated sufficiently
high, is that of having procured a hearing with all strata of his
coreligionists by means of his charming, easy style. He revived the
consciousness of an illustrious past, glorious in spite of persecution
and degradation, and the belief in a future of spiritual triumph for
Israel. Energetic and ardent as his temperament was, he merged his
being in the past of his race, as it were, giving devoted study to
the most hidden emotions of the national soul. He associated with the
rabbis, philosophers, and poets whose features and forms he draws as
with companions and intimate friends. When storms are imminent in the
course of the history, he is visibly swayed by hope and fear, and
when a catastrophe has overwhelmed his people, he is bowed down with
anguish and grief. The reader sees his suffering, and cannot withhold
passionate sympathy. For instance, he trembles at the thought of
the disgrace and misfortune threatening Israel on account of the
aberrations of the pseudo-Messiah Sabbataï Zevi, and consoles himself
with the brilliant light of Jewish origin irradiating the world through
Spinoza. According to his favorite method of setting men and events
over against each other and permitting them to elucidate each other
by their very opposition, he sharply contrasts the two figures. He
represents both as the product of the Jewish passion for speculation
on the infinite, and shows how in the end both sever their connection
with Judaism; the one, lured on by the will-o’-the-wisp mysticism,
to sink into the abyss of deception and immorality; the other, borne
upward by philosophic thought, to soar to the calm but cold heights
of an ideal sage.[62] His creative, life-dispensing power wafted the
warm, liberating breath of spring over the dull apathy settling like an
icy crust on the soul-life of the Jewish brotherhood. He re-awakened
general interest in the spirit and the history of Judaism. The most
popular writer in the field of Jewish science, he could boast of
success phenomenal for a Jewish author; in a comparatively short
time, his voluminous work, apparently intended for scholars, attained
the distinction of a third, in parts even of a fourth, edition, and
in its English, French, Russian, and, last though not least, Hebrew
translations,[63] it has become the common possession of all the
author’s brethren-in-faith.
The only help extended to Graetz in the prosecution of his
comprehensive plan proceeded from the “Institute for the Promotion of
Israelitish Literature,”[64] founded in 1855 by Dr. Ludwig Philippson,
the most genial and most productive journalist among rabbis. In return
for a modest subscription price several books were issued annually,
among which a volume of Graetz’s “History” usually formed the chief
attraction. Through the “Institute,” a large circulation was secured
for the “History” from the first. The Society in turn was so dependent
upon Graetz’s work for its popularity that when, on account of a
misunderstanding with Philippson, Graetz refused to have the last
(eleventh) volume published by the “Institute,” it could not maintain
itself long.
On the other hand, there was not lack of hostility, jealousy, and
petty annoyances. His work was used everywhere, but not infrequently
without an open acknowledgment of its helpfulness. Especially at first
the faultfinders and finical critics plied their trade vigorously on
his work, as though any Talmudist considered a scholar in his small
circle needed but to dip his pen into ink to write a history superior
to Graetz’s. Even later, when recognition could not be withheld, praise
was given grudgingly, in half-hearted accents. The young theologians
of both parties, of the right and of the left wing, were indefatigable
in picking flaws of all kinds in his details. They did not realize how
effectually they were thus demonstrating his pre-eminence, and failed
to understand that so monumental a work cannot by any possible means
escape blemishes and malformations.
The “History” completed the breach between Graetz and his sometime
teacher, Samson Raphael Hirsch. The latter had left Nikolsburg
to act as the rabbi of a wealthy private congregation in
Frankfort-on-the-Main. Soon after his removal, he began to issue a
monthly journal, _Jeshurun_. In the second and third volumes of the
magazine appeared a passionate, violent review of the two parts of the
“History” then published, in which Hirsch sat in judgment on Graetz’s
heresies. The soreness of the critic is unmistakable. It is doubtful
whether his thrusts were not meant to strike the Jewish Theological
Seminary at Breslau rather than the “History.” Personal attacks usually
left Graetz unmoved, though he was in the habit of repelling them with
caustic brevity. But he never forgave hostility towards the young
institution. Thus the last slender ties that had still bound the two
men to each other were snapped asunder forever. For the rest, active
and joyous as his nature was, he did not trouble himself about his
critics, nor did they thwart the success of his work; its triumph was
complete. On the other hand, he was frankly proud of the distinction
conferred upon him by the Prussian government in making him, in
December, 1869, honorary professor of the Breslau University. This
governmental recognition went far towards compensating him for the lack
of regular professional advancement in his academic career, the sore
point in his life, at which spiteful antagonists delighted to aim their
shafts.
With the eleventh volume, published in 1870, he brought the history of
the Jews since the Maccabean struggle down to the present time (1848);
nine volumes had appeared in uninterrupted succession. To complete
and crown the work it was necessary to give an account of ancient
Jewish history covering the Biblical and three centuries and a half of
post-Biblical times. Graetz devoted scrupulous care to this portion
of his work. He considered its importance paramount, and regarded the
treatment of the early epochs as a most difficult task, requiring
for its adequate performance exegetical studies and original text
criticism. Graetz thought himself particularly qualified and endowed
for such work; it had always been his favorite pursuit. But before
attacking the history of Israel and ancient Judæa, he determined to
satisfy his longing to behold the Holy Land with his bodily eye, as he
had often sought to picture it to his mental eye. With equal force his
artistic impulse drew him to Palestine. He hoped to derive local color
and inspiration for the description of hoary events from the sight of
consecrated places, which had been their scenes and their witnesses.
As early as 1865, he had formed the plan of a journey to Palestine,
the execution of which became possible only in March, 1872, when two
friends joined him. Limited to his private resources and hampered by
consideration for his traveling companions, he was not able to make
his trip thoroughly satisfactory from a scientific point of view.
After all he obtained what he had journeyed abroad to find; he brought
back impressions, enthusiasm, inspiration. In quick succession the
two, or more accurately, three[65] parts of his work treating of the
Biblical and early post-Biblical time appeared between 1874 and 1876,
and his historical work was complete according to the plan he had
sketched for himself. It was the brilliant fulfillment of the promise
“to furnish a history of the Jews from the most ancient times to the
present day elaborated from the original sources,” which he had made
in 1854, when he began his career as an historian with the publication
of the fourth volume of his “History.” Grand in conception, clear and
perspicuous in execution, riveting attention by its charming style, the
work has not failed to find entrance into the hearts of the author’s
brethren-in-faith. It remains unsurpassed in the present, and the
future historian will realize that he cannot deviate from the great
lines laid down in it. The little blemishes and errors of various kinds
that disfigure all human creations do not affect the impression made by
the work as a whole. The discovery of hidden sources, now unsuspected,
may necessitate additions and changes in details, but the great points
of view, the pragmatic conception, the underlying thoughts, as he
deduces them from the intricate complexity of Jewish history, will
never be superseded. Graetz’s “History of the Jews,” voluminous though
it is, will forever remain an integral part of Jewish literature.
VI.
THE EXEGETE.
The first two, or rather three, parts of the “History” form the
transition to Graetz’s exegetical studies. In their excellencies as
well as in their shortcomings they betray all the characteristics of
his work in Bible exposition. Obviously Graetz had only awaited the
completion of the history of Judaism from the end of the Maccabean
struggle to the present time to enter, with all the vigor of his
intellect, upon the _second phase of his activity as a writer_, that
devoted to Bible exegesis and textual criticism. Exegetical studies,
no less than historical research, were a distinct life-aim with him.
They were begun in 1871, and continued without interruption until
unexpected death snatched the pen from his hand. To be accurate, the
second phase of his literary activity should be dated from 1869. In
that year Zacharias Frankel, wishing to devote all his energy to his
work on the so-called Jerusalem Talmud, transferred the _Monatsschrift_
to Graetz. He marked the beginning of his editorial management with
an essay on “The Ebionites in the Old Testament,”[66] the first of a
series in Old Testament exposition and Hebrew philology. In part, they
may be regarded as monographs in preparation for his history of the
Biblical times. The series was continued uninterruptedly, year after
year, until 1887, when Graetz discontinued the publication of the
_Monatsschrift_.