whole residue of ancient Israelitish writings and therefore the whole
treasury of the Hebrew language at our disposal, even those expounders
that cling to the word and to tradition with slavish faithfulness are
granted wide scope for individual judgments and subjective hypotheses,
depending for their acceptance not upon precise proof, but upon the
inquirer’s will and disposition. It is natural, then, that Graetz
with his strongly developed subjectivity, his delicately attuned ear,
and his gift of bold conjecture, should have reached conclusions
sharply contrasting with all accepted views and incapable of logical,
scientific demonstration. His results and explanations, the outcome
of a passionate desire for clearness and consistency, are often of
startling originality. All sorts of new questions were set on foot by
him, many fruitful suggestions may be traced to him, and he bore many
a trophy from the battlefields of textual criticism. The boldness of
his exegesis is illustrated by his treatment of the two Hagiographic
books, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, which, published in quick
succession in 1871, introduced him to the world as an exegete. He
attributes the composition of _Koheleth_ (or the Preacher, translation
and critical commentary)[67] to the reign of Herod, and places the
author of _Shir ha-Shirim_ (or the Song of Songs, translation and
critical commentary)[68] in the Macedonian-Syrian time. Though the
hypotheses concerning the time of the composition of the two books
and many other propositions are curious, and overwhelm the reader
by their pronounced deviation from all opinions hitherto advanced;
still it must be confessed, that the conjecture with regard to the
origin of Ecclesiastes is engaging in the extreme, and it cannot
be denied, that the translations are good and in unexceptionable
taste, that the remarks and references are instructive, and that the
older versions were used with care and attention. In the commentary
on Ecclesiastes, decidedly more valuable than that on the Song of
Songs, he offers besides interesting data with regard to the Greek
translation. Moreover, Graetz frequently adduced analogies from the
Mishna and the Talmud, made exhaustive use of whatever was advantageous
for textual criticism in the Talmudic literature, and thus brought
to light new material in such a way as to make it available for the
“higher criticism.” This, in fact, constitutes his real and permanent
distinction as an exegete.
His expositions were guided by two chief assumptions, both rooted in
the depths of his character. He held that in every Biblical work an
historical background can be discerned with more or less ease; that
even generalizations and reflections cannot conceal their connection
with special facts, which must be deduced and determined. Again, he
was of the opinion, that a contradiction or obscurity in a Biblical
passage cannot be resolved by a twisting of words and phrases or by
far-fetched analogies in remote though related idioms. They were
evidence to him that the text had come to grief, and that the original
text could be restored only by a conjecture, which might be disengaged
from the context, or patterned on a Talmudic parallel, or deduced from
older translations. He did not doubt that catastrophes, the centuries,
and perhaps also the incompetence of copyists, had mutilated the
original Bible text, and wrenched it out of shape, and he thought that
even later, when it had been fixed with scrupulous care, all sorts of
errors might have crept in.
According to these principles Graetz treated the Psalms. In 1881
he published a German translation of them, and in 1882-83 followed
a “Critical Commentary to the Psalms with Text and Translation.
2 vols.”[69] The commentary is designed on a generous scale, and
gives abundant evidences of ripe scholarship. But by the side of its
excellent features it contains many hazardous guesses and vague,
even though ingenious hypotheses. Justus Olshausen, an Orientalist
highly esteemed on account of his learning and his sobriety, who was
occupied with the critical examination of the Old Testament text for
philological purposes, says the following about the commentary on the
Psalms in a letter to the author:[70]
“On account of its boldness your commentary will certainly arouse
serious objections with the larger number of exegetes, themselves
overbold in exegesis, but weak in criticism. As for me, you know
that I am not affrighted by boldness in criticism when coupled with
knowledge of the language and the subject-matter, with acumen,
and, above all, with sound common sense. Doubtless, I shall not
be able to agree with you in every case in which, overconfident
perhaps, you may believe that you have hit upon the correct
solution of a difficulty. That, however, does not prevent me from
recognizing that your book, by reason of its abundance of excellent
emendations, is a valuable addition to exegetical literature.”
Graetz undoubtedly hit upon many a happy guess, and applause was not
lacking, but in general his results met with opposition so decided
that we may surely expect a later generation to review the judgment
of our time and separate the chaff from the wheat. Not in the least
intimidated by the adverse criticism upon his exegetical methods, he
was resolved to remove the difficulties attaching to the Old Testament
language by all the means at his command. He thought himself justified
in his confidence in himself in matters of textual criticism, upon
which chiefly he concentrated his explanations in the course of
time. He grew more and more unrestrained in his efforts to restore
approximately the original text of the Bible by means of audacious
conjectures, which his sympathetic mind was never weary of devising. In
other fields he was always careful to keep in connection and in touch
with tradition; destructive tendencies were not at all characteristic
of him. But in his textual criticism he permitted his zeal to run away
with him, until he lost the solid ground of the Bible text and of
reality from under his feet. His acumen displayed and dissipated itself
chiefly in the blinding pyrotechnics of rocket-like emendations. Of
this character are his exegetical studies on the prophet Jeremiah,[71]
on the Proverbs of Solomon,[72] and his fine essay on Bible
exegesis.[73]
This kind of work was so attractive to him, that in the latter years
of his life he set about the execution of a long-cherished and widely
comprehensive plan for the critical examination and the emendation of
the text of the whole Bible. The realization of this plan was to be the
consummation and crown of his life’s labors. But he was not destined to
celebrate such unquestioned and brilliant successes in this field as
in that of history, where he had earned and received the laurels due a
pioneer. Yet, we must be careful not to underrate his exegetical and
critical achievements as to their intrinsic value and their influence.
His exegetical works and essays are replete with new points of view and
interesting suggestions. Many a germ that has since proved fruitful
can be traced to them, and they have had a lasting effect upon the
development of Bible exegesis. His works of this class, original and
important enough to fill a life of scholarly research, would suffice to
secure to their author an honorable name and a prominent place in the
history of Jewish science.
VII.
LAST YEARS.
From year to year Graetz received an increasing number of proofs of
the recognition and veneration paid him by a large circle of readers
and admirers and a growing band of friends and aspiring disciples.
But the enjoyment of his success was not to be unalloyed. In 1879 the
feeling against Jews in Germany, always on the point of breaking out,
was set free in the shape of an anti-Semitic movement, to serve as an
unfailing instrument for political agitation. Heinrich von Treitschke,
an historian characterized by patriotic ardor rather than scrupulous
adherence to word and truth, a writer with affecting, oratorical
pathos and a brilliant style at his command, soon assumed the rôle of
challenger in the fray. He was scandalized by the boasting spirit
which, he alleged, was in the ascendant in Jewish circles, and was
to be regarded as a menace to the German empire. He illustrated his
strictures by references to Graetz, who, he maintained, made use of
intemperate language in his polemics against Christianity, and in his
“History” had been guilty of applying disrespectful expressions to
the German nation.[74] Graetz replied, and Treitschke in turn made
him the subject of an article,[75] in which he tried to prove his
allegations. He quoted passages from the “History,” tearing them from
their context, and resorted to all sorts of sophistry. The leaders
of the intelligent portion of Berlin Jewry probably did not realize
the gravity of the situation. At all events, they were far from
having a clear idea of the means necessary for stemming the rapidly
swelling tide. They were disinclined, however, to suffer Treitschke’s
attacks to pass unrepulsed, for they had reason to suppose them to
be more than the venomous utterances of a professor. Thereupon H. B.
Oppenheim, a well-known politician and writer on political economy,
and highly esteemed for his disinterested and noble character, adopted
the mistaken course of sacrificing Graetz to Treitschke’s aggressive
charges without examining them. Confessedly he had not read Graetz’s
works, yet he disposed of their author summarily as “a man without
tact and fanatically one-sided, whose great learning has been rendered
nugatory by the absurdity of his practical deductions.”[76] This
peculiar defense of Judaism, to be sure, did not excite distressful
feeling in any one, but later events prove it to have been symptomatic
of the opinions and the mental constitution of the intellectual
notabilities of the Berlin Jewish community.
A Berlin Jew had been put at the head of the “Union of German
Israelitish Congregations,”[77] when its headquarters had been moved
from Leipsic to Berlin. Active and clever in practical affairs, he
invested the “Union” with dignity, and stirred it up to work and
enterprise. With his help all sorts of useful undertakings were
executed; among them, in 1885, a plan to promote the science of
Judaism, hitherto wholly neglected, along definite lines. A commission
was to be appointed to make means and sources for research into the
history of the Jews of Germany available under the protection of the
“Union.” The project was hailed with satisfaction by Jewish scholars.
It was hoped that it would eventually furnish the center from which
other scientific endeavors might radiate. All hopes of this kind were
early doomed to grievous disappointment. The leaders of the “Union”
lacked perception of the needs of the situation; they permitted an
ambitious young scholar of the Jewish faith, an “extraordinary”
professor at the University of Berlin, to become the governing spirit.
He was familiar with the mediæval government offices, and did valiant
service in the study of documents. But he was destitute of the most
elementary knowledge of Hebrew, and therefore could have no conception
of the peculiar difficulties the writer of Jewish history has to
grapple with. Besides, he had so completely identified himself with his
specialty and with the academic world of professors that a realizing
sense of the condition and needs of German Judaism was out of the
question. Under these circumstances serious mistakes were inevitable.
In the first place Graetz was disregarded, completely ignored, when
the commission which was to organize and superintend the historical
investigations was made up. The arbitrary exclusion of the only or, at
all events, the most eminent historian the Jews can boast of must be
considered a gross offense against good manners. What is more, the
good work was thereby deprived of the best and most valuable guarantee
of success. Personal animosity may have contributed to bring about the
deplorable action, but that does not alter the fact that Graetz was
most familiar with the field of work to be cultivated. None recognized
more clearly than he the desiderata[78] that occupied the attention
and guided the efforts of the scholars interested in Jewish history at
the time. Besides, he was an indefatigable, impulsive worker, and his
name was one to conjure with. The slight put upon Graetz called forth
decided ill-humor among his numerous friends and disciples, a large
portion of whom were the rabbinical heads of respected congregations.
Their irritation could not long remain without tangible effect.
Moreover, though the commission was composed of highly esteemed
scholars, among them Christians who were master historians of the
first rank, there was not one member who had attained to more than
respectable dilettanteism in his acquaintance with Jewish literature,
a thorough knowledge of which was indispensable for the proper
realization of the plan, and only one member who had given evidence
of his special interest in Jewish history by a work of note. This
exception was Professor Stobbe, a humane Christian scholar and eminent
jurist, who has described the historico-legal status of the German Jews
in “The Jews in Germany during the Middle Ages,”[79] a book that has
not yet been superseded. The absence of Jewish scholars, specifically
of Jewish historians, awakened distrust in the ability of the
commission. In fact, its achievements, as displayed in the “Journal for
the History of the Jews in Germany”[80] and in separate publications,
are far from realizing the expectations awakened by the boastful,
arrogant tone of scientific conceit in which the leaders announced
the undertaking, and are out of all proportion to the expenditures
incurred. The most ambitious production, “Documents on the History of
the Jews, etc.,”[81] is a fragment. Quietly, unnoticed, the experiment
died one day in the year 1892.[82]
The inconsiderate treatment accorded him by the Berlin coterie or other
circles did not cause Graetz much heart-ache, and whatever soreness
it may have produced was completely healed by London, whence he
received the flattering invitation to open the Anglo-Jewish Historical
Exhibition with a lecture. The honorable reception accorded him in
the English capital, the persons whose acquaintance he made, and the
impressions he carried home with him, all this refreshed him, and put
him into a buoyant frame of mind. The visit to England he accounted one
of the happiest and most enjoyable events of his life. The experiences
gathered there strengthened the hope, to which he had often given
expression, that salvation would arise for Judaism out of England and
America.
On October 31, 1887, he celebrated the seventieth anniversary of
his birth. His disciples and friends made it the occasion for an
extraordinary ovation, and from all countries and climes homage
was laid at his feet. An overwhelming number of addresses, gifts,
congratulatory letters, and poems proved that his achievements were in
the mind and his honor in the keeping of the whole body of intelligent
Jews. A particularly gratifying surprise came in the shape of a
diploma announcing that on October 27, 1888, he, the Jew, who had not
dealt leniently with the Spanish nation in his historical writings,
had been elected an honorary member of its section in history by the
Spanish Academy at Madrid.
Until the very last his body and mind retained remarkable elasticity
and vigor; time seemed to pass him by unnoticed. His indestructible
working powers and his literary fertility continued to be
astonishing.[83] Even after concentrating his efforts on exegetical
research, he was a vigilant reader of the monographs in whatever
civilized language, bearing, however remotely, on problems of the
science of Judaism. He gave the conclusions reached in them a critical
examination, and either noted them for the enrichment and correction of
a new edition of his “History,” or refuted them in special articles,
if they seemed sufficiently important. For, besides his historical and
exegetical works, in number and bulk an imposing array, he published
numberless essays and _Programmschriften_ on the most various subjects,
many of them real gems, models of clear writing and deep scholarship.
In some of them daring theories are advanced, as, for instance, the
one which he would never abandon, that the Massora originated with
the Karaites, from whose literary works the Rabbanites derived it.
The conjecture was received with a great display of indignation, but
its refutation was not equally emphatic, and it cannot be denied that
certain evidences may be interpreted in its favor.
Among his _Programmschriften_ the following deserve to be singled out:
“Visigothic Legislation with Regard to the Jews,”[84] in the annual
report of the Jewish Theological Seminary for 1858; “Frank and the
Frankists,”[85] in that for 1868; and “The Kingdom of Mesene and its
Jewish Population,”[86] in that for 1879. In the _Monatsschrift für
Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums_, of which, as mentioned
above, he was the editor from 1869, the greater part of the articles
issued from his pen. There is but one way of accounting for his
numerous achievements: he understood to perfection the art of utilizing
every moment.
Five o’clock in the morning found Graetz at his desk. Until nine he
gave uninterrupted attention to his literary work. After that hour he
was in the habit of devoting himself to his lectures. He carried on
an extensive correspondence, found leisure for all sorts of things,
and was fond of the innocent gayeties of social life. He retired late,
and in general needed but little sleep. His sound, almost invincible
nervous system was supplemented by a constitution calculated to supply
his extraordinary capacity for work with a proper physical basis. He
was of average height, and habitually bent forward his lean and spare,
but sinewy, muscular figure, built upon a strong bony frame. His face
was somewhat marred by pock-marks, but his head made a massive, unusual
impression. Soft, chestnut-brown, later gray hair, in fair though
not clustering abundance, crowned his board-like, square forehead.
His sharp, observant eyes, grayish-brown in color, betokened the
owner’s enjoyment of life, and a somewhat large, prominent nose with
its delicate nostrils, quivering like “feelers,” gave his long, oval,
bony face its characteristic searching expression. Sometimes sadness
played about his lips, but usually they were curled by mockery, irony,
and defiance, as though sarcastic words might dart out at any moment.
In point of fact, sharp satire occasionally spiced his conversation,
which, as a rule, however, was far from fulfilling the expectations
aroused by his writings. In his younger years happy moments found
him full of jokes and pranks for the delectation of his domestic
circle, and at all times he displayed unquenchable zest for life and
cheerful optimism. Love of family was a dominant trait in him. Towards
his wife his bearing was always tender and attentive, as though the
honeymoon had not passed; towards his daughter it was marked by the
perfection of gallantry; towards his sons he exercised forbearance and
self-sacrificing devotion, and his aged father he met with the filial
respect of Talmudic times. He enjoyed and cultivated intercourse with
friends. For a friend, for any person or cause that had enlisted his
sympathy, he was ready to pledge himself. Deeply moved by the sad
conditions prevalent in Palestine, he had brought thence a plan for
the education of Jewish orphans in Jerusalem. He and his traveling
companions founded a society, and he exerted himself to secure a
fund, small though it might be, for the promotion of its object. For
this purpose he took journey after journey, delivered lectures, at
first much against his inclination, in many cities, and even accepted
an invitation to go to Galicia, where he was received with joyful
demonstrations and overwhelmed with flattering homage. Encouraged by
such successes, he persisted, until he had put the society upon a
modest but secure basis, which enables it to continue its good work to
this day.
Robust and vigorous as he felt himself, he undertook in his old age
a work in which he meant to sum up his Bible studies of a critical
and exegetical character. He counted, not upon the sympathy of his
contemporaries, but upon the appreciation of a late posterity. All
subordinate occupations were dropped. In 1888 he even discontinued
the publication of the _Monatsschrift_, none of his pupils being able
then to assume the editorial management. In order to give a clear,
comprehensive review of the results of his Biblical text studies, he
proposed to print the Hebrew Bible in its entirety with emendations
and short notes justifying them. In 1891 all preparatory work was
completed, and the printing was begun. How he cherished this life-work
of his is evident from the prospectus. Contrary to his custom, he
addresses himself to his friends, and requests them to assist him in
his venture.
“At the end of my life,” he says in the prospectus, “I have
undertaken the laborious task of _summarizing_ the emendations
of the text of the Holy Scriptures, the admissibility and
justification of which no less than the necessity for which the
accompanying prospectus sets forth.... I beg you to aid my efforts
... in order that the pecuniary risk incurred may not too far
transcend my means.”
This prospectus appeared in July, 1891, and it was the last word that
issued from the author’s untiring pen for publication.
Although he was escaping the infirmities and ailments of the old,
and considered himself perfectly well, and certainly felt vigorous,
age had crept upon him insidiously. The action of his heart was so
much impaired that his physicians became anxious about his condition.
According to his annual custom he went to Carlsbad for the cure
of minor indispositions. Thence he had planned to go to Munich on
a few days’ visit to his oldest son, who occupied the position of
“extraordinary” professor of physics at the University there, and
then spend some time resting at Reichenhall with his son’s family.
Shortly before the time set for his departure from Carlsbad, where he
had not taken care of himself, he had a fainting spell of so serious
a nature that the physician urged Mrs. Graetz to return to Breslau
without delay. He considered the precaution exaggerated, and when he
finally yielded, he refused to forego the trip to Munich. There, at
his son’s house, he suffered, in the night between the sixth and the
seventh of September, a violent attack of colic. Under the influence of
opium administered by a physician the pain passed away, and he dropped
to sleep. When his wife arose early in the morning to observe his
condition, she found him lying in bed lifeless. His heart had ceased
to act, and so a life replete with work and rich in attainment had
too soon come to an end. His remains were transported to Breslau, and
three days later, in the presence of a numerous gathering of his pupils
and friends and amid demonstrations of general sympathy, they were
consigned to the grave in the Jewish cemetery.
His wife, whose days are devoted to the memory of her celebrated
husband, considered it incumbent upon her to publish his last work,
the manuscript of which was all but complete, but of which only a few
sheets had issued from the press at the time of Graetz’s death. The
editor is Professor W. Bacher of Buda-Pesth, one of Graetz’s disciples,
who has won honorable repute by his editions and his studies in the
history of Hebrew grammar and exegesis. Besides the editorial work
proper, he has been forced to supply from memoranda a considerable
piece in the Prophets, which by some mischance had gone astray. On the
whole, this critical Bible edition, by which the departed author set
great store, has been pursued by peculiar ill-luck. Unlike his other
productions it must miss the author’s pruning and correcting hand as
it passes through the press. It is doomed to appear as an incomplete
because a posthumous work. The title is: _Emendationes in plerosque
Sacræ Scripturæ Veteris Testamente libros secundum veterum versiones
nec non auxiliis criticis cæteris adhibitis. Ex relicto defuncti
auctoris manuscripto edidit Guil. Bacher. 3 Pts. Breslau, 1892-1894._
The Hebrew text of the Bible is treated boldly and subjectively. But it
remains for a later generation to pass final judgment upon the value of
Graetz’s contributions to the critical determination of the Bible text.
There can be no doubt that Graetz was as much a master in the field of
exegesis as in that of history.