Studies in Nineteenth-Century Jewish Intellectual History [Reprint 2013 ed.] 9780674730878, 9780674730861

Citation preview

PHILIP W. LOWN I N S T I T U T E OF ADVANCED JUDAIC STUDIES BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY

Studies and Texts EDITED BY

Alexander Altmann

PHILIP W. LOWN I N S T I T U T E OF ADVANCED JUDAIC STUDIES BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY

Studies and Texts: Volume II

STUDIES IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY JEWISH INTELLECTUAL HISTORY

EDITED BY

Alexander Altmann

HARVARD U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS Cambridge, Massachusetts · 1964

© Copyright 1964 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved Distributed in Great Britain by Oxford University Press, London Library of Congress Catalog Card N u m b e r 6 4 - 1 3 4 1 8 Printed in the United States of America

Preface T h e present volume contains seven papers of which all, with one exception, were read at the Philip W. Lown Institute colloquia at Brandeis University during the academic year 1961-62. They deal with some of the developments in Jewish intellectual history in nineteenth-century German Jewry related to the struggle for emancipation. Although a great deal has been written on the period concerned, detailed analytical studies based on all available literary sources are only now beginning to appear. It would seem that the final closing, in the most tragic terms, of the history of the Jews in Germany has created a spiritual climate for the sober assessment of its achievements and of the manner in which they were accomplished. T h e works produced under the aegis of the Leo Baeck Institute deserve special mention in this respect. A number of studies undertaken at the Hebrew University under the guidance of Professor Jacob Katz pursue the same direction. The volume before the reader is intended to make a modest contribution to this important line of research. It offers a number of inquiries into specific areas and in many instances utilizes source material never used before. It is hoped that both the specialist and the cultivated layman will find on these pages fresh avenues opened up for an evaluation of the early beginnings of modern Jewish attitudes as they emerged from the welter of tradition-bound and revolutionary forces in nineteenthcentury German Jewry. As a glance at the table of contents will show, some major themes have been selected for treatment. They include an analysis of the term " J e w i s h Emancipation," the tracing of the beginnings of modern Jewish studies, of new efforts at formulating the Jewish creed, of the new style in preaching, of the Hebrew poetry of the period, and of the formation of Jewish political attitudes. Finally, the Jewish stance in philosophy is focused in Samuel Hirsch's position vis-à-vis Hegel. Thus, some of the areas in which nineteenth-century German Jewry served as the cradle of the modern phase in world Jewry, are subjected to a fresh appraisal. The Editor wishes to express sincere thanks to the Director of Harvard University Press and to its Chief Editor for the kind attention they have V

vi

Preface

bestowed upon the publication of this volume, the second in the Brandeis series of Studies and Texts. He also offers his thanks and appreciation to Mrs. D. E. Humez for her unfailing helpfulness in seeing the book through the press. Dr. Simon Lauer, who prepared the indexes, is likewise assured of the Editor's thanks.

Contents The Term "Jewish Emancipation": Historical Impact

Its Origin and

JACOB KATZ

The Beginnings of Modern Jewish Studies NAHUM N. GLATZER

Manuals and Catechisms of the Jewish Religion in the Early Period of Emancipation JAKOB J . PETUCHOWSKI

The New Style of Preaching in Nineteenth-Century German Jewry ALEXANDER ALTMANN

Parapoetic Attitudes and Values in Early NineteenthCentury Hebrew Poetry EISIG SILBERSCHLAG

German Radicalism and the Formation of Jewish Political Attitudes During the Early Part of the Nineteenth Century HANS LIEBESCHÜTZ

Samuel Hirsch and Hegel EMIL L. FACKENHEIM

Indexes

The Term "Jewish Emancipation": Its Origin and Historical Impact BY J A C O B

KATZ

I T h e terms " J e w i s h Emancipation," " t h e Emancipation of the Jews," " t h e Period of Emancipation" are all household words in Jewish historiography and social philosophy. They have also been used by anti-Semites and even by Nazi scholars, who dealt with Jewish history in their own unique way. These last, it is true, accepted the term "emancipation" with apparent reluctance, 1 for reasons which we shall be able to appreciate presently. Obviously, however, no better word could be found to designate the acquisition of civic rights by Jews in their respective countries. Starting in Europe with the French Revolution, such acquisition became the major target of a protracted struggle and a turning point in Jewish destiny. Some historians, notably Professor Salo W. Baron, have both widened the connotative scope of the word and used it to designate an unusually lengthy period of time. Baron included the seventeenth century in the period of emancipation—the century during which appeared the very first indications of changes which led ultimately to the radical alteration of the Jews' status in European society. 2 But even keeping to the more limited definition of the term and concentrating our attention on Western Europe alone, we have to deal with a period of some eighty years: from 1 7 9 1 , when the first group of Sephardic Jews in Southern France was granted civil rights, until the enactment of the German Constitution of 1 8 7 1 . Such a long historical process can scarcely be conceived of as a straightline development. Simon Dubnow rightly divided the period into three distinct phases. T h e first—from the French Revolution until the Congress of Vienna—he called the "Period of the First Emancipation." T h e next ι . " D a s hässliche W o r t (Judenemanzipation), mit dem sich bestimmte Vorstellungen nun einmal verbinden, ist leider nicht zu u m g e h e n . " O. W e b e r , Die Entwicklung der Judenemanzipation bis zum Judengesetz von 1828 (Stuttgart, 1940), p. vi. 2. S . W . Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews ( N e w Y o r k , 1 9 3 7 ) , I I , i 6 4 f f .

ι

Jacob Katz

2

thirty-three years then formed the " P e r i o d of Reaction"; and with the Revolution of 1848, according to this estimate, began the "Period of the Second Emancipation." 3 Following the course of the social movement which promoted the Jewish case rather than the events of actual legislation, I would suggest some changes in this division. I would antedate the beginning of the movement back to the great controversy occasioned by Christian Wilhelm von D o h m in his pamphlet,

Über die bürgerliche

recommending the acceptance of Jews as full

Verbesserung der

citizens. 4

Juden,

T h e intermediate

period I would then limit to the fifteen years between 1815 and 1830. T h e first period represents the opening of the struggle and the great initial achievements (civic rights in France and in the territories falling to French rule during the Revolution and Napoleonic times, the Act of Civic Rights in Prussia [1812]). T h e second phase was a stagnation at best, or in many places even a recession (repudiation of acquired rights in some of the former French territories, reluctant and faulty implementation of the law in Prussia). T h e last phase was ushered in with a renewed vigor in the struggle which led ultimately to the realization of its objectives : full equality of rights, both civic and political. M y direct concern here is not with the historical events themselves but with their linguistic designations. A n d here one has to observe that the term " e m a n c i p a t i o n " was applied by contemporaries only during the period called the Second Emancipation. More precisely, it began to be used in the year

1828. 5 T h e application of the term to the earlier

phases of the struggle for civil rights is therefore a kind of linguistic anachronism. Some may of course argue that since the struggle for civic rights undoubtedly existed in the last decade of the eighteenth century at the latest, it does not matter by what name it is called. However, the word is not merely a term applied in retrospect by the historian to the social phenomenon. A s mentioned above, the word was introduced during the historical 3. S. M . D u b n o w , Die neueste Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes ( i y 8 ç - i ç i 4 ) (Berlin, 1920), I, 68. For another division, see Β. Dinur, Encyclopedia Hebraica, I V , 72-73. 4. D o h m ' s book appeared in 1781. In the following year it was translated into French. In 1783 D o h m republished his book, adding a second volume, in which he clarified his views and answered his critics. A full bibliography of the controversy can be found in V . Eichstädt, Bibliographie zur Geschichte der Judenfrage (Hamburg, 1938), pp. 8 - 1 5 . Commissioned by the Nazi "Reichsinstitut f ü r Geschichte des neuen Deutschlands," Eichstädt produced a standard work which may benefit Jewish scholarship. For a discussion of the impact of D o h m ' s book, see below. 5. See below, Page 17.

The Term " Jewish Emancipation "

3

process itself, somewhere in the middle of the period which it has ultimately and totally designated. I may anticipate another important point in my discussion, namely the fact that the new term did not pass unnoticed. Some of those who opposed the granting of full citizenship to the Jews also objected to calling this new status "emancipation." And this dislike for the word was later transmitted to those anti-Jewish historians who disapproved both of the event and the term. 6 All this quite clearly seems to indicate that we are dealing here not with a simply neutral term but with an expression having evaluative and even emotional connotation. We are, therefore, certainly justified to inquire into the history of this expression. Our inquiry is threefold. First, where did the expression stem from and w h y was it suddenly applied to a political and social aspiration which had become by then a political issue for the better part of two generations ? Second, what expressions had previously been used for the issue, expressions now supplanted by the new description ? Last, we must ask whether the absorption of the new expression was a shift in terminology alone or a concomitant or even promotive factor in shaping the course of events. II I have accepted the publication of Dohm's book, Über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden, in 1781, as the commencement of the social movement for the adoption of the Jews as citizens in European countries. That is also, coincidentally, the date of the promulgation of the Edict of Toleration by the Emperor Joseph II of Austria. From then on, until the full realization of emancipation in the 1860's and 1870's, the civic and social status of the Jew continued to concern both public opinion and state authorities. For this reason, it is perhaps not incorrect to use the term "social m o v e m e n t " for the events leading to full emancipation. 7 It is true that the " m o v e m e n t " failed to produce an organization or any permanent agency to concentrate or coordinate actions for the achievement of its aims. Rather, the agents of action sprang up sporadically and the scene of action shifted from place to place. This, however, was a function of the locally 6. See below, Pages 16-18. 7. T h e term " m o v e m e n t " has been used sometimes in connection with Jewish emancipation, for example, by L . Abrahams, " S i r I. L . Goldsmidt and the Admission of the Jews of England to Parliament," Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England, 4 : 1 1 8 (1899-1901). T h o u g h undefined, the term was felt to be congruent with the subject. For the sociological definition of the term, see R. Heberle, Social Movement (New York, 1951).

4

Jacob

Kotz

directed and self-terminating character of the movement. Since the aim was civic rights and equality before the law in each country, the battle for this aim had to be sustained disparately within the institutional framework of each country. Once emancipation had been achieved in one place, the Jews of that country naturally dropped out of the larger struggle. T h e one main characteristic of a movement, however—the public propagation of ideas followed by actions to implement t h e m — w a s present in all phases of the struggle from the 1780's on. One component of this movement—the mere emergence of the idea that Jews might be capable of citizenship in countries whose main inhabitants were Christian—was of an earlier origin. It was coeval with both the tenet of religious toleration and the conception of the state as a secular institution separated from the organ of religion: that is, from the Church. 8 Characteristically, the idea of the Jews' eligibility for citizenship had been casually aired by the chief exponent of both these conceptions: John Locke, in his Letter Concerning

Toleration.9

It is worthwhile following the development of this idea from its status nascendi. T h e avowed aim of Locke's Letter being " t h e mutual toleration of Christians in different professions of religion," 1 0 the case of the Jews came up only as a consideration subordinate to this main purpose. It was mentioned once in order to demonstrate how wrong it would be on the part of the state authority " t o ordain by law that all children shall be baptized by priests . . . Now, if we acknowledge that such an injury may be not done unto a Jew . . . how can we maintain that anything of the kind may be done to a C h r i s t i a n ? " 1 1 In order to give this argument an air of reality, Locke inserts in the course of his discussion the following sentence: " F o r what hinders but a Christian magistrate may have subjects that are Jews ? " 1 2 In this aside, then, Locke takes a clear stand on the question of the acceptability of Jews in a Christian country—a question which in his own land, at the time of the writing of this letter, in 1689, had not yet been officially resolved. T h e second mention of Jews occurs close to the end of the

Letter.

Having exhausted the arguments in favor of absolute toleration between 8. For this phase of the changing attitude of European intellectuals, see S. Ettinger, " T h e Beginnings of the Change in the Attitude of European Society towards the Jews," Scripta Hierosolymitana, 7 : 1 9 3 - 2 1 9 (1961). 9. All quotations from Locke are from the edition of H. Morley, Of Civil Government and Toleration (London, 195^). 10. Ibid., p. 143. 11. Ibid., p. 167. 12. Ibid.

The Term " Jewish Emancipation"

5

Christian churches and denominations, Locke reveals to his correspondent that following the principle consistently would lead beyond the province of Christendom: Nay, if we may openly speak the truth, and as it becomes one man to another, neither Pagan nor Mahometan nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion . . . Shall we suffer a Pagan to deal in trade with us and shall we not suffer him to pray unto and worship God ? If we allow the Jews to have private houses and dwellings amongst us, why should we not allow them to have synagogues ? . . . But if these things may be granted to Jews and Pagans, surely the condition of any Christian ought not to be worse than theirs in a Christian commonwealth.13 T h e issue Locke is directly concerned with here is again mutual toleration of Christians. But because of the consistency demanded by his principle of toleration and the dissociation of the spheres of state and religion, the right of the Jew to equality was also established. Thus, in theory at least, Locke had anticipated the developments of a hundred years and more. In his time, this principle was still far from having any effect on the Jewish position in society. It was rather the general abatement in religious zeal and the concomitant prominence given to economic considerations which paved the way for Jews to be considered in terms of their economic merits or demerits rather than in terms of their religious divergence. Whether the presence of the Jews was beneficial for the economy of the country was a controversial point, as was the more basic question of whether an increase of immigrant population was economically desirable. 14 Those who answered this last question in the positive became partisans of "naturalization," which was the term for allowing aliens to acquire the rights due by nature to those born in the country. If these promoters of naturalization could then find no further particular reasons for excluding Jews, they pleaded for their admission. T h e terms on which the Jews should be accepted were a matter of secondary consideration. T h e basic issue was at that time over the question of admitting Jews into the country at all. This delineation of the issue is clearly indicated in the very term under which it appears—"naturalization." Thus, Sir Josiah Child discusses the question "whether it be for the public good to permit the Jews to be Naturalised in common with other Strangers," 1 5 in a chapter titled 1 3 . Ibid., p. 1 8 7 . 14. F o r the theoretical level of this point, see E . F . Heckscher, Mercantilism (London, 1 9 5 5 ) , I I , 1 5 7 - 1 6 3 . T o see it as it figured as a question of practical politics in England, see below, Page 9. 1 5 . Josiah Child, A New Discourse of Trade (London, 1 6 9 2 ) , p. 1 2 3 .

6

Jacob Katz

"Concerning Naturalisation." 1 6 Those who opposed naturalization for the Jews—in Child's opinion mostly merchants who feared Jewish competition 17 —argued that as the Jews had nothing else to offer but their subtlety and thrift, they thrived at the cost of the indigenous population. Those who endorsed the admission of the Jews pointed to the wealth they would bring into the country. With regard to Jewish characteristics, they retorted that acumen and frugality are economic virtues which would benefit not only the Jews themselves but the entire country in which these virtues were exercised. 18 Jewish religion and related peculiarities came into consideration only insofar as they had a bearing on economics. In the adversaries' opinion, since Jews could not intermarry with others, they would not acquire lasting ties to any country and were ultimately apt to remove their accumulated riches to another country. 19 To this the Jews' advocates answered that precisely because the Jews had no country of their own, they would remain wherever they received the best treatment.20 No doubt Child still conceived of the Jews in their traditional and religious apartness, and, besides "freedom and security," he also considered the "privilege of making laws among themselves" to be a means of enticement to settle in a certain country. 21 Hence "freedom" and "liberty," which were used interchangeably, implied no more than the freedom to make one's living in the traditional manner of trade. No political or social integration into the surrounding society was envisaged. There is, however, a remarkable shift in the direction of integration in John Toland's pamphlet, Reasons for Naturalising the Jews in Great Britain and Ireland on the Same Foot with all Nations,22 which appeared anonymously in 1714. This pamphlet has sometimes been regarded as the first recommendation for "Jewish Emancipation" and as a kind of anticipation of Dohm. 23 Its real significance, however, must be gathered from 16. Ibid., p. 122. 17. Ibid., p. 123. 18. Ibid., pp. 1 2 3 - 1 2 7 . 19. Ibid., p. 124: " . . . being a people that cannot mix with us." 20. Ibid., pp. 1 2 6 - 1 2 7 . 2 1 . Ibid., p. 125. See Ettinger, p. 215. 22. Toland's pamphlet appeared anonymously, but his authorship was established by his first biographer. See An Historical Account of the Life and Writings of the late John Toland by One of His Intimate Friends (London, 1722), and especially the list at the end of the booklet. Strangely enough, some historians ignore the authorship of Toland. See A. Seeber, John Toland als politischer Schriftsteller (Württemberg, 193,3). Seeber has a chapter on Toland's conception of tolerance without mentioning his Reasons. T . W. Perry, in his Public Opinion, Propaganda and Politics in 18th Century England, A Study of the Jewish Naturalisation Act of 1753 (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), lists the book among anonymous publications, p. 205. 23. See, e.g., Ettinger, p. 218, and Dinur, Encyclopedia Hebraica, IV, 72-73.

The Term "Jewish Emancipation"

7

its well-defined historical context as it is indicated in the use of the word "naturalization." Toland introduces himself as a partisan in the great polemic over general naturalization, which was a point of fierce debate between Tories and Whigs in the first decade of the eighteenth century. 24 T h e Whigs—then in power—countenanced an increase in population through immigration and in 1709 enacted a Bill of General Naturalization. This would have permitted any confessed Protestant to settle in England with the rights of citizenship. In the following year, however, the Bill was repealed by the Tories, who won the election of 1 7 1 0 . In his pamphlet, Toland still endorses the intention of the Bill and is confident that its repeal was not the last word. For that reason, he thinks it worthwhile to reconsider its details. He finds the Bill incomplete in one point: it " d i d not include all those who would not only be good subjects, but who would also be as useful and advantageous to the public Weal as any of those Protestant Churches to which it was then restrained." 2 5 Toland then assembles all his arguments to combat the objections against the inclusion of Jews in a L a w of General Naturalization. At the same time he offers a general apologia for the Jews, as the subtitle of his pamphlet indicates: "Containing also a Defense of the Jews against All vulgar Prejudices in All Countries." Toland's immediate purpose was still, therefore, only naturalization: that is, the attraction and acceptance of foreign Jews. He did not explicitly concern himself with assuring rights to local Jews; this was only later to become the chief problem in the period of emancipation proper. Still, we may learn indirectly about the position of indigenous Jews, for Toland, in marshaling his arguments for bringing in foreign Jews, spells out what their position ought to be after naturalization. Since according to English law the naturalized subject acquired the same rights as a native-born subject, Toland's description of the rights of naturalized Jews applies to English-born Jews as well. But naturalization as such does not necessarily imply identical rights with members of other groups, nor is it Toland's opinion that Jews should be on an equal footing with Protestants, for he did not accept the idea of full separation of church and state and did, on the other hand, endorse the Test Act, by which Catholics were excluded from public office. 26 By the same Act, Jews would also have been excluded from all offices which required an oath and sacrament. Toland, however, 24. Toland, Reasons, pp. 3-4. 25. Ibid., p. 5. 26. Seeber, pp. 52-53, and Toland, Reasons, p. 44.

8

Jacob Katz

seems to have wanted to abolish such restrictions where offices of a purely financial character were concerned, while yet excluding Jews from government service proper. 27 But it is doubtful whether he clarified, even for himself, exactly where the dividing line would run. He states that " a general naturalization and a total incapacity from office are perfect inconsistencies." 28 On the other hand, Toland envisioned neither a total submersion of the Jews into English society nor their disintegration as a group. He used the argument, adapted from Simone Luzzatto, 29 that the Jews were politically harmless and that they would not attach themselves to any one of the conflicting parties in the country. He certainly did not count upon any internal defection from the Jewish religion, and he wished to provide for the difficulties which might arise from the Jew's observance of his religious laws while taking up certain occupations. 30 He felt sure, as did Sir Josiah Child, that Jews would not leave for another country, 3 1 but he may still have retained the conceptual possibility that at some time the Jews would return to their own land. 32 One should not demand too much consistency when a first attempt is made to apply a principle which breaks through the crust of social reality. Toland must be regarded as a forerunner of Jewish emancipation not so much because of any detailed recommendation for the adoption of the Jews into general society but rather in another capacity. Toland refuted those who ascribed Jewish peculiarities—their propensity for trade, their physical and moral characteristics—to inborn Jewish nature. He partly denied that such peculiarities existed at all, and he partly attributed them to historical and political conditions—the bent to trade, for instance, to their exclusion from other activities. 33 He risked the prediction that once allowed 2 7 . H e mentions, " E x c h e q u e r , Customes and E x c i s e " : " N o r can I see any reason w h y the J e w s may not be employed in several Affairs in the city, as to be Directors of the Bank of the East India C o m p a n y or the l i k e " (p. 44). 28. Reasons, p. 4 5 . T h e passage means that some offices must be open to a naturalized J e w . Ettinger, p. 2 1 8 , credits T o l a n d with the idea of full equality. 29. Toland, Reasons, p. 1 2 . T o l a n d mentions Luzzatto's book in another connection on p. 48, and he was clearly indebted to him in his apology for the J e w s . See Ettinger, p. 2 1 6 . But the premises and conclusions of each are nonetheless different. Luzzatto's Discorso circa il stato degl' Ebrei appeared in Venice in 1 6 3 8 . A Hebrew translation was published in Jerusalem in 1 9 5 1 . 30. W h e n J e w s became sailors they would have to serve with other sailors " b y reasons of their S a b b a t h " (Toland, Reasons, p. 16). 3 1 . Ibid., pp. 1 2 - 1 4 . 3 2 . H e deals with this possibility in an appendix to his Nazarenus, or Jewish, Gentile, and Mahometan Christianity (London, 1 7 1 8 ) . See Ettinger, p. 2 1 6 , n. 96. 3 3 . T o l a n d , pp. 1 7 - 2 1 .

The Term " Jewish Emancipation"

9

to enlarge the scope of their occupations, Jews would "betake themselves to Building, Farming, and all sorts of Improvements, like other P e o p l e . " 3 4 For " t h e Jews . . . are both in their origin and progress not otherwise to be regarded than under the common circumstance of human nature." 3 5 Thus, for the first time, Toland applied a central principle of European rationalism — t h e essential oneness of all human nature—to the case of the Jews. T h i s principle later became the cornerstone in the ideology of Jewish integration. These early explorers of the idea of Jewish integration may correctly be characterized as forerunners of emancipation. Such a description points out the similarity of their suggestions to later propositions and at the same time indicates that within their own age they were isolated individuals; their suggestions failed to command any substantial following or to draw any considerable attention. 36 T h a t in the public mind the equality of the Jews was still far from being an issue at all was, so to speak, empirically proved by the great controversy over the Jewish Naturalization Bill of 1753. 3 7 T h e proponents of this Bill, the W h i g government of the Pelhams, wanted to grant individual Jews the possibility of being naturalized by special act of Parliament. Until that time, such an act had been dependent upon the applicant's taking the sacrament prior to his naturalization. But even the promoters of the Bill took the precaution that the Bill, once enacted, should not be interpreted as granting any rights to the naturalized Jew other than those enjoyed by Jews born in the country. 3 8 However, as is well known, the Bill had to be repealed because of a most vehement public outcry which its enactment engendered. It has been convincingly proved by a recent work that the extent as well as the intensity of the outcry was the result of deliberate propaganda on the part of the T o r y opposition, in view of the pending election of the following year. 3 9 But the easy success of the propaganda and the nature of the arguments used during the campaign are telling testimonies to the image of the Jew prevailing in the public 34. Ibid., p. 15. 35. Ibid., p. 20. C h i l d m e n t i o n e d the principle in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the J e w s : " A l l m e n b y nature are alike as I have b e f o r e d e m o n s t r a t e d and M r . H o b b e s has truly asserted, h o w e r r o n e o u s s o e v e r he m a y be in other t h i n g s " ( C h i l d , p. 125). H o w e v e r , C h i l d d i d n o t f o l l o w u p the implicit c o n s e q u e n c e s of his p r i n c i p l e . 36. T h i s is also the evaluation of E t t i n g e r , p p . 2 1 8 - 2 1 9 . 37. T h i s political episode had b e e n dealt w i t h e x h a u s t i v e l y in P e r r y , Public Opinion, q u o t e d in N o t e 22, above. 38. A special a m e n d m e n t w a s a d d e d to the Bill. See P e r r y , p. 47, n. 4. 39. T h i s is one of P e r r y ' s m a i n theses, w h i c h he substantiated very well. H o w e v e r , his c o n c l u s i o n that n o " a n t i - S e m i t i c " attitude w a s i n v o l v e d needs qualification (see his a p p e n d i x B , p p . 1 9 4 - 1 9 9 ) . T h e v e r y t e r m " a n t i - S e m i t e " is inappropriate. It is the i m a g e of the J e w in the p u b l i c m i n d w h i c h is historically relevant, not w h e t h e r the m o d e r n t e r m " a n t i - S e m i t i s m " is applicable or not.

IO

Jacob Katz

mind. It was the image of the popular Christian tradition, combining the theological tenets of the Jews' guilt in rejecting the Christian message and an aversion to the foreign tradesman whose greed and cunning remain unchecked by a common brotherhood in the one creed. With this image in the background, any idea of legal equality and social integration as conceived by Locke and Toland was a sheer impossibility. These results were in fact not intended by anyone connected with the Bill, including those who recommended it on the grounds of its economic desirability. With the failure of the Jewish Naturalization Bill of 1753, the Jewish question as a matter of public concern in England was laid to rest for some eighty years. At approximately the same time, the first signs of a new approach to the problem appeared in Germany, in the wake of the expanding movement of Enlightenment. The new approach entailed first of all a new evaluation of the Jew as a human being who might also excel in moral virtues as much as anyone else. This was expressed by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing in his play Der Jude, in 1754, and earlier by C. F. Geliert in one of his novels.40 Each depicted a Jew as an honest and enlightened individual who unselfishly extends his help to persons outside his own persuasion. Both Geliert and Lessing declared that such a figure was remote from the common type of Jew ; the literary embodiment was meant only to suggest the possibility of the appearance of the actual figure under favorable conditions.41 This was but the literary application of the principal of the oneness of human nature which we have encountered in Toland's thesis. How new such an evaluation was can be gathered from J. D. Michaelis' comments on both Geliert and Lessing. 42 Michaelis maintained that, among Jews, such virtuous individuals, though not nonexistent, must be so rare that they were hardly even acceptable as literary creations, which must represent actual types. At this stage, incipient ideas of Enlightenment still produced at best only such theoretical attempts. No political program or suggestion of concrete changes in the Jews' social position was put forward—with the one exception of an otherwise unknown Jew, Levi Israel. Israel published 40. Das Leben der schwedischen Gräfin G. The novel appeared in 1746. I have used it from Geliert's Sammlung der sämmtlichen Schriften (1765), vol. I. 41. That Geliert regarded such a character an exception among Jews can be seen in passages where the author's voice intrudes into the plot: e.g., pp. 73, 105. Lessing commented on his play in an answer to a critic, " Ü b e r das Lustspiel der Jude . . . " G. E. Lessing, Sämmtliche Schriften (Stuttgart, 1890), V I , 1 5 9 - 1 6 6 . See also following note. He agreed with his critic insofar as the rarity of the Jewish character was concerned. 42. Michaelis' criticism appeared in Göttingsche Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen (1754), pp. 620-622. Michaelis replied to Lessing's reply in Göttingsche Anzeigen, pp. 1 2 9 2 - 1 2 9 6 .

The Term "Jewish

Emancipation"

II

in 1753 a probably fictitious correspondence between a Jew and a Christian philosopher.43 In this correspondence, the Jew suggests equality of rights and freedom for Jews, and the philosopher, agreeing in principle, discusses the probable resistance the idea would meet from all parts of the population because of religious prejudice and the inability to give public interest precedence over private greed. This booklet appeared in 1753 and already pointed to the Naturalization Bill of England as an example to be followed. It is very likely that the author misunderstood the intention of the English Bill and took it for an enlargement of the rights of the Jewish population, as indeed it was interpreted by the opponents of the law in England. Although the booklet is an isolated phenomenon which left no traces, it is an interesting indication of the shift which the issue was apt to take in Germany in contradistinction to England. While in England the question still revolved around the admission of foreign Jews, in Germany it turned into the question of granting equal rights. The desirability or undesirability of Jews in a country still continued to be a topic of discussion in Germany, and some states and towns still adhered to their medieval legal tradition of non tolerandis Judaeorum. Most places in Germany, however, had admitted Jews into their territory, but this admission, or even the fact of a Jew's being born in that territory, did not vouchsafe any rights beyond what was stated in the agreement or in the one-sided regulations of the ruling power. The attack on prevailing conditions on the basis of enlightened ideas could not have had as its aim the admission of Jews but rather changes in their legal and social status. When, for such aspirations, the term "naturalization" was adopted, either in the wake of the Jewish Naturalization Bill of 1753 or from the title of Toland's pamphlet, its meaning changed. It no longer designated the admittance of foreign Jews but rather an accession to rights and privileges reserved till now for Christian inhabitants alone. In the 1750's, such a claim was still no more than a fancy, but by the 1770's, with changing social conditions, the demand had a good deal of weight behind it.44 When this demand was designated by a name, the 4 3 . Schreiben eines Juden an einem (!) Philosophen ("R.C.D.D.") nebst der Antwort: Mit Anmerkungen (Hamburg, 1 7 5 3 ) . I have been unable to obtain this book. Eichstädt, number 75a, refers to Bibliothek der Hansastadt, Hamburg. T h e copy in that library was destroyed during the war. T h e content of the booklet can be learned from its review in K r a f t ' s Neue theologische Bibliothek, no. 9 2 ( 1 7 5 5 ) , pp. 1 8 3 - 1 8 7 . 44. T h a t the change in social conditions in G e r m a n y became noticeable only in the seventies is well proved by H . Weil, Die Entstehung des deutschen Bildungsprincips (Bonn, 1930). See J . Katz, Die Entstehung der Judenassimilation und deren Ideologie (Frankfurt am Main, 1935).

12

Jacob Katz

term "naturalization" was used for some time. An article by Wilhelm Ludwig Wehrklin in his Chronologen of 1779 was still titled " Ü b e r das Projekt, die Juden in Deutschland zu naturalisieren." T w o years later, however, Dohm's book appeared, in the title of which the phrase bürgerliche Verbesserung occurred. As sometimes happens with words that compete for survival, the new phrase displaced the old expression almost at once. 45 Bürgerliche Verbesserung, or some variation or translation of it— Veredelung, Reformezirung, Régénération—became the catchword for public promotion of the Jews' case for some decades to come. Ill

T o be sure, Dohm's phrase was not a mere linguistic innovation. Behind the new expression loomed an entire new approach to the Jewish problem. Its novelty impressed contemporaries first of all by what it omitted, for it disregarded the theological controversies which used to be the main theme of books dealing with Jewish matters. An early reviewer of Dohm's book warned theologians to keep out of discussions with Dohm, for his arguments, being in the field of politics and philosophy, were beyond their province. 46 One of the main participants in the ensuing controversy went so far as to maintain that Dohm was the first person to discuss the problem of the Jews not from the standpoint of religious dogma, but from the standpoint of the welfare of nations and the interests of humanity. 47 In the light of what has been stated in the previous section about Locke, Child, and Toland, that evaluation may seem exaggerated. But the very fact that it was at all so evaluated indicates the great impetus of Dohm's work, in contradistinction to that of his forebears. Assessed historically, Dohm's importance lies not so much in the shifting of a point of view from the theological to the humanistic and political but rather in the linking of suggestions pertaining to the Jews' position alone to the changes imminent in society at large. Changes in the status of the Jew in society now presupposed, or at least went hand-in-hand with, changes in the whole society. This can be seen in connection with several spheres which the change in Jewish status touched upon. Jews were to gain 45. Michaelis, who had followed the Jewish problem since his youth, continued to use the word in his extensive criticism of D o h m ' s book found in Orientalische und exegetische Bibliothek, 1 9 : 1 - 4 0 (1789). It was reprinted in D o h m ' s second volume ( 1 7 8 3 ) , pp. 3 1 - 7 1 . T h e other participants in this discussion easily adopted the new term Verbesserung. 46. A . F . Büsching in his Wöchentliche Nachrichten von neuen Landkarten, geographischen, statistischen und historischen Büchern und Schriften, 9 : 3 3 5 ( 1 7 8 1 ) . 47. H . F . Dietz, Uber Juden (Dessau), p. 3.

The Term "Jewish Emancipation"

!3

equal rights in return for fulfilling all the duties of a citizen. This presupposed that members of other estates which constituted the state would give up their unique privileges as well; for example, the right to acquire property should not be limited to the aristocracy, but should be open to all. 48 Jews should be allowed to take up all possible occupations, but this implied that the privileged craft guilds could not continue to preserve their rights of controlling production and employment. 49 Jews were to be free to observe their religion or to defect from it to any extent they wished, even so far as to join a denomination, newly constituted, of those who believed only in the tenets of natural religion. 50 T h e admission of such an amount of religious freedom certainly meant an encroachment upon the control granted to established religious institutions. 51 Now, Dohm was no revolutionary and did not intend to implement all these changes at one stroke. 52 He had a conception of gradation and development, which would lead from the current state—division into estates—into an estateless society of free individuals. This was in accord with the prevailing optimism of nineteenth-century Enlightenment, which fully trusted the self-reforming capacity of the human individual, the human group, and human society at large. This Enlightenment optimism is revealed in Dohm's approach to the Jewish problem, and it is expressed in the very term Verbesserung. T h e word is paired with the adjective " c i v i c , " which in turn implies " p o l i t i c " and " m o r a l . " Accordingly, the logical subject of the implied verb verbesseren is society, the Jews themselves, or probably both. Both society and the Jews would have to mend their ways before they could arrive at a satisfactory level of improvement. Historically, Dohm lays the blame for the civic and moral deterioration of Jewry on Christian society, which debarred Jews from using their abilities and exercising their innate moral qualities. 53 But his diagnosis of the fact of deterioration, or perhaps even degeneration, was accepted with little hesitancy. 54 48. Dohm, I I , 1 5 8 - 1 6 4 . 49. Ibid., I I , 270-290. 50. Ibid., I, 1 2 3 - 1 2 4 , 1 4 3 - 1 4 4 ; I I , 1 7 6 - 1 8 0 , 359-360. 5 1 . Ibid., I, 1 4 9 - 1 5 0 . Dohm pleaded for permission to establish a Church of Deists and hoped that a substantial contingent would come from the Jews after their betterment ( I I , 1 8 1 - 1 8 7 ) . He found the term "Christian state" to be self-contradictory ( I I , 103). 52. In some of the above-mentioned points he seems to waver, but I cannot go into an analysis of seemingly contradictory statements here. A clue can be found in his compromise with contemporary conditions and his expectation of change in the future. See I. Dambacher, "Christian Wilhelm D o h m " (unpublished dissertation, Munich, 1956), pp· 73-84· 53. Dohm, I, 3 3 - 3 4 ; the idea is repeated often. 54. See Note 57, below.

H

Jacob

Katz

We may pause here for a moment in order to assess the source and consequences of this diagnosis. Contemporaries, as well as successors, praised Dohm for his courageous stand on the Jewish question and for his radical shift from the traditional Christian standpoint. This shift nonetheless had its price; the popular conception of the Jew attributed to Jewish attitudes and behavior all kinds of negative traits and connected these with the Jew's deviation from the Christian creed. T h e theological point of view accounted for the deprivation and moral degradation of the Jews in terms of sin and punishment. T h e enlightened, who had relinquished the theological concept, had not at the same time reversed the popular evaluation of Jewish character; they looked only for a natural, nontheological explanation for it. This led, in the case of Voltaire, for instance, to the most virulent abuse of Jewish character past and present, with no allowance even for some future recovery. 55 Dohm, of course, used to be regarded as the very antithesis of Voltaire, which is true as far as personal intentions went. For Dohm had judicious explanations for the deficiencies of the past and held out the brightest hopes for the remote future. 5 6 But as for the present, Dohm also accepted the prevailing evaluation of the Jews as a politically incapacitated and morally degenerate group. This assessment of contemporary Jewish character did not escape the attention of Dohm's opponents, who, like Johann David Michaelis, thought that Dohm had carried hopes for Jewish improvement much too far. He and another critic of similar attitude were quick to pin Dohm down on this point. At last, they said, an apologist for the Jews had been found who also conceded their utter moral destitution. 57 Enlightened Jewish contemporaries like Mendelssohn were apt to overlook Dohm's negative evaluation. Mendelssohn hailed Dohm's book as one of the signs of a change in public opinion in the Jews' favor. 58 In 55. See H . E m m r i c h , Das Judentum bei Voltaire (Breslau, 1930). 56. D o h m once estimated the time at " a few generations" ( I I , 295), and on another occasion he risked a guess of fifty years ( I I , 297-298). 57. D o h m , I I , 3 3 - 3 4 . See also the review in Zugabe zu den Göltingischen Gelehrtenanzeigen, 1 : 7 5 7 ( 1 7 8 1 ) . Some passages in the first volume sound as if the author had assumed the immorality of J e w s only for the sake of the argument (I, 34), but in response to his critics, D o h m committed himself unreservedly to the negative evaluation. C f . his answer to an anonymous critic in A . L . von Schlözer's Briefwechsel meist historischen und politischen Inhalts, 1 0 : 2 7 9 (Göttingen, 1782). See also D o h m , I I , 1 5 1 - 1 5 3 . In 1 8 1 5 D o h m expressed regret that his book was taken for an apologia for the J e w s as they were at that time, whereas in fact the very title of the book indicated that they were in need of betterment. C . W . von D o h m , Denkwürdigkeiten meiner Zeit ( L e m g o , 1 8 1 5 ) , I I , 284. 58. Mendelssohn discusses D o h m ' s suggestions in his Vorrede to Manasseh ben Israel, Rettung der Juden (Berlin, 1782). I quote from Mendelssohn's Gesammelte Schriften (Leipzig, 1843), I I I , 180.

The Term "Jewish

Emancipation"

15

discussing Dohm's proposals, he characteristically dropped the term bürgerliche Verbesserung, substituting in its stead bürgerliche Aufnahme: that is, civil acceptance. 59 Inadvertently, perhaps, he interpreted Dohm's term as referring to the state, which had to improve the Jews' status, but he could not ignore the reflections on Jewish moral peculiarities implied in Dohm's suggestions and voiced by his critics. Mendelssohn declared that these new reproaches to Jewry were prejudices like the older accusations of blood libel and the like. 60 But as to the facts on which the prejudices were founded, he contested the factual basis only of the older accusations, not of the contemporary ones. Mendelssohn himself considered the civic capacities of contemporary Jews to be at a low ebb, having only a "monk's v i r t u e s " ; 6 1 but he also complained about the amorality of the common man. 6 2 Jews and non-Jews alike who fought in the following decades for the betterment of the Jews' civic and social situation did so under the assumption that at the same time a civic and moral ie/^-betterment on the part of the Jews was necessary. T h u s the objective evaluation that the access of the Jew to a new society would require a goodly amount of adjustment and self-adaptation was couched in terms of moral judgment, stating that the Jew must become not only different but also better. It would be unjust to attribute the prevalence of this attitude to Dohm's proposition, but it was certainly a factor. He at least gave this trend its catchword, Verbesserung, a term remaining in use for almost half a century. Verbesserung was of course not the only word used to designate the Jewish aspiration. In legislation, more technical words were now needed, like "civil rights," Bürgerrechte, Staatsbürgerrechte, and so on. Verbesserung did find its way, however, into one important document. T h e decision of the Congress of Vienna pertaining to the Jews of Germany contained the sentence, " D i e Bundes-versammlung wird in Berathung ziehen, wie auf eine möglichst übereinstimmende Weise die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Bekenner des Jüdischen Glaubens in Deutschland zu bewirken s e y . . . " 6 3 T h e sentence means to convey that the subsequent conference of the 59. Mendelssohn, Gesammelte Schriften, III, 181-182. 60. Ibid., pp. 1 8 3 - 1 8 6 . 6 1 . Gesammelte Schriften, V , 494. T h i s was said in connection with the question of the possibility of establishing a Jewish state. He denied it, inter alia, because of the lack of initiative on the part of J e w s . 62. " Ich fürchte dieser Jargon hat nicht wenig zur Unsittlichkeit des gemeinen Mannes beigetragen " (Gesammelte Schriften, V , 605). 63. I. L . K l ü b e r , Akten des Wiener Kongresses, I I , 456. T h e history of this document is treated extensively in S . W . Baron, Die Judenfrage auf dem Wiener Kongress (Vienna, 1920), pp. 1 4 6 - 1 7 7 ·

Jacob

ι6

Katz

German confederation would seek ways and means for a unified regulation of the Jews' position in the German states. T h e change which such a unification would necessitate in some countries was at first called " R e f o r m . " 6 4 But this word seems to have sounded too radical to pass unchallenged, and thus D o h m ' s term was resorted to. A s the French translation of Dohm's book was called De la réforme politique des Juifs, the change might easily have suggested itself. And since the compilers of this document were looking for as noncommittal a term as possible, bürgerliche Verbesserung was perfectly appropriate for the purpose. 6 5 Yet, however blurred the meaning of this term might have remained, the grammatical subjects implied in the word " b e t t e r m e n t " were now certainly not the Jews but the respective states. Here the interpretation of the term comes close to that of Mendelssohn. But precisely in this period, after the Congress of Vienna, the idea of the self-improvement of the Jews as a precondition for full civil rights gained more and more currency. T h i s was a time of legislative stagnation and even regression. T h e justification which was put forward for this attitude was that the Jews first had to prove their ability to reform themselves, if they were indeed capable of self-reform at all. T h e proposition found expression in the title of a book edited by one of its strongest promoters. T h e militant theologian of Heidelberg, H. E. G . Paulus, whom we shall encounter once again in the course of our discussion, edited in 1817 a book titled Beiträge von jüdischen und christlichen Gelehrten zur Verbesserung der Bekenner des jüdischen Glaubens. Here both the object and the subject of the betterment are clearly the Jews themselves. T h i s is the connotation which the term Verbesserung had by this time almost wholly assumed, and even where the term itself was not used, the idea implicit in it held sway. IV A s mentioned above, the term " e m a n c i p a t i o n " was not used in connection with Jewish affairs prior to 1828. I have found it, however, once in the form Emanzipierung in a pamphlet of 1816 6 6 dealing with the muchdiscussed civil rights of the Jews of Frankfurt after the expulsion of the French in 1814, and a second time in the title of an English pamphlet 64. Kliiber, p. 440. 65. Baron, Die Judenfrage. 66. Aktenmässige Darstellung des Bürgerrechts der Israeliten in Frankfurt!Main p. ixx. T h e pamphlet is attributed to L u d w i g Börne.

(1816),

The Term " Jewish Emancipation" dated 1821. 6 7 This may indicate that the association of the word with Jewish aspirations was not so very remote. But that it was generally not associated with Jewish affairs is clear from its absence from the contemporary literature on the subject. In the winter of 1828 a great debate on the Jews' status took place in the Landtag of Württemberg, yet the word occurs neither in the proceedings of the debate68 nor in the accompanying discussion in pamphlets and in the press.69 That same year, the expression did begin to appear in the press, and it found its way into the title of a pamphlet, Über das Verhältniss verschiedener Religionsparteien zum Staate und über die Emanzipazion der Juden, by Wilhelm Traugott Krug. 7 0 Krug was a liberal philosopher and politician who raised his voice in favor of civil rights for the Jews, both as a writer and as a representative of the University of Leipzig in the Landtag of Saxony. 71 From then on, the word spread with the usual swiftness of a catchword. We find Heinrich Heine using it in the same year, 72 Gabriel Riesser in 1830, 73 and Ludwig Börne in 1831. 7 4 Η. E. G. Paulus also comments on it in 1831, 7 5 and a year later it is already being used in one of the history books of Jost, 76 who begins to designate even the earlier legislations by it. The same is true of Zunz, whose great work, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden of the same year, closes with a survey of the preceding decades. The word "emancipation" is used by him as 67. An Epistle from a High Priest of the Jews to the Chief Priest of Canterbury, on the Extension of the Catholic Emancipation to the Jews (London, 1821). T h e author argues (p. 25) that emancipation cannot be called " c a t h o l i c " unless every denomination is included in it. C. Roth, in Magna bibliotheca anglo-judaica, p. 230, designates the pamphlet as a parody on the Catholic emancipation. M y impression is that it is rather the work of a rationalist who anticipates the logical consequences for the Jews of the planned Catholic emancipation. 68. Verhandlungen in der Kammer der Abgeordneten des Königreichs Württemberg über denk. Gesetzesvorschlag die öffentlichen Verhältnisse der Israeliten betreffend (Stuttgart, 1828). 69. T h e literature is listed in Eichstädt's Bibliographie, pp. 117-119. 70. It appeared first as an article in Minerva, 3:161-200 (1828), and in the same year in a pamphlet in Jena. T h e pamphlet is included in K r u g ' s Gesammelte Schriften, IV, 459-482. I shall quote it f r o m there. 71. See Fiedler, Die Staatswissenschaftlichen Anschauungen und die politisch publizistische Tätigkeit des Nach-Kantianer Wilhelm Traugott Klug (Leipzig, 1933). 72. H. Heine, Sämmtliche Werke (Leipzig), IV (1828), 287-288. 73. Gabriel Riesser, Über die Stellung der Bekenner mosaischen Glaubens in Deutschland (Hamburg, 1831), also included in Riesser's Gesammelte Schriften, II, 3. T h e book was written at the end of 1830. See p. 14. 74. L . Börne, Gesammelte Schriften (Hamburg, 1862), Χ, 42. 75. Die jüdische Nationalabsonderung nach Ursprung, Folgen und Besserungsmitteln (Heidelberg, 1831), pp. 3-5. See below. 76. I. M . Jost, Allgemeine Geschichte des israelitischen Volkes (Berlin, 1832), II, 502, S°4> 516.

ι8

Jacob Katz

referring to the legislation of that time. 77 In the year 1834, the antiSemitic writer of Bavaria, Friedrich Freiherr von Holzschuher, writing under the pseudonym "Itzig Feitel Stern," composed a parody on it in the Judendeutsch dialect, describing what a simple Jew imagines to achieve through the " Manzepaziuhn" 7 8 —a sure sign that the word had become completely absorbed, so that a parodist could play upon it. We may now reiterate the question : where did the expression stem from ? Heinrich von Treitschke, describing the conflicting opinions on the Jewish question on the occasion of the debate in the Prussian Landtag of 1847, attributed the dissemination of the idea of Jewish equality to journalists and added that these journalists "wussten das klug ersonnene neue Schlagwort, Juden-Emanzipation, geschickt zu verwenden." 7 9 Aside from his postdating the term by two decades, it is an odd suggestion on the part of a historian that such words are invented on purpose. In point of fact, we may be sure that this one was not, but that it emerged through the interaction of historical events. Let us recall the year in which the word appeared, 1828, the year of the great debate about the Catholics' accession to Parliament in England. In connection with this, the claim of the Jews to the same right was mentioned; 80 and for a time it seemed as if dropping the formula of the oath upon which entrance into Parliament depended would automatically remove the Jews' disabilities as well. 8 1 As the Catholic aspiration had long since been called the "Catholic Emancipation," it was most natural that a sequel—Jewish Emancipation—began to be discussed. The proceedings and debates were reported in the German press, too, and so the word gained currency in Germany as well. Krug, who was the first to use the word in the title of a book, reveals the source of his linguistic innovation. He relates in the course of his discussion that " t h e papers have more than once reported that the Jews in London had meetings and decided to petition Parliament that they too, like the Catholics, might be emancipated." 8 2 T h e link with 77. Pp. 454, 470, 471, 475. See also his introduction, pp. iv-vi, x. 78. F. von Holzschuher, Die Manzipaziuhn der houchloebliche kieniglich bayerische Juedenschaft. En Edress an die houchverehrliche Harren Landstaend, ousgestodiert vun Schaechter Eisig Schmuhl unn druekken gelosst vun Itzig Feitel Stern (Ansbach, 1834). 79. H. G . von Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1895), V, 631. 80. Lord Holland and others discussed it in the House of Lords on April 28. See Hansard's The Parliamentary Debates, New Series, X L X , 1 5 6 - 1 7 0 . 81. On the course of events see C. Roth, A History of the Jetos in England (Oxford, 1941), pp. 248-250, and Ursula Henriques, Religious Toleration in England 1781-1833 (London, 1961). 82. Gesammelte Schriften, IV, 464.

The Term " Jewish Emancipation"

!9

the Catholic emancipation in England is thus established without a doubt. I must mention here that the approximate date of the term's appearance was observed long ago by German linguists interested in the history of catchwords. 83 One of them also perceived its English origin. 84 Eichstädt, in his Bibliographie zur Geschichte der Judenfrage,points to Krug as the first to use it in Germany. Historians, however, continued to use the word without paying much attention to its date and origin. The swift dissemination of a term like "Jewish Emancipation" can of course be explained as the result of its usefulness, since it is a concise expression for an involved subject. However, as mentioned above, opponents of the emancipation like Treitschke, in historical retrospect, attributed an unjustified but implicit emotional appeal to the term. During the height of the debate on Jewish Emancipation, none other than Bruno Bauer, perhaps the sharpest critic of the Jewish claim to equal rights in the forties, commented on this aspect: Nur zu oft glaubt man eine Sache schon gewonnen zu haben, wenn man für sie neue Worte gebraucht, die gleichsam als ein heiliges Zeichen dienen, dem niemand widersprechen darf, wer nicht für einen Unmenschen, Spötter oder Freund der Tyrannei gelten will. . . In den jetzigen Verhandlungen über die Judenfrage sind die grossen Worte "Freiheit," "Menschen-Rechte," "Emanzipation," oft gehört und mit vielem Beifall aufgenommen worden.86 Thus Bruno Bauer counted "emancipation" among the great words, like " f r e e d o m " and "human rights," which can influence by their immediate appeal. In fact, another great opponent of the Jewish claim, H. E. G. Paulus, expressly protested the use of the word shortly after its appearance in 1831. Paulus based his protest first of all on a linguistic analysis of the word, stating that " t o be emancipated in the legal sense applies to someone who had been in the hand, or power, of someone else (as manu capiendus) and now becomes his own master, master of his acquisition and of will (sui juris)."87 Paulus argued that the Jews of Germany, since they were protected by the law and were called Schutzbürger, had long since been 83. A. Gombert, Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung, 3 : 3 1 0 - 3 1 1 (1902). He followed it up to 1 8 1 3 . 84. O. Ladendorf, Historisches Schlagwörterbuch (Strassburg-Berlin, 1906): " J u d e n emanzipation, eine politische Losung, die sich in den zwanziger Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts vorbereitet und seit Anfang der dreissiger Jahre immer vernehmlicher klingt. Den Anstoss gaben die Verhandlungen im englischen Parlament" (p. 149). 85. P. 70. 86. B. Bauer, Die Judenfrage (Braunschweig, 1843), p. 1. 87. H. E. G. Paulus, Die jüdische Nationalabsonderung nach Ursprung, Folgen und Besserungsmethoden (Heidelberg, 1831), pp. 4 - 5 .

20

Jacob Katz

emancipated. On the other hand, that which they still claimed—namely, accession to office and political rights—was beyond the confines of the term "emancipation" and unjustifiable. Paulus also commented on the emotional appeal of the term: " T h i s foreign word—emancipation—with which most people are incapable of connoting anything distinct, has already been misused in the case of the poor people of Ireland." " S u c h words," he continues, " a r e meant to shine, to blind, but when one observes them closely, they turn out to be not 'Sterne' but 'Sternschnuppen,'" that is, a delusion. 88 Contemporaries of Paulus could easily dismiss his arguments as linguistic quibbles. For by that time the term had far outgrown its original meaning. 89 But historically, Paulus' statements that the origin of the word was already at variance with its common usage in the Irish Catholic question indeed pose a problem : that of how the transference from the original meaning to a political catchword came about. I think that another, earlier remark of Paulus may provide a clue to the answer. Three years before the term " J e w i s h Emancipation " appeared, Paulus, being a critic also of Catholic claims to equal rights, wrote an article entitled " M a i n Points to the Elucidation of the So-Called Emancipation." 9 0 Paulus here anticipated his linguistic argument in the application of the emancipation to the Irish and argued that since the Relief Act of 1782, or at the latest that of 1793, the term was no longer appropriate to the situation, for since then the Catholics were indeed in possession of the rights of acquisition and other attributes of personal freedom. Whatever restrictions remained for the Catholics in terms of political inequality were not an object of emancipation. 9 1 1 have found that this incongruity between the situation and the term was not merely an idiosyncrasy of Paulus alone. Prime Minister Pitt stated in Parliament in 1806: " I , sir, have never been one of those who hold that the term 'emancipation' is in the smallest degree applicable to the repeal of the few remaining penal statutes to which the Catholics are still liable." 9 2 T h e fact seems to be, therefore, that the term "emancipation" was evolved at a time when the Irish Catholics felt themselves to be laboring under legal, religious, and political dis88. Ibid. 89. G . Riesser in his retort to Paulus called the latter's linguistic remarks pedantry. See Riesser, Gesammelte Schriften, X I , 1 0 7 - 1 0 8 , and cf. M . Creizenach, Vorläufige Bemerkungen zu der von Dr. Paulus erschienen Schrift (Frankfurt am M a i n , 1 8 3 1 ) , p. 5. 90. Sophronison (1825), vol. V I I , part 2, pp. 1 2 - 3 8 , 1 1 6 - 1 2 8 . 9 1 . Ibid., pp. 1 3 , 24, 120. 92. The Speeches of the Right Honourable William Pitt (1806), I V , 435. T h e speech is of M a y 1 3 , 1805.

The Term "Jewish Emancipation"

21

abilities. 93 At that time, the term was fully congruent with the situation it came to describe. When, during the last decades of the eighteenth century, most of the legal and religious restrictions had been removed, the word was still preserved in the struggle for full political equality, first of the Catholics, and later of the Jews. V

In the history of the word in Jewish context, the sequence of applicability was reversed from that of the Catholic context. In the first phase, when the Jew was explicitly dealt with as a stranger, the correct word was "naturalization," and this certainly could not have been replaced by the word "emancipation." In the second phase, a certain human claim of the Jews was acknowledged, but its realization was made dependent on the condition of self-adaptation, and this was correctly expressed by the word "betterm e n t " or some similar expression. T h e term "emancipation" had no such connotation ; on the contrary, it implied that natural rights had been withheld till then from those concerned, and that these must be restored to them unconditionally. This meaning, with its strong overtones of emotional appeal, is clearly to be distinguished in one of the first instances in which the term was used, namely by Heinrich Heine: "What is the great assignation of our times ? It is the emancipation, not only of the people of Ireland, of the Greeks, the Jews of Frankfurt, the blacks of West India and similar depressed peoples, but of the whole world, especially Europe. " 9 4 This is certainly not cool reasoning on a social or political issue, but a pure cry of emotion. Why and how the term in its emotive significance fits into the Jewish context just at this time is best understood by an analysis of the attitude of its champion, Gabriel Riesser. In the opening passage of Riesser's first pamphlet of 1 8 3 1 , he declared that he intended to present the question of the emancipation of the Jews in Germany in a novel way and that " t o strive 93. The Oxford English Dictionary notes as the earlier source a speech by Burke from 1797. This may be correct for the term "Catholic emancipation" but the use of "emancipation" in connection with the issue is certainly from an earlier date, as even a casual reading of the sources has shown me. In a resolution of the Masons in 1793 in Ireland I find : " W e deprecate a revolution as both unnecessary and ineligible for our country—convinced that it should never be had recourse to 'til all other means of escaping slavery have been tried in vain ; and we are determined to use with spirited firmness every rational means for attaining emancipation and adequate representation of all our fellowsubjects." Seward, Collectanea politica (Dublin, 1923), I I , 340. Here the connection with slavery is evident. See also p. 300. 94. Heine, Sämmtliche Werke, IV, 287-288.

22

Jacob Kotz

for it I have made the destiny of my life." 9 5 This solemnly declared dedication to the task is of great significance. Riesser belonged to the large group of talented young Jews of the first three decades of the nineteenth century in Germany, who acquired and even excelled in an academic education only to find the practical exploitation of it barred to them because of the condition that every applicant to academic or public employment be a Christian. Many of these young men yielded to the pressures of circumstance, and all of them experienced the agony of temptation. Riesser was no doubt one of the most agonized; his scholarly achievements entitled him to aspire to an academic career and he regarded scholarship as the only intellectually rewarding and congenial occupation. In this assessment he was supported by his father, with whom he had an intimate and harmonious relationship. 96 Gabriel mixed freely with gentile society in his beloved Heidelberg and it very probably was hinted to him that to surrender Judaism would pave the way to his desired vocation. 97 Had he had a religious conviction about the intrinsic truth of Judaism, the sacrifice would have been redeemed by a sense of suffering for a valuable cause. Young Riesser, however, was steeped in the historical and philosophical criticism of all positive religions that was prevalent among intellectuals of the time. 9 8 Whatever Jewish tenets he may have absorbed from his father—a learned but enlightened Jew tending toward lenient reform—were all dispersed during his university education. What prevented him from taking the last step of alienation from Judaism (the step indeed taken by many others) remains obscured as far as the psychological factors which determined his position are concerned. 99 But, on the other hand, we may ascertain by careful analysis of his own statements in what terms he himself evaluated the decision to remain a Jew. Riesser regarded this decision as a major feat in the preservation of moral character and as an escape from moral degradation. As he paid for 95. Gesammelte Schriften, I I , 3. 96. T h e standard biography of Riesser is still that of his contemporary, M . Isler, in the first volume of Riesser's Gesammelte Schriften. See also F. Friedländer, Das Leben Gabriel Riessers (Berlin, 1926), and the recent article by M . Rinott, " G a b r i e l Riesser, Fighter for Jewish Emancipation," Yearbook, L e o Baeck Institute, 7 : 1 1 - 3 8 (1962). A modern biography is still a desideratum. 97. Isler in Riesser, Gesammelte Schriften, I, 2 4 - 2 5 . 98. T h i s is obvious f r o m the tone and content of his statements about both Christian and Jewish religion. See especially Gesammelte Schriften, I I , 2 1 , 39. Here he calls circumcision " a n empty but innocent ceremony . . . which according to the conscience of many of us is very dispensable [sehr entbehrlich]." 99. Isler's contention (Riesser, Gesammelte Schriften, I, 2 5 - 2 7 ) that Riesser's character excluded such a step is begging the question. Rinott fails to go into the matter at all.

The Term. "Jewish Emancipation"

23

his moral achievement in material loss, giving up his deeply desired academic vocation, he felt entitled to a sense of moral superiority. This superiority is the source of the strong language which Riesser uses when speaking up for the interests of the Jew who, like himself, despised the acquisition of civil rights through the easy path of outward conformity to the ruling religion. 100 This was the psychological result of his triumph over temptation, but it had ideological ramifications as well. In fact, the Jews' having had a chance to escape from Jewish disabilities through formal conversion served as a cornerstone in his definition of the Jewish situation. As the Jew was readily acceptable to the state and to non-Jewish society after an act of formal baptism, Riesser concluded that religion alone was the reason for his disabilities as long as he remained a Jew. Riesser was well acquainted with the history of the Jewish struggle for political and social equality during the previous fifty years and made an extensive study of the legal and social position of the Jews in Germany of his day. This can clearly be seen from his second pamphlet, which he wrote as an answer to Paulus' attack on his first.101 Paulus had used the argument that Jews were strangers because of their socioreligious cohesion, their hopes for national restoration, and especially their attachment to their religious constitution, which was more than a religion in the ordinary sense of the word. All this was designated by Paulus as a national selfsegregation. T o these arguments Riesser retorted in a long pamphlet (written in a matter of days) full of factual information and well-thoughtout reasoning. 102 There is no doubt that Riesser had been well prepared to answer all these objections in advance. Significantly, however, in his first pamphlet he refrained from mentioning any possible objections, thus concentrating the entire controversy on one point : if a Jew, once baptized, counts as a good citizen and a good German, and so on, then being excluded as long as he remained a Jew means to be suppressed solely on account of his religion. In his own words, German Jewry is defined as " a weak and scattered religious denomination, oppressed by the overwhelming number of its own people." 1 0 3 Feeling otherwise well prepared for citizenship and for taking an appropriate part in German society, Riesser, like other intellectuals, felt victimized because of his refusal to conform to the majority religion. 100. Gesammelte Schriften, II, 2 1 - 2 2 , 37-38, 103-104. ι ο ί . See note 87, above, for the title of Paulus' work. 102. "Verteidigung der bürgerlichen Gleichstellung der Juden gegen die Einwürfe des Herrn Dr. H. E. G. Paulus" (Altona, 1831), Gesammelte Schriften, II, 91—194. 103. Ibid., II, 88.

24

Jacob Katz

It is doubtful whether this feeling was shared in 1831 by the greater part of the Jewish community at large, and it is thus appropriate to say that Riesser projected his own experience and that of his group into the consciousness of the entire Jewish community. We might say that Paulus, his great opponent, took up a position that assumed a state of Jewish national separation which was already in fact waning. Riesser, on the other hand, anticipated a development which until then had taken place only within a minority of his community. 104 Certainly the word "betterment" would have been out of place when the feeling to be conveyed was that of the removal of shackles. To designate this feeling, the word "emancipation," as it was understood by then, was precisely fitting. Riesser, in his reply to Paulus' criticism of the inappropriate use of the word "emancipation," stated that he had indeed used the German expression bürgerliche Gleichstellung more often than the word "emancipation." 105 The statement is correct, though one is inclined to dismiss as a rationalization one of the reasons which Riesser offered for it: the preference for a German word over a foreign one. It is more likely that another reason, the wish to be clearly understood, led Riesser's legally trained mind to choose the clearer word in the course of his deliberations. But he certainly did use the word "emancipation" in some crucial passages. I mentioned above that in the opening passage of his first pamphlet, when he solemnly declared that he would dedicate his life to the achievement of Jewish equality, he used the word "emancipation," and not bürgerliche Gleichstellung. For here the context was emotional, and the word "emancipation" the more evocative. Under the influence of Paulus' protest, Riesser himself avoided the use of the word "emancipation" in his second pamphlet. Of course, no protest, by anyone, could hinder the absorption of the word by the wider public. Jewish disabilities were discussed during these years first in the English Parliaments of 1830, and in 1831-32 in the Landtage of Baden, Bavaria, Hanover, and Kurhessen. Although for legislative purposes the word was too evasive to be used, the public discussions upon the question went under the name of "Emancipation." Gabriel Riesser himself, in a large book, 104. See E. Sterling, Er ist wie Du, aus der Frühgeschichte des Antisemitismus in Deutschland (1815-1850) (Munich, 1956), pp. 93-94. Sterling accepted Riesser's evaluation of the situation as absolutely correct. A more detailed analysis of Jewish society in Germany at that time is apt to disprove this. See M . Eliav, Jewish Education in Germany in the Period of Enlightenment and Emancipation (Jerusalem, i960 [Hebrew]) and the forthcoming book of Jacob Tury on the political orientation of German Jewry in the nineteenth century. 105. Gesammelte Schriften, I I , 107.

The Term " Jewish Emancipation "

25

analyzed the parliamentary debates in the German countries and reverted to the word even in the title of the book: Kritische Beleuchtung der in den Jahren 1831 und 1832 in Deutschland vorgekommenen Verhandlungen über die Emancipation der Juden. It would have been too much to ask to forego the advantage of an expression which entailed through its connotations the moral recommendation of its content. Whether we should call this in retrospect a simple catchword, as did Treitschke, or rather follow the reluctant admission of Bruno Bauer that it became one of the great words of the nineteenth century is a question of evaluation. If one must evaluate, I should follow Bauer.

The Beginnings of Modern Jewish Studies BY N A H U M N. G L A T Z E R Our inquiry into the beginnings of modern Jewish studies is in effect an attempt to analyze the most significant intellectual movement of Western Judaism in the recent period of history. We shall take the term "beginnings" to refer roughly to the four decades between 1818, the date of publication of Leopold Zunz's Etwas über die rabbinische Literatur, and about i860, the period that saw the beginning of the publication of H. Graetz's Geschichte der Juden (1853), the publication of Abraham Geiger's Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel, I. M. Jost's Geschichte des Judenthums (both in 1857), Zacharias Frankel's Einleitung in die Mischna, and Zunz's Die Ritus der synagogalen Poesie (both in 1859). Around i860, as Franz Rosenzweig expressed it, "the movement had run its course; having attained political emancipation, German Judaism sank into a postprandial doze," to be awakened only by a wave of anti-Semitism and, spiritually, by the Zionist movement. 1 Naturally, however, our review will have to consider both the developments which preceded and those which followed this period. I It is well to keep in mind that scholarly investigation of Judaism did not start in nineteenth-century western Europe but has had a long history. One could point to the beginnings of scientific treatment of Hebrew grammar (as a discipline independent of the Masorah but influenced by Islamic linguistics) in Sacadia Gaon (tenth century); in the contributions to Hebrew grammar by Karaite scholars; in Sacadia's disciple, Dunash ben Labrat, who examined the Biblical text from the philological viewpoint; in Judah ibn Kureish of North Africa, an older contemporary of Sacadia, who probed the relationship between Biblical and Rabbinical I. Franz Rosenzweig, "Hermann Cohens jüdische Schriften," Kleinere (Berlin, 1937). Ρ· 3°7· 27

Schriften

28

Nahum Ν. Glatzer

Hebrew and Arabic and stressed the linguistic study of the Targum; in Hayyuj (about iooo c.E.) and Jonah ibn Janah (eleventh century), who can be credited with laying the foundation for a scholarly Biblical exegesis. In his commentaries on Isaiah and the Psalms, Moses ibn Gikatilla of Cordova (eleventh century) introduced historico-critical discrimination. Abraham ibn Ezra (twelfth century), who learned a great deal from him, insisted on the peshat to the exclusion of other methods of interpretation, which led some scholars to regard him as a father of modern Biblical studies. A discernment of some of the social, economic, and psychological factors at work in Jewish history is evident in the Shebet Yehudah of the ibn Vergas (fifteenth to sixteenth century), and historical and literary criticism in the Mé'or cEnayim of cAzariah dei Rossi (sixteenth century). Simone Luzzatto of Venice, in his Discorso circa il stato degli Hebrei (Venice, 1638), exhibits an understanding of the political and economic conditions of Europe and an insight into the peculiarities of Jewish communal life in the Diaspora. Scholarly approach to the Talmudic literature can be dated as far back as Hai Gaon (tenth to eleventh century), whose commentary on the Mishnah, of which only fragments (in addition to quotations in the cArukh) are extant, utilizes the author's historical, archeological, and philological (Arabic and Aramaic) knowledge. We also have fragments of his Kitäb al-Hawi, a lexicon of difficult words in the Bible, Targum, and Talmud. Textual criticism in the realm of Talmudic literature was the concern of many premodern scholars. We mention only Solomon Luria ( 1 5 1 0 1573), who, using older sources, attempted in his Hokhmath Shelomoh to correct the numerous copyists' errors of many generations that had distorted the text. The Cracow edition of the Talmud (1616-1620) contains the corrections according to Luria's glosses. There is a history nine centuries long of Talmudic methodology, which may be considered another chapter in the prehistory of modern Judaic studies. The search for chronological order and clarification of terminology in the vast Talmudic materials, which started with the Seder Tanna^im va-Amor a'im in the ninth century, came to a temporary conclusion in the encyclopedia (Pahad Yizhaq) of Isaac Lampronti (1679-1756). This work started to appear in 1750. Elijah, the Gaon of Vilna (1720-1797), has been called the father of Talmud criticism. In the words of Louis Ginzberg, " T h e Gaon was bold enough to declare that the interpretation of the Talmud must be based on reason and not on authority." This "emancipation of tradition" as far as the texts are concerned made the application of critical principles

Modem Jewish Studies

29

imperative. Revised texts and a comparative study of related literature led the Gaon from "external" to "internal" criticism.2 In the state of transition from the old, classical to the modern, critical Judaic studies, objective research (especially in the origins of halakah) was hampered by doctrinal considerations and by the desire to defend Israel's tradition. Jacob Zebi Meklenburg (1785-1865), in his Ha-Ketab veha-Qabbalah, still maintained that the details of the Oral Law could be harmoniously discovered in the text of the Written Law. Zebi Hirsch Chajes (1805-1855) set out to prove that the Law, both Written and Oral, issued in a single Divine revelation, and that historical development could be spoken of only with regard to non-Pentateuchal statutes.3 Samuel David Luzzatto (1800-1865) deeply resented the seeming lack of personal involvement on the part of Western Jewish scholars who, he said, studied Judaism " a s other scholars explore the antiquities of Egypt and Assyria, Babylonia and Persia." 4 He defined true Jewish scholarship as learning based on faith. 5 Solomon Judah Rapoport (1790-1867) pointed to the scorn of gentile scholars at the historical illiteracy of Jews. 6 II Against the representatives of religion-accentuated and -directed scholarship the new school of learning, best represented by men such as Zunz, Jost, Steinschneider, and Geiger, stressed complete freedom of interpretation, as well as freedom from the possible application of the results of scholarship to the conduct of life. In a footnote to his programmatic treatise of 1818, Zunz hastened to say that the study of Jewish literature was not meant "to offer a norm [or direction] for our own judgment." 7 A main link connecting the old, classical and the new, critical form of Judaic research was Talmudic lexicography, the attempt to list and expound the rich and variegated linguistic material of the Talmudim and the Midrashim. Best known is the cArukh of Nathan ben Yehiel of Rome (completed in the beginning of the twelfth century), a work that utilized Geonic and later sources. Later scholars (Elijah Levita, David de Pomis, Benjamin Mussafia, David ha-Kohen de Lara [author of cIr David and 2. L . Ginzberg, Students, Scholars, and Saints (Philadelphia, 1928), p. 135. 3. Z. H. Chajes, Mebo' ha-Talmud (Zólkiew, 1845), chap. i. 4. S. D. Luzzatto, letter to Rapoport, June 5, i860, Iggeroth Shedal (Przemysl, 1882), p. 1367. 5. Ha-hokhmah ha-meyusedet 'al ha-'emunah. 6. S. J . Rapoport, introduction to the biography of Nathan ben Yehiel, Bikkure ha-cIttim 1 0 : 3 - 6 (1829). 7. Leopold Zunz, Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin, 1875), I, 5.

3o

Nahum Ν. Glatzer

Kether Kehunah], and others) compiled either new lexicographical lists or supplements to the cArukh. The Christian Hebraist Johannes Buxtorf the Elder (1564-1629) used the cArukh in addition to the writings of Elijah Levita as a source for his Lexicon hebraicum et chaldaicum (Basel, 1607). Toward the end of the eighteenth century, Isaiah Berlin (or Pick) wrote a commentary on the cArukh that remained a fragment. 8 In 1 8 1 2 there appeared the Or Esther of Simon and Mordecai Bondi of Dresden, a not very successful lexicon of the Greek and Latin words in the Talmudicmidrashic writings.9 Moses Landau of Prague (1788-1852), a grandson of Ezekiel Landau, issued in 1819-1824 a new edition of the cArukh, under the title Macarkhe Lashon. The Zunz-Ehrenberg correspondence reveals the eagerness with which the appearance of this work was anticipated in learned circles. Alas, Landau's work, which does not even mention the author of the original cArukh, proved a failure. It was this publication that aroused the ire of S. J. Rapoport and prompted him to write his biography of Nathan ben Yehiel, a masterpiece of historical criticism. 10 The original cArukh was also the key to Zunz's ingenious reconstruction of the Pesiqta de Rab Kahana, a major feat in the early period of modern Jewish studies. 11 Before analyzing the new trend of Jewish studies, a seemingly technical point should be briefly mentioned: the status of libraries and collections of books and manuscripts within reach of Jewish scholars. 12 The Gaon of Vilna, who so strongly emphasized correct readings, may not have seen more than half a dozen manuscripts in his field.13 Early editions were hardly available to him ; the Polish and Russian libraries owned very few Hebrew books of note. The son of the Gaon of Vilna, Rabbi Abraham, was the author of Rab Pecalim (which, incidentally, remained unpublished for eighty-five years, appearing only in 1894). It enumerates works of midrashic and rabbinic literature known only from quotations and it was to serve as a guide in the search for these lost writings. In this work the son continued 8. Hafla'ah she-ba-cArakhin, ed. R. W. Giinsberg (Breslau, 1830). 9. See Β. Beer, " D i e neuere jüdische Literatur und ihre Bedeutung," Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 3:249fr. (1853). 10. Bikkure ha-cIttim 1 0 : 7 - 7 9 ( 1 8 2 9 ) . 1 1 . Leopold Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (Berlin, 1832), chap. xi. 12. See Zunz, "Bibliographisches," Zur Geschichte und Literatur (Berlin, 1845), pp. 230-248. 13. On this and the next items, see S. Schechter, Seminary Addresses (Cincinnati, 1915), pp. 1 8 3 - 1 8 6 .

Modem Jewish Studies

31

the father's quest for texts and still better texts, a direction followed by other scholars who were influenced by the Gaon, among them Avigdor of Slonim, commentator on the Tosefta, Enoch Zindel, commentator on several Midrashim, and especially Raphael Rabbinovicz (1835-1888), author of Sefer Diqduqe Soferim, Variae Lectiones in Mischnam et in Talmud Babylonicum (1867 et seq.); Rabbinovicz' work was based upon a unique uncensored manuscript (Codex Hebraicus 95) of the Babylonian Talmud he had found in the royal library at Munich. The importance of this manuscript, written in 1342, had been recognized a century and a half before Rabbinovicz by Nathan Weil, the author of Qorban Netarfel, but nobody had paid attention to Weil's project. In the West there were some Hebrew collections in French and Italian libraries, but Jews were not allowed to use them. The first Jew to be granted admission to a public library appears to have been Hayyim Joseph David Azulai, who in 1755 and 1778 visited the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris and happily saw many Hebrew manuscripts there in various fields.14 Leopold Zunz (1794-1886) received his first intimation of the existence of a comprehensive Hebrew literature from Johann Christoph Wolf's Bibliotheca hebraea (1715-33)· That this work was more than a supplement to Bartolocci's Bibliotheca magna rabbinica is due to Wolf's utilization of David Oppenheim's (or Oppenheimer's) book and manuscript collection, which was brought to Hamburg before its acquisition by the Bodleian Library in 1829. 1 5 Zunz first consulted the Oppenheim library in Hamburg in 1828, some four years before he mapped out in his Gottesdienstliche Vorträge a literary history of the Midrash in its broadest sense. But it was not until 1846 that he was able to undertake a trip to the British Museum in order to study its Hebrew manuscripts, and not until 1855 a trip to Oxford and Paris as well as London; a trip to the de Rossi collection in Parma followed only in 1863; the Vatican Library, with its hundreds of Hebrew manuscripts, was closed to him. In an impassioned appeal to "the people of Italy" he urged the overthrow of the Pontifical State, in order to advance the course of European humanity and at the same time open the gates of the Vatican Library to Jewish scholarship. 16 To enable him to write his history of Hebrew liturgy, Zunz for years dispatched to his friends urgent pleas, at times bordering on imposition, 14. H. J . D. Azulai, Ma'agal Tob, ed. Α . Freimann (Berlin, 1921), pp. 34, 122, 124, 163. 15. On the history of Oppenheim's library, see Alexander Marx, Studies in Jewish History and Booklore (New York, 1944), chap. xiv. 16. " D i e hebräischen Handschriften in Italien," Gesammelte Schriften, I I I , ι—13.

32

Nahum Ν. Glatzer

for help in looking up quotations in early editions of books deposited in local libraries and for the acquisition of mahzorim and selihot in various imprints and for various rituals. T h e chief spokesmen for modern Jewish studies conceived of their task not in terms of "contributions toward . . . , " "comments on . . . but in terms of major, comprehensive projects. Zunz, in 1825, drafted a plan of a four-part work on the Wissenschaft des Judentums, and in 1829 he prepared an extensive introduction to the Wissenschaft·, S. J. Rapoport planned a Toledoth Anshe Shem and a complete cErekh Millin·, Abraham Geiger conceived of a scholarly history of Judaism in the Biblical and Talmudic period, and Zacharias Frankel a history of halakah. What they managed to produce were preliminary essays, or, at best, elaborations of parts of the original plans. It is important to realize, however, that the concept of modern Jewish studies called for a transformation of Jewish learning from a literature of glosses, commentaries, bibliographical lists, and collections of chronographical materials into comprehensive presentations of Judaism as found in its literature, its philosophy, and its history—• manifestations of the new vistas of learning, marked by scholarly objectivity, broad scope, meaningful context, proper form and style, and —respectability. There was one field in particular which suffered gross neglect: Biblical, and more specifically, Pentateuchal studies. Zunz started his Gottesdienstliche Vorträge with an analysis of the Book of Chronicles ; although he had a strong interest in Bible studies, 17 he concentrated on Hebrew liturgy. Zacharias Frankel dealt with the Septuagint and Alexandrian hermeneutics, but his chief concern was Talmudic literature. Abraham Geiger's Urschrift began with the Return from Exile. Heinrich Graetz contributed commentaries to, and articles on, various Biblical, mainly non-Pentateuchal, books, but his magnum opus was his History, which includes a history of the Biblical period. S. D. Luzzatto did include the Pentateuch among the Biblical books which he interpreted, but he abstained from exercising criticism on them, a criticism he applied (with great caution) to postPentateuchal books and with full academic freedom to medieval literature and Hebrew philology. Not even the vast complex of Biblical law, largely overlooked by the schools of Biblical criticism, received much attention from Jewish scholars, with the exception perhaps of S. L . Saalschütz, author of Das Mosaische 1 7 . Leopold Z u n z , " B i b e l k r i t i s c h e s " ( 1 8 7 3 - 1 8 7 4 ) , Gesammelte

Schriften

I, 2 1 7 - 2 7 0 .

Modem Jewish Studies

33

Recht (1848). Max Wiener suggested that the cause of this self-limitation was "the after-effect of the traditional belief in inspiration." 18 Wiener's suggestion provides a partial explanation, but more important, in our opinion, was the wish to avoid a field so strongly related to issues of faith, the discussion of which would have created friction with Christian scholarship. Ill The field of study that more than any other reveals the radical change between the old learning and modern Jewish scholarship is Jewish history. We shall concentrate on this one aspect of our subject. The first attempt to understand Judaism in terms of history was made by a man who could examine Judaism only from the outside and in terms familiar to his own world: Jacques Basnage (1653-1725), the French Protestant who after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes tasted some of the bitterness of exile. He recognized the existence of Jews in history and realized that Josephus' account could be continued into his own days; accordingly, the title of his work includes the phrase, pour servir de Suplément & de Continuation à l'Histoire de Joseph. To Basnage, the history of the Jews was the story of a sect, a sect that "was rejected because it had rejected Jesus." 1 9 Beyond this, even the enlightened, well-educated Basnage could not go. But the mere fact that Judaism could be treated in historic terms, and Jews as a group with a coherent and comprehensible history, was of enormous significance, insofar as it permitted the Christian reader to understand Israel in nondogmatic terms. Basnage's work formed the basis for the works of Christian Hebraists, among them the Silesian pastor Christian Unger and the above-mentioned Johann Christoph Wolf. Not for another century did the Jews themselves feel the need of presenting their story in terms of history. Of Basnage's contemporaries only Moses Hagiz took notice of the former's work. 20 Moses Mendelssohn and the period of Jewish enlightenment had little use for historical thought. But once the step had been taken toward history, it was not only historicity that began to matter, and not merely historic continuity and exposition of meaning that was suggested by the historic view. The modern students of Judaism were concerned as well with the place the Jewish people and 18. Max Wiener, Jüdische Religion im Zeitalter der Emanzipation (Berlin, 1933), p. 230. 19. Heinrich Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, X (1868), 3 1 7 . 20. Ibid., p. 319, η. ι .

34

Nahurn Ν. Glatzer

Judaism occupied within world history. Hegel had presented Judaism as a child of the Orient, and by so doing he removed it from the historical scheme in the West. 2 1 Jewish historians had to take a stand on this crucial issue before they could proceed with the technical aspects of historical research. T h e predominant philosophy in this new trend in Judaic studies is best described as historicism. Karl Löwith 2 2 has demonstrated the evergrowing historicism in the various disciplines. By the mid-nineteenth century Christian dogmatic theology had become history of dogma, economics had been replaced (by Karl Marx) by a materialistic philosophy of history, philosophy had turned into history of philosophy, and biology into the Darwinian history of evolution. T h e permanent, the absolute, the universally true was replaced by "time and motion, the process of history," 2 3 the relativity of truth, a series of events determined by their place in the ever-changing historical course and reduced in their importance because of this determination. Hegel still maintained " a concept of philosophy as a science of the absolute and considered meaningless a merely historical treatment of philosophical issues." But his successors turned his casual dictum that "philosophy does not leap across its t i m e " into a historicist dogma which implies that " a respective thought may be true and reasonable in its time but turns untrue and unreasonable in the following period of time." 2 4 This historicistic mode of thinking (which, for lack of a better term, we may call a "functional," "practical," or " l o w e r " historicism) provided a ready answer to the quest of Wissenschaft des Judentums in its first generations. T h e issue of doctrine, of the binding character of tradition, of truth, could be safely excluded from the investigation. Establishment of the historical roots of religious observances helped in the introduction of synagogal and liturgical reforms, in which the early advocates of Wissenschaft were interested. Not only so radical a reformer as Abraham Geiger but such a reforming traditionalist as Levi Herzfeld as well was guided by the idea of historical origins. Zacharias Frankel's Breslau School was based on a positive historical orientation. Historicism as applied to the messianic idea helped Zunz to keep the eschatological dynamite from exploding in 2 1 . Heinrich Graetz, Die Konstruktion der jüdischen Geschichte (Berlin, 1936), p. 94. The work originally appeared in Zeitschrift für die religiösen Interessen des Judenthums, vol. 3 (1846). 22. Karl Löwith, " Die Dynamik der Geschichte und der Historismus," Eranos-Jahrbuch 2 1 : 2 2 9 (1952). 23. Ibid., p. 230. 24. Ibid., pp. 23of.

Modem Jewish Studies

35

his structure of Judaism, which he presented as a movement toward humanism, progress, democracy, and Europeanism. It also sustained his views of the European revolutions, especially the revolution of 1848, as messianic events. 25 It assisted him also in wresting the interpretation of Judaism from the hands of theologians and philosophers of religion, placing it in the hands of historians. " T h e history of the post-Talmudic age is not merely a history of religion or church history [Religions- oder Kirchengeschichte]; having as its subject a people, this history displays a national character," said Graetz, 26 immediately qualifying his statement by stating that the normal prerequisites of a nation had, in the case of Israel, been supplanted by "spiritual life" (geistige Potenzen). Despite this admission and despite occasional references to it and glimpses of understanding, religious thought was excluded from the scope of coherent scholarly investigation. What really mattered was the historical framework and the categories of historical thinking. Some explanation of this reluctance to deal with religious thought was offered by Zunz in a letter in which he referred to Ludwig Steinheim's Die Offenbarung nach dem Lehrbegriff der Synagoge: " I cannot agree to the hostile division between revelation and paganism; rather do I see everywhere only emanations of one and the same world spirit [Weltgeist]·, only in the phenomenal world are there antagonisms, even contradictions, but philosophy resolves them. . . " 2 7 To simplify: since religious thought lacks an objective foundation and makes for divisiveness, it is better left with the theologians and sermonizers and should not become a subject of scholarship, Zunz felt. It was the tendency of the period to demonstrate points of contact between Israel and the world, even a close relationship between the two, a task undertaken by what may be called "ideological," "theoretical," or "higher" historicism. In contradistinction to "lower historicism," by means of which timehonored institutions, usages, and beliefs were presented in the relative positions they occupied in the context of history, it was the intention of "higher historicism" to establish Judaism as an integral part of world history. This almost dogmatic construction came to occupy the status previously held by religion. The preoccupation with status in history 25. See N . N . Glatzer, " Z u n z and the Revolution of 1 8 4 8 , " Year Book, Leo Baeck Institute, 5 : 1 2 2 - 1 3 9 (i960). 26. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. V , introduction. 27. May ι , 1 8 3 6 ; to be published in the second volume of the Zunz-Ehrenberg Correspondence.

Nahum Ν. Glatzer

36

obstructed the vision from a perspective based on an authentic examination of the internal history of Judaism. It may be mentioned in passing that once before, in Jewish Hellenistic literature, attempts had been made to present the history of the Jewish people as part of world history. In both instances apologetics was engaged in at the expense of legitimate selfinterpretation and the energies spent on the one field were lost to the other. T h e historicistic position found its classical expression in the works of Zunz, Jost, Geiger, and Graetz. It was here that the difference between the older forms of Jewish scholarship and the new trend in Judaic studies became most obvious. Zunz's " E t w a s über die rabbinische Literatur" ( " N o t e s on Rabbinic Literature"), written by the twenty-three-year-old student in 1817 and published in 1818, is on the surface a program of work that awaits the Wissenschaft. On a deeper level, however, it is an attempt to break down the confines and limitations of traditional, rabbinic, classical Judaism and to posit a concept of Judaism that includes all, or most, aspects of human thought.

Zunz

held that European literature was steadily

replacing

Hebrew literature. Even what had been written in the Hebrew language in the last fifty years—that is, since the time of Mendelssohn—he wrote, was but a "preparation for a time in which rabbinic literature [a term Z u n z applied to the entire body of post-Biblical writings] will have ceased to exist." 2 8 Neo-Hebraic literature " i s being carried to its grave," he said, and therefore " i t is upon scholarship to render account of the process that has come to a close. N o new publication of importance is expected to interfere with our s u r v e y . " 2 9 What was this survey to encompass ? In addition to the Bible (which, Z u n z states parenthetically, is not confined to the Jewish people but which " b e c a m e the foundation of the Christian states"), 3 0 in addition to theology, law, ethics, history, philology, et cetera, there are fields that concern the Jew " a s an earth-dweller": mathematics, geography,

astronomy,

chronology, natural history and medicine, technology, commerce, music, and so on. T h u s Hebrew literature, far from being narrowly parochial, is testimony to a full, normal, human civilization. A s such, Z u n z continues, knowledge of Judaism viewed in its totality—and historical Wissenschaft alone can afford us this v i e w — i s a contribution to universal human knowledge, which is " t h e most noble aim [der nobelste Endzweck] 28. Zunz, Gesammelte Schriften, 29. Ibid. 30. Ibid., ρ. ι.

I, 4.

of

Modem Jewish Studies

37

m a n . " 3 1 True knowledge is the awareness of the relationships between the particular and the universal and the conception of the place the singular occupies in the total; scholarship teaches us how the detail emerges from its isolation to become " a n integral part of the spiritual creation" of humanity. 3 2 T o advance this theory Zunz had to break with the scale of values of classical Judaism, to which a Biblical commentary or a halakic work was central and a Jew's treatise on a medical subject peripheral. Zunz superimposed the concept of literature (in the sense of a multifaceted body of writings) on Hebrew letters, just as he forced the writings of the Jewish community out of their seclusion into the wider framework of world literature. In criticism it must be said that, though there were many significant relationships between Jewish and Christian writings in the Middle Ages, as well as a considerable body of Jewish contributions to the various fields of general knowledge, the Jews never defined their intellectual endeavors as contributions to a world literature. If pressed for a definition, they might have construed their work as a search for the meaning of the Scriptural word or of the ramifications of the basic code of laws. In reinterpreting the literary history of Israel according to the scale of values of the new Europe, Zunz anticipated the guiding principles of the Verein für die Cultur und Wissenschaft der Juden. In the year following the publication of " E t w a s über die rabbinische Literatur," Eduard Gans, a leading figure in the Verein, gave his interpretation of the concept of the new Europe. That new Europe, according to him, represented the creative incorporation of the great historic forces—the Ancient Near East, Hellas, Rome, and Christianity—and their achievements: monotheism, the concepts of beauty, freedom, the state and society, and philosophy. These forces were not independent entities; they survived and reached their true significance as parts of an organic whole. It was incumbent upon Judaism, too, to surrender its independence for the sake of the greater European realm; the Jewish world was not to vanish but to become absorbed by the European ("nicht 'untergehen,' aber in die europäische [Welt] 'aufgehen'"). On another occasion, in 1 8 2 1 , Gans called upon the Verein to help tear down the wall that had until then separated the Jewish world from the European. 3 3 Europe as a new historical entity, a realm of 3 1 . Ibid., p. 27. 32. Ibid., p. 28. 33. Rede bei der Wiedereröffnung des Vereins. . . , 18. Oktober 1821 (Hamburg, 1822).

Nahum Ν.

3«

Glatzer

liberal cooperation, free from medieval narrowness and dogmatism: such was the concept that inspired both the theoretician Gans and the literary historian Zunz. In Zunz's view the Jew represented the spirit of enlightened Europe long before the modern period. T h e exclusiveness of the medieval Jew was but the unavoidable reaction to persecution. In his treatise " D i e Namen der J u d e n , " 3 4 Zunz defended the universal, nonreligious character of given personal names and explained the existence of "synagogal n a m e s " as occasioned by " t h e growing pressure on the part of Christians," which led the Jews " t o isolate themselves within the confines of their customs."

35

In his essay " Z u r Literatur des jüdischen Mittelalters in Frankreich und Deutschland," 3 6 Z u n z pointed to the medieval Church " t h a t had absorbed the life of the Europeans while excluding the Jews," a condition that forced the "Jewish c h u r c h " to " t u r n all thought and feeling into religion, that is, into exclusiveness [in ein religiöses, das ist in ein ausschliessendes]."37

T h u s , the Jew's interest in religion was merely defensive;

if circumstances permitted, his concerns would have been those of nascent Europe, Zunz thought. Israel's centuries-old literary history provided the proof of her ability to cooperate with Western humanity, and, what was more, of her comprehension that she was nothing more than a part of this humanity. Consequently, the Jew was no novice in the new historical structure, Europe. T h e concept of the interrelationship of Jewish and world literature— not as one of the historical factors but as the basic fact—was reaffirmed by Z u n z in the introductory chapter to his Zur Geschichte und Literatur (1845). In this work the Jew is presented as being, by means of his literary activity, " m o s t intimately connected with the culture of Antiquity, with the origin and growth of Christianity, with the scientific activity of the Middle A g e s , " so that his literature aptly "supplements general literature." T h o u g h an indigenous organism, Jewish literature should be dealt with in accordance with the laws applicable to literature in general; conversely, an understanding of Jewish literature aided in the understanding of all literature. T h i s universal character of literature, the concept that the parts are but organic components of a whole, was not yet recognized by men, said Zunz, but it should be our task to advance to such understanding. 3 8 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

Gesammelte Schriften, II, 1-82. Ibid., p. 19. Zur Geschichte und Literatur (Berlin, 1845), pp. 22-213. Ibid., p. 159. Ibid., pp. i f .

Modem Jewish Studies

39

For the Jews it should be a matter of self-respect to join in the life of new Europe, fully conscious of their place and function in the past. 39 Zunz found strong evidence of the Jews' universal,

extranational,

extrareligious interests in their broad intellectual life under

Islam. 40

T h i s reasoning of Zunz (and of the many who followed his example) displays a personal value judgment rather than objective scholarship. If the emphasis on religious topics in one part of the world is occasioned by the social and political conditions in that part of the world, then the same measurement must be applied in explaining more comprehensive concerns in another part of the world. Either both prove or neither proves the inherent, objectively discernible nature of the Jew. Zunz's

argument

postulates one manifestation of the Jewish spirit as the only truly valid one and poses the theory of an organic world literature in the Middle Ages while admitting its unreality. T h i s type of argumentation strengthens our suspicion of a gross disparity between Zunz's technical mastery of his material and his historicistic speculation. Zunz, who gave the most careful attention and the most untiring devotion to the minutiae of the texts, who in his endless lists, registers, and bibliographical references offered an example of critical acumen and scholarly exactitude, became vague, hypothetical, and subjective in his historical interpretation. In the former activity we see the scholar, steeped in the Hebrew material, using modern methods of textual criticism, analysis, and organization, in the latter, the apologist, herald of a new Europe, advocate of human rights and emancipation, constructing a scheme of history to support and justify his claim. In his introduction to the Gottesdienstliche

Vorträge (1832), the aim of

research appeared to Zunz to be, in addition to scholarship,

public

recognition of Jewish rights (Zunz used the singular, Recht) and " t h e winning of the favor of those in power and the good will of sensible m e n . " 4 1 Scholarship was expected to serve as the most honest method of appeal, as the best possible proof of the Jews' right to be counted. I. M . Jost (1793-1860) published his first presentation of Jewish history in 1820-1828 in nine volumes; this was followed by a second, popular, presentation in 1831-1832. T h e earlier work was supplemented by a history of the 1815-1845 period in three volumes, which appeared in 1846-47. A final three-volume Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner appeared in 1857-1859. 39. Ibid., p. 17. 40. Ibid., pp. i s 8 f . 41. Z u n z , Gottesdienstliche Vorträge, p. xii.

Seden

40

Nahum Ν. Glatzer

Jost was keenly conscious of the fact that up to his day the Jews had been living in a state of exile from world history. Now it was no longer the exile from Jerusalem that was painfully felt but the state of exile within the European community. Only recently had the Jews become aware of the radical changes in the society around them. Jost called 1815 "the year of birth of the new development [in the life] of the Israelites in Europe." 4 2 Hostility and rejection on the part of the surrounding world, he wrote, had now given way to true brotherly love ; 4 3 the doors of the Middle Ages had been closed and the portals of a new Europe opened.44 It therefore became necessary to "mediate between Synagogue and world culture [Weltbildung]," a task in which Mendelssohn pioneered.45 Looking back at the period preceding the change in climate, Jost found that Jews had failed to participate in the issues of the world ( Weltbegebenheiten) ; they did not feel the need of "inner advancement " in education ; the "Talmudists, the only teachers of youth, stood outside the present time, living in an imaginary world." With the onset of the new era, which, according to Jost, called not for the liquidation of "religious peculiarities" {kirchlicher Eigentümlichkeiten) but for reconstruction, it became essential "to retrace the process of history in order to understand the course of Judaism." 46 In this need Jost recognized the origin of "scholarly elucidation of Judaism." 4 7 Therefore, modern Jewish, and especially historical, scholarship was to him a means for the solution of problems arising from the confrontation of traditional Judaism and modern Europe. Abraham Geiger (1810-1874), leader in the movement for religious reforms, is best known for his Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel (1857), a study of Biblical criticism and developments in Judaism in the period of the second Temple. His view on Jewish history is recorded in his lectures on Das Judentum und seine Geschichte (1864-1871). Judaism, according to him, had a history in the true sense of the word; it had proved to be an active, salutary force in world history, mostly in contrast to other forces in history. It entered world history by means of Christianity; Jesus was "the proclaimer of the Jewish teachings to the world." 4 8 But this event did not terminate the activity of Judaism in world history. It next 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

I. M . Jost, Neuere Geschichte der Israeliten (Berlin, 1846), pp. i f . Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., p. 6. Ibid., p. 8. I. M . Jost, Culturgeschichte zur neuern Geschichte der Israeliten (Berlin, 1847), p. 5. Ibid. A b r a h a m Geiger, Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte (Breslau, 1 8 7 1 ) , I I I , 6.

Modem Jewish Studies

41

contributed the weapons for combating the spiritual servitude and priestly hierarchy that had developed within Christianity. 4 9 Non-Judaic religions and movements might or might not be able to break with the dogmatism and narrowness of the Middle Ages without losing their identity, Geiger thought. Judaism would and should undertake this battle against medieval thought, especially since its roots are not in the Middle Ages but reach back into antiquity, and its religion has always represented activity, life, and knowledge as opposed to a brooding spirit (müssiges Grübeln) and dark faith (dunkeles, finsteres Glauben). Judaism, which even in the medieval period lived within humanity (innerhalb der Menschheit),

though isolated

and persecuted, would now be called upon to live in close contact and in freedom with humanity. 5 0 T h u s Geiger presented Judaism as a community whose destiny it was to cultivate what was common both to classical Israel and to Europe. In this interpretation of Jewish history and Western history in general Geiger displayed a disregard both of the self-interpretation of the West, especially of the "historic school," which emphasized the medieval roots of the modern period, and of the self-interpretation of medieval Judaism. He overemphasized the importance of Judaism for the West and, at the same time, underplayed the historic position of Christianity. T h i s fateful misreading of Judaism as well as of history was Geiger's response to those historians of the West whose philosophy of history postulated an exclusion of Israel from the sphere of world history. Heinrich Graetz (1817-1891) was less extreme than Z u n z in his view of the relationship between Israel and the European world, but his theory was more comprehensive than Zunz's. In his Die Konstruktion der jüdischen Geschichte,51

written as an ideological background to his magnum opus,

History of the Jews ( 1853-1876), he maintained that " t h e totality of Judaism is discernible only in its history." 5 2 T h e central idea of Judaism, he argued, the idea of G o d W h o reveals Himself, finds its historic realization in an "adequate state constitution" so that " t h e God-idea is at the same time an idea of a state." 5 3 Therefore, Judaism is, strictly speaking, not a religion (that is, a system of beliefs), but rather the law of a state (Staatsgesetz),

49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

Ibid., pp. 5f. Ibid., pp. I57ff. Cited in Note z i , above. Graetz, Die Konstruktion der jüdischen Geschichte, p. 8. Ibid., p. 15.

42

Nahum Ν. Glatzer

to be fully realized in the Messianic period. The elements of religion and politics merge and form a union. 54 In his emphasis on the historical, political character of Judaism, Graetz opposed the Christian philosophy of history for having relegated "some stray details of Jewish history to the margin of the annals of world history " while denying post-Biblical Israel "the possession of history in the higher sense of the word." 5 5 In fact, however (he states), Judaism "produced an active history" together with its passive history of martyrdom. 56 The Diaspora put Judaism squarely into history and the life-process of the world ( Weltleben); it followed during its wanderings the trend of developments in world history, although, thanks to the isolating force of Talmudism, it preserved its identity. 57 In the Middle Ages life appeared to have come to a standstill; but Judaism was only seemingly dead ( S c h e i n t o d ) ; it was, rather, going through a period of "hibernation that enabled Israel to enter the dauntless world-history race with its younger and luckier rival." 58 Judaism's variegated course through the ages seemed to Graetz to suggest that the ultimate task of Judaism was "to organize a religious state constitution, one which is aware of its . . . concatenation with the world at large." 5 9 This eloquent "construction" manifests Graetz's desire to present the Jews not merely as a people possessing a history but as one of the forces in world history. The first was taken for granted; the second had to be affirmed. Graetz could achieve such affirmation only by ignoring the vast difference in implication between a historically viewed life of a people and sovereign, political action and interaction, struggle for power and dominance, that might or might not become a force in the political structure of the world, or, at least, in the nineteenth century, in the Western world. Thus his use of the terms Weltleben or Allerweltsleben, which points to the political as one of the components of Judaism, cannot but mislead the reader. Furthermore, the assumption of a role for Judaism in world history was made by Graetz only at the expense of the historic place of Christianity. Der Bibelsche Orient, attributed to Hakam Isaac Bernays, propagated Israel's "world-historic task of being an apostle to the nations." 60 In support of this position, Graetz claimed that this tenet had stood the test of history; "the European and Asiatic nations have been rescued from 54. Ibid., p. 17. 58. Ibid., p. 50.

55. Ibid., p. 49. 59. Ibid., p. 96.

56. Ibid., p. 50. 57. Ibid., pp. 51-54. 60. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, XI, 431.

Modem Jewish

Studies

43

darkness through the light borrowed from Judaism." 6 1 But, it seems to us, that while the Jewish origin of Christianity is beyond question, utilization of this fact to support a claim to Judaism's taking part in world history is of very doubtful relevance. Theological and historical categories do not mix too well. Concerning the issue in question, history seems to prove the opposite of what Graetz and others expected. Finally, Graetz admitted a duality of tendencies within Jewish history: one, the creative "life in the world," the other, the conserving, isolating tendency of Talmudism. He suggested a dialectical relationship between the two. However, such a conception obscures the fact that in many phases of Jewish history Talmudism was more than " a n armor against alienation"; 6 2 it was a self-sufficient world in which the Jew explored the word of God, lived in accordance with His law, and needed nothing more : an utterly unhistorical, undialectical world. In Graetz's scholarly work, his History, he was able to overcome the historicistic claims of his programmatic essay. References to "intimate contact with eventful world history" are still to be found, 6 3 but enough is said to indicate the decidedly nonpolitical character of the Jewish community. Under the impact of the extant material, Graetz's treatment presents Jewish history as cultural or intellectual, rather than political, history. 64 He sees world history undergoing radical changes while Judaism " remained constant, allowing merely for modification of external f o r m s . " 6 5 T h e term "world history" is retained but given a symbolic, internalized meaning: "Jewish history of seventeen centuries presents world history in miniature; the Jewish people is a universal people, being everywhere at home because it has nowhere a h o m e " ; 6 6 Jewish literature, because of its many contacts, is a world literature in itself. 67 T h u s Graetz was able to bridge the gap between his theory of history and the writing of history. In the work of Zunz, the corresponding gap between his theory of history and his history of Hebrew literature is spanned by the assumption that it is Hebrew literature that "manifests the great laws of history" 6 8 and that by means of its literature Judaism partakes in the "universal intellectual movement" (totale Geistesbewegung).69 What concerns history in the strict (and the only valid) sense of the word, Zunz 6i. Ibid. 62. Ibid., p. 54. 63. Geschichte der Juden, V, 3. 64. Ibid., p. 6. 65. Geschichte der Juden, IV, 2. 66. Ibid., p. 3. 67. Ibid., p. 4. 68. " Ü b e r die . . . hispanischen Ortnamen," Zeitschrift für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1 : 1 1 6 (1823). 69. Leopold Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur (Berlin, 1845), p. 3.

44

Nahum Ν. Glatzer

realized, is that " a nation inpavtibus does not perform deeds" and thus has no history. 70 Zunz privately called the Jews " t h e canteenmen and clowns dragging along everywhere in world history," 7 1 a sharp and incisive statement that considerably modifies his high-sounding historicistic claims. In this discussion of the beginnings of modern Jewish studies we notice the difference in quality between exact research and the inquiry into the philosophy of Jewish history. In matters of exact research—Rapoport's biographies, Zunz's studies on the Midrash, homilies, and liturgy, the works of Solomon Münk on medieval Jewish philosophy, of Zacharias Frankel on Biblical exegesis and the Mishnah, of Moritz Steinschneider on bibliography, of Graetz on history, and especially his excursuses—we encounter objective, honest, and to a high degree successful attempts to deal with at least some aspects of Judaica. In this field modern Jewish scholars continued the scholarly heritage of the pre-emancipatory period. T h e philological, critical, and analytical methods had improved under the influence of general scholarship, but Jewish scholarship as such moved and advanced within a long tradition of research and learning, as well as within a long tradition of assimilating the intellectual apparatus of other cultures and applying it to Jewish thought and studies. In this realm the modern Jewish scholar was completely at home. In contradistinction to exact research, the quest for a philosophy of Jewish history constituted a definite departure from the thinking of the past. T h e motifs of classical thought about the meaning of Israel—exile, suffering for the love of God, galut as punishment and purification, as a preparation for the world to come, messianic redemption—lost their relevance. T h e religious inquiry, an inquiry from within, was replaced by a historicism that attempted to view Jewish history from without. In order to retain the right to exist in the present, Judaism had to be explained in terms of world history, as a community of universal historic significance. Here the Jewish scholar entered a foreign domain. Modern thinking in the field of world history had its own tradition: Christianity, which, reinterpreted, lived on in secular formulations. T h e Jew entered this domain without a tradition of his own, at the same time ignoring the existing Western tradition, or at least underplaying its implications. He 70. Leopold Zunz, Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie (Berlin, 1856), p. 1. 7 1 . Letter to S. M . Ehrenberg, July 29, 1851 ; to be published in the second volume of the Zunz-Ehrenberg correspondence.

Modem Jewish

Studies

45

was a homo novus in search of a home in a world that was not yet ready to grant him this privilege. Theories about the position of Judaism in world history helped the modern Jew to overcome his feeling of isolation in the new world. T h e obstacle to sober, patient scholarship resulting from such theories has been removed only in the present century, when the philosophy of Jewish history has achieved its own and regained balance and perspective.

Manuals and Catechisms of the Jewish Religion in the Early Period of Emancipation BY J A K O B J. P E T U C H O W S K I

Between the years 1782 and 1884, there appeared in western Jewry some one hundred sixty textbooks which undertook to give a systematic presentation of the Jewish religion. A b o u t thirty-five of them were catechisms, meant specifically for the purpose of the newly introduced ceremony of confirmation. 1 T h e first confirmation ceremony took place in the Samson School of Wolfenbüttel, and Leopold Zunz was among the first to undergo it there, in 1807. 2 T h e ceremony spread rapidly. It was one of the most treasured possessions of nascent Reform Judaism. Some governments encouraged it, others made it mandatory, and the newly established Jewish schools, like those in Dessau and Seesen, and the Frankfort Philanthropin, saw in it a highlight of their educational process. 3 It is relatively easy to show that the institution of confirmation, its very ι . See E. Schreiber, " C a t e c h i s m s , " Jewish Encyclopedia, III, 621-624, and Mordechai Eliav, Jewish Education in Germany in the Period of Enlightenment and Emancipation (Hebrew: Jerusalem, i960), pp. 244 and 262. O u t of the vast literature of manuals and catechisms, which could not be covered in its entirety for reasons of time and availability, we have based our study on the following fifteen sources: Joseph A u b , Grundlage zu einem wissenschaftlichen Unterricht in der Mosaischen Religion (1865), 3rd ed. (Berlin, 1881); Peter Beer, Das Judenthum, vol. II (Prague, 1810); Judah L o e b Ben Ze'eb, Yesode ha-Dath (Vienna, 1810); Michael Creizenach, Confirmations-Feier (Frankfurt, 1868); Michael Creizenach, Stunden der Weihe (Frankfurt, 1841); Hirsch Baer Fassel, Die Mosaischrabbinische Religionslehre (1854), 3rd ed. (Vienna, 1863); Salomon Formstecher, Mosaische Religionslehre (Glessen, i860); Isaac Ascher Francolm, Die Grundzüge der Religionslehre aus den zehn Geboten entwickelt (Neustadt a.d.O., 1826); S. Herxheimer, Israelitische Glaubens- und Pflichtenlehre (1830), 3rd ed. (Bernburg, 1840); Samuel Hirsch, Systematischer Katechismus der israelitischen Religion (1856), 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, 1877); Herz Homberg, Imre Shepher (Vienna, 1808); Eduard Kley, Catechismus der mosaischen Religionslehre (1814), 3rd ed. (Leipzig, 1840); Salomon Plessner, Jüdisch-Mosaischer Religionsunterricht (1838), 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1864); Joseph Lewin Saalschütz, Grundlage zu Katechisationen über die israelitische Gotteslehre (Vienna, 1833); Leopold Stein, Tora umizwa—Israelitisches Religionsbuch (Frankfurt, 1858). 2. Eliav, pp. 204ίϊ. 3. Ibid., pp. 26off. 47

48

Jakob J.

Petuchowski

name, and the terminology used in connection with it are borrowings from the Christian environment. 4 It is likewise obvious that the concept of a "catechism" did not grow on Jewish soil. 5 But the obvious non-Jewish origin of both confirmation and catechism should not blind us to the real problem represented by this type of literature. After all, the acceptance or rejection of the method of catechism per se had very little to do with the "assimilationist" (or other) tendencies of the authors. It was primarily a matter of educational technique. Some arch-Conservatives, like Salomon Plessner, wrote catechisms, 6 while religious radicals, like Isaac Ascher Francolm, preferred other styles of presentation. 7 Besides, from the second half of the nineteenth century on, the method of teaching by catechism was increasingly replaced by newer educational techniques. T h e real problem, rather, is the fact that a new school subject, "Religion," came into existence at all among the Jews. This was unprecedented. T h e heder education of the pre-Emancipation period consisted, on the lowest level, of Torah translation into the spoken language, and, on the secondary level, of Rashi's commentary on the Torah. "Israel's unique position as the Chosen People, the real and the mythical differentiation between Israel and the Gentiles, an understanding of Israel's fate in exile, and the belief in its messianic redemption—all this entered the consciousness of the child by way of the midrashic popular comments of Rashi. T h e fundamentals of faith and religion were acquired through a study of the sources. There was no systematic instruction in t h e m . " 8 This was to change, particularly with the second generation of the Enlightenment. There were, it seems to us, three reasons for it. In the first place, the increasing number of secular subjects now studied by the Jewish child left him less time for the specifically Jewish disciplines. Zunz reports about the Samson School that, under the direction of Samuel Meyer Ehrenberg, " t h e Beth Hamidrash, in which Talmud is stressed and some secular subjects tolerated, was transformed into a modern institute in which the Talmud was tolerated, and ultimately into a general 4. Ibid., pp. 257-259. 5. T h e first Jewish catechism in history was Abraham Jagel's Leqah Tobh, published at the end of the sixteenth century. It was a clear imitation of its Christian prototype. While it was read by adults, and even translated into a number of languages, it does not seem to have been used as a textbook for youth, and, what is more, another two hundred years had to pass before another attempt was made to introduce a catechism into Jewish education. See Schreiber, "Catechisms," JE, I I I , 6 2 1 - 6 2 4 , and Eliav, pp. 259f. 6. Plessner, Jüdisch-Mosaischer Religionsunterricht. 7. Francolm, Die Grundzüge . . . 8. Jacob Katz, Tradition and Crisis (Hebrew: Jerusalem, 1958), p. 2 2 1 .

Manuals and Catechisms

49

school without Talmud." 9 The limitation of Jewish studies—their presentation, as it were, "in capsule form," in order to make room for secular studies—seems to have happened before in Jewish history. According to Chaim Tchernowitz, it was precisely such a state of affairs which induced Maimonides to produce his Mishneh Torah. By giving his contemporaries a book of religious decisions, Maimonides took into account their extended philosophical pursuits, which limited the time they could devote to rabbinic studies. 10 Yet in the Ashkenazi domain, this sacrifice of Jewish to secular studies was unprecedented. The fact itself was clearly recognized at the time. Some, like the early maskil, Judah Loeb Ben Ze'eb, enthusiastically welcomed it. In his Yesodë ha-Dath (1810)—published in Hebrew as well as in German written in Hebrew characters—he polemicized against those who opposed a special textbook in religion, for the simple reason that our great predecessors never saw the need for one. As against them, he showed that Judaism had always responded to changing needs. And, to those who claimed that religion is learned through Torah study, he replied that not all parts of the Torah are suitable for children. Finally, he hailed the beginning of Emancipation, praised the Toleration Edict of Joseph II, welcomed the new Jewish schools established in Berlin, Breslau, Frankfurt, and Dessau, and gave special praise to the school established by Israel Jacobson. 11 Equally aware of the facts was Salomon Plessner, but he bewailed them. In his Jüdisch-Mosaischer Religionsunterricht (1838), 1 2 he complained that the more fortunate the conditions of Israel had become in recent years, the less fortunate had its system of religious instruction turned out to be. With all the new subjects which had to be taught, the study of the Talmud had receded into the background, and hence there was the need for a textbook on religion. 13 Plessner tried to make the best of the bad situation in which he found himself. But his heart was not quite in it. He still thought more highly of the Qabbalah and its hoary age than of the philosophical Scripture exegesis of the Middle Ages. It was so much more "Jewish," seeing that Moses himself was the greatest Qabbalist. 14 A remarkable 9. Leopold Zunz, Samuel Meyer Ehrenberg (Brunswick, 1854), p. 32, quoted in Nahum N . Glatzer (ed.), Leopold and Adelheid Zunz: An Account in Letters (London, 1958), p. xii. 10. Chaim Tchernowitz, Toledoth ha-Poseqim, I (New York, 1946), p. 1 1 . 1 1 . Ben Ze'eb, Preface (no page number). 12. We quote from the second edition (Berlin, 1864). 13. Plessner, pp. vi ff. 14. Ibid., pp. iv ff.

5°

Jakob J. Petuchozvski

attitude for a Jew with secular education in early nineteenth-century Germany! But if the secular subjects crowded out rabbinic studies, they were helped in this by a changing attitude toward the Talmud itself. The Talmud, after all, was the lifeblood of the old order, the nomos of ghetto existence, and the arsenal from which the rabbis of the old school drew their ammunition against all suggested innovations. That is why, in England, for example, the contemporary Reform Movement adopted an almost Karaite stance. 15 In Germany, matters were somewhat more ambivalent. Moses Mendelssohn, though himself recognizing the authority of the Oral Law, made no effort to improve the teaching methods by which a knowledge of Talmud was imparted. He acquiesced in the absence of Talmud from the curriculum of the Berlin Freyschule, and he even supported Wessely's claim: " W e have not all been created to become Talmudists." 1 6 Instructive in this connection is again Ben Ze^eb's Yesodë ha-Dath. The doctrinal content of this work is quite traditional, and it even insists on the observance of the practical mizivoth. It singles out for special mention circumcision, zizith, mezuzah, phylacteries, and the keeping of the festivals. 17 But it blatantly disregards the rabbinic terminology for the very ideas and practices it recommends. Thus it speaks of the Commandments ben adam le-eloha, instead of the usual ben adam le-maqom.1H It refers to the phylacteries by the Biblical term totaphoth, instead of tephillin.19 It calls the New Year festival Yom ha-Zikkaron, instead of Rosh Hashanah.20 And the only quotation from the Talmud which we have been able to discover in the whole volume is the statement, in Hullin 17a, to the effect that, during the conquest of Canaan, the Israelites were permitted to eat bacon. Characteristic, not only for Ben Ze 3 eb, but for this whole literature, is the fact that the Talmudic quotation in question is used in support of the assertion that "religious law does not prevent the Israelite from fulfilling his civic obligations." 2 1 15. Cf. Jakob J. Petuchowski, "Karaite Tendencies in an Early Reform Haggadah," Hebrew Union College Annual, 3 1 : 2 2 3 - 2 4 9 (i960). 16. Azriel Shohet, Beginnings of the Haskalah among German Jewry (Hebrew: Jerusalem, 1960), p. 256. 17. Ben Ze'eb, p. 102. 18. Ibid., p. 76. 19. Ibid., p. 102. 20. Ibid., p. 122. 21. Ibid., p. 180. Patriotism, love of the Fatherland, is, in general, a constant theme of the catechisms and manuals. The very stress on this topic is a commentary—a pathetic one, on occasion—on the feverish efforts made by the Jews to " m e r i t " their emancipation. Several of the writers are bothered by the problem of reconciling their patriotism with the messianic expectations of Judaism. Ben Ze'eb, p. 178, stresses the fact that " a s long as the Messiah does not come, the Israelite is a citizen of the country in which he was born,

Manuals and Catechisms

51

T h e evaluation of the T a l m u d itself, in the literature of catechisms and manuals, varies from lack of enthusiasm, through damnation with faint praise, to hostile rejection. S. Herxheimer, in his Israelitische Glaubensund Pflichtenlehre

(183ο), 2 2 laconically stated: " H o w the Torah is to be

interpreted, the T a l m u d seeks to s h o w . " 2 3 Eduard Kley, Catechismus der Mosaischen

Religionslehre

(1814), 2 4 after placing the " O r a l

Teaching"

on a level with the Apocrypha, spoke of the former as " a n interpretation of the Written Teaching which is said to have been transmitted [die sich, fortgepflanzt

haben soll] by oral tradition from Moses and the Prophets to

the teachers of the L a w (Mishnah and Gemara). These books, too, contain many pertinent things for instruction, but they cannot be regarded as the revealed Word of God, or counted as a part of Holy Scripture." 2 5 While K l e y , with more or less grace, was still able to include the T a l m u d among the sources of Religionslehre, Samuel Hirsch was quite militant in his rejection of any such description. Said he in his Systematischer chismus der israelitischen Religion

Kate-

(1856): 2 6

" T h e collection of rabbinic regulations and ordinances and of their development, known as the Talmud, could not be recognized by anyone who has studied it as a real source of religion. . . T h e T a l m u d . . . is concerned only with the external arrangements of life. T h e Rabbis of the T a l m u d sought to determine the civil law, the external institutions of the cult, and the ceremonies—but not their meaning, and still less the deeper content of the religious life. Indeed, the T a l m u d does, occasionally, contain the more profound sayings of individual Rabbis, which show that

or where he lives." He quotes Jeremiah 29 as his "proof text." T o u c h i n g in its way is the qal wa-hiomer argument which Herz Homberg adduces in Imre Shepher, pp. 364^: " I t is our duty to love the nations in whose midst we dwell more than the other nations. Because the nations under the shadow of whose kindness we have taken refuge believe in the existence of G o d , and that He created the world ex nihilo, and in divine Providence and Retribution. Moreover, they deal kindly with us, and let us live in their countries. If the Torah says, ' L o v e ye the stranger,' how much the more should the stranger love the citizen who gives him a place in which to live!" He also feels that it is glorious for the Jewish soldier to be wounded in battle, defending his Fatherland (p. 456). Hirsch Fassel, p. 131, is likewise at pains to prove that "belief in the coming of the Messiah and the Return to the Promised Land no more prevents our love for our present Fatherland than does the belief in a life beyond make any man a stranger on this earth." 22. W e quote from the third edition (Bernburg, 1840). 23. Herxheimer, pp. 2çf. 24. W e quote from the third edition (Leipzig, 1840). 25. K l e y , p. 76. 26. W e quote from the second edition (Philadelphia, 1877). T h e first edition was published while Hirsch was Chief Rabbi of Luxemburg. T h e work thus belongs to the area covered by this study.

52

Jakob J. Petuchowski

the spirit of Judaism lived in them, too. But these sayings were never regarded as the essential part of the Talmud." 2 7 Finally, Leopold Stein, a man, incidentally, more positive by far than Samuel Hirsch in his approach to tradition, found it necessary in his Tora umizwa—Israelitisches Religionsbuch (1858) to inform his young readers that "with the completion of the Talmud, there began in our religion a stagnation of thirteen hundred years. However, within the limits imposed by the Law, there was always an alert spiritual life among the Jews."28 So far we have been considering two causes for the change from the traditional methods of Jewish education to "Religion" as a school subject: the increasing limitation in the time available for Jewish studies, and antipathy toward Talmudic Judaism. There was, however, yet a third cause—one which, in the history of Jewish thought, is perhaps the most significant one. Nathan Rotenstreich aptly notes that the concept of "Religion" in the modern age forced Judaism to cease regarding itself as being outside the circle. In spite of maintaining its own characteristics, it had to recognize those aspects of its teachings which it shared with other religions. Consciously or unconsciously, it had to forego its claim to absoluteness, and it agreed to be included within the boundaries of religious phenomena which, fundamentally, might be of equal value. 29 Moreover, as Jacob Katz has pointed out, we see a definite change in Judaism's relation to Christianity, beginning with the seventeenth century. Increased contact between Jews and gentiles in the fields of commerce and of law brought about a recognition of a shared moral and ethical basis in the two religions. Statements in halakic literature—perhaps inspired originally by mere self-interest and self-preservation—to the effect that the Christians, in whose midst we live, are not identical with the "idolaters" of Biblical and Talmudic literature, began to be taken more seriously. More and more was made also of the rabbinic dictum that "there are righteous among the nations of the world who have a share in the World-toCome." These tendencies were reinforced by political factors, such as the French Sanhédrin, and, above all, by the Enlightenment and the philosophy of Moses Mendelssohn. 30 27. 28. 29. Aviv, 30.

Hirsch, pp. isof. Stein, pp. I24Í. Nathan Rotenstreich, Ha-mahashabah Ha-yehudith Ba- eth Ha-hadashah, I (Tel5705), p. 1 1 . Jacob Katz, Between Jews and Gentiles (Hebrew: Jerusalem, i960), pp. 1 5 7 - 1 9 3 .

Manuals and Catechisms

53

Religion, in the deistic and rationalistic sense prevalent in the age of Mendelssohn, was something more important, and more fundamental, than the individual "religions." Judaism, being one of the latter, had to see itself in relation to the former. Hence there arose, particularly from the second generation of the Jewish Enlightenment on, the endeavor to base Judaism on universal foundations and moral contents, without too much concern for its many observances. 31 It was within this context that David Friedländer demanded the publication of a suitable textbook, "which would have nothing to do with hamez and mazzah\ ethrog and lulab; tephillin and mezuzah . . Gemara and Shulhan cArukh." 32 In the light of the above, we are able to understand why so many of the catechisms and manuals begin with a consideration of "Religion" in general, before they proceed to a discussion of the Jewish religion in particular, or, as many of them preferred to call it, the " Mosaic religion." 3 3 A remarkable exception to the authors is Salomon Formstecher, whose Mosaische Religionslehre (i860) is a kind of précis of his major work, Religion des Geistes, written under the influence of Schelling. Formstecher asserted, "Religion is the law of world history, the spirit of mankind. . . That is why only one single religion can make the claim to be such a law, without thereby denying to other religions a relative or transitory value in the course of mankind's development. That is why, in the present volume, we had to speak about the religion, and not about a religion; because, from our point of view, only one single religion can be the absolute truth." 3 4 As for the rest of the catechisms and manuals, most of them prefer to speak of Judaism in terms of being one of the religions, or of being supplementary to the universal religion. Thus, Herz Homberg's Imre Shepher (1808), one of the first modern textbooks, printed in Hebrew and German in Hebrew characters—and, be it noted, accompanied by a haskamah of Mordecai Benet—begins by telling us, " A n y man, of any nation in the world, attains to spiritual bliss if, while still alive, he fills his soul with wisdom, and conducts himself in all of his actions according to the ways of 3 1 . Eliav, p. 240. 32. Ibid., p. 242. 33. The substitution of "Mosaic religion" for "Jewish religion" is, of course, quite in line with the tendency of that period to avoid words like " J e w " and " J e w i s h " altogether. The normal substitute was "Israelite" and "Israelitish." Presumably it was intended to get away from the connotation which the word " J e w " had acquired during the ghetto period. There is no lack of attempts to find Biblical support for this new name for Judaism. Malachi 3 : 2 2 is the usual "proof text." See Fassel, p. 12, and Stein, p. 4. On the other hand, Plessner insists on calling his text, Jüdisch [sic]-Mosaischer Religionsunterricht ! 34. Formstecher, p. iv.

54

Jakob J. Petuchowski

righteousness and wisdom, which are acceptable to God and man. That is why the Talmudists said: ' T h e righteous of the nations of the world have a share in the World-to-Come.' " B u t for us," Homberg continues, "the children of Israel, it is not sufficient merely to acquire morality and wisdom and correct conduct, which lead all men to eternal bliss. We, the seed of Abraham, are unable to attain complete success without fulfilling the Torah which was given to us through Moses . . . in addition to the obligations resting upon all m e n . " 3 5 Mendelssohn's influence here is obvious. 3G Ben Ze'eb, before dealing with Judaism in particular, speaks of three kinds of law: the rational, the political, and the divine. T h e first is implanted in the soul from the beginning. It teaches the existence of God and the duty to love one's neighbor. T h e second is legislated by human lawgivers, and it arranges the order of society. Only the third is revealed by God to the prophet of the generation, leading the nation to eternal bliss. 37 Here we have not only the influence of deism and of Mendelssohn, but also a reminiscence of the Stoic subdivisions of law into "mythical, natural, and civil," perhaps familiar to Ben Ze'eb from Joseph Albo. 3 8 Isaac Ascher Francolm, in Die Grundzüge der Religionslehre aus den zehn Geboten entwickelt (1826), begins by invoking the deistic concept of the "eternal verities." He says: " I am making the attempt to prove the inner necessity of some commandments by means of Reason. I imagine addressing the doubter, and I say to him : ' We shall accept these commandments only if Reason compels their acceptance. . . If we proceed correctly, the fundamental teachings of religion will present themselves to us. Should they turn out to be the eternal verities of salvation, then you will be compelled by your Reason to respect religion, and then you will know that 3 5 . H o m b e r g , p. 1 4 . 36. M e n d e l s s o h n continues to be the " h e r o " of the writers of catechisms and m a n u a l s — even of those w h o , in view of their insistence u p o n Glaubenslehre, and their greater or lesser rejection of the " C e r e m o n i a l L a w , " no longer occupied M e n d e l s s o h n ' s o w n position. Peter Beer, p p . i 8 2 f . , addressing himself to teachers, and u r g i n g them to b e c o m e thoroughly f a m i l i a r with M e n d e l s s o h n ' s Phädon, finds that M e n d e l s s o h n was not only the equal of Socrates, but " s u r p a s s e d him in morality, scholarship, and thoroughness of p r e s e n t a t i o n . " C r e i z e n a c h , Stunden der Weihe, p. 1 1 3 , hails the appearance of " t h e u n f o r g e t t a b l e M o s e s M e n d e l s s o h n , " through w h o s e efforts " t h e J e w s , at last, awoke again f r o m their long spiritual s l u m b e r . " H e quotes at length, and with approval, f r o m Jerusalem about J u d a i s m ' s not claiming any exclusive revelation of the eternal verities essential for salvation. B u t even L e o p o l d S t e i n , w h o was so " u n - M e n d e l s s o h n i a n " as to claim that revealed religion " t e a c h e s us what w e should b e l i e v e " ( T o r a umizioa, p. 4), gloried in the fact that " i n the m i d d l e of the eighteenth century, G o d sent us a third M o s e s , M e n d e l s s o h n " (Tora umizwa, p p . I 2 0 f . ) . 3 7 . B e n Z e ' e b , Introduction (no page n u m b e r ) . 38. C f . J o s e p h A l b o , c Iqqarim, ed. Isaac H u s i k , I (Philadelphia, 1929), 43ÎÎ.

Manuals and Catechisms

55

you are establishing your happiness \Gliick\ if you submit to t h e m . ' " 3 9 T h e trouble with Francolm is that he never quite gets around to Judaism itself. T h e r e is no obvious reference to Jews or Judaism in the entire book. Even the Sabbath Commandment 4 0 is taken only as an occasion to distinguish between the " s p i r i t " and the " l e t t e r " of the Law, and to de-emphasize the role of ceremonies. A s M a x Wiener has rightly seen, Francolm merely expressed the identification of religious and moral content, while the ethic propounded by him lacks any connection with a definite society. 4 1 T h e function and purpose of religion is seen by most of the textbooks to lie in man's attainment of happiness and bliss both in this world and in the next. Glück and Glückseligkeit are often the operative words. Here, the Orthodox Plessner 4 2 is at one with the Reformer Creizenach. 4 3 Hirsch Fassel 4 4 and Eduard K l e y 4 5 are in agreement. Only Joseph A u b , in Grundlage zu einem wissenschaftlichen Unterricht in der Mosaischen (1865), 46

perhaps with an awareness of Kant's

strictures, 47

Religion

was at pains

to argue that, though, through self-sanctification and dedication, we win our inner peace of soul (shalom), and feel happy down here, and blissful beyond, this peace of soul is not an enticing " r e w a r d , " but an essential element of perfection itself. 48 Although some of the older textbooks still try to give an extensive list of Jewish observances, 4 9 the works under discussion here are primarily 39. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

Francolm, pp. viii ff. 40. Ibid., pp. 77-94. M a x Wiener, Jüdische Religion im Zeitalter der Emanzipation (Berlin, 1933), p. 118 Plessner, ρ. ι . Creizenach, Confirmations-Feier, pp. 13f. Fassel, p. 1. K l e y , pp. sf. W e quote from the third edition (Berlin, 1881). See Immanuel Kant, Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone (New York, 1960),

Ρ- 47· 48. A u b , p. 74. 49. Note Peter Beer, pp. 76-152, where he gives a " L i s t i n g of all the doctrinal, moral and ceremonial teachings current among contemporary Jews, as elucidated by M a i monides on the basis of the Mosaic Books." He lists fifty-five positive and eighty-nine negative commandments. But in most of the catechisms and manuals it is almost axiomatic that, as Leopold Stein puts it (Tora umizwa, p. 28), " T h e divine commandment falls into two parts: (1) the Moral L a w , and (2) the Ceremonial L a w . " Once this distinction has been made, the next step is to point to the superiority of the former over the latter. T o quote Stein again : " T h e Moral Law affects the deed through the intention. T h e Ceremonial L a w affects the intention through the deed. T h e former is the garden, the latter is the fence. T h a t is why the external customs are only of value when they revive inward religion" (p. 36). Some, like Hirsch Fassel (pp. 63-66), quoted Talmudic precedent for the distinction between mizwoth ha-teluyoth ba-'arez and mizwoth she'enan teluyoth ba-'arez, and claimed, like K l e y (pp. 8iff.), that " s o m e regulations and commandments have long since

56

Jakob J. Petuchowski

concerned with Judaism's ethical duties and its creedal affirmations. For the former, the Decalogue often served as the matrix or was at least prominently featured. Apart from its basis in Jewish tradition, this had the additional " a d v a n t a g e " of approximating the Christian prototype of the literature of catechisms. 50 For the creedal affirmations there was the precedent of Maimonides' Thirteen Articles. T h o u g h the majority of our textbooks deal, to a greater or lesser extent, with the Maimonidean Creed, the religion promulgated in them is often far removed from the position of Maimonides himself. T h e manner in which the Maimonidean Creed is presented thus becomes a matter of some interest. Ben Ze 3 eb, after outlining the Maimonidean Creed, noted that Albo had reduced the Thirteen Articles to three. This, to Ben Ze 3 eb, was an indication that the Maimonidean formulation is not absolute. Nor, for that matter, is Albo's. Consequently, Ben Ze 3 eb felt free to substitute his own formulation of the T h r e e Principles of Judaism. T h e y were: ( i ) T h e ceased to have validity, and, therefore, are not b i n d i n g for us. . . T h i s is b e c a u s e t h e y h a d reference to a time, to a place, and to conditions, in w h i c h the T e a c h i n g w a s first introd u c e d . . . G o d w o u l d not have scattered Israel in all parts of the w o r l d , if it h a d not b e e n H i s W i l l that these regulations, w h o s e time had b e e n fulfilled, and w h o s e p u r p o s e h a d b e e n attained, should cease. . . " Similarly, C r e i z e n a c h (Stunden der Weihe, p. 40) tells u s that " t o d i s c o v e r w h e t h e r a M o s a i c regulation is still o b l i g a t o r y for us in o u r p r e s e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s , w e d o not have to investigate w h e t h e r the cause w h i c h b r o u g h t it a b o u t is still applicable, b u t w h e t h e r it was not related to the erstwhile T e m p l e w o r s h i p , t h e dissolved Israelite c o m m o n w e a l t h , or the possession of P a l e s t i n e . " In the m e a n t i m e , he advised his c o n f i r m a n d s to be g u i d e d b y their parents in these matters (p. 32). J o s e p h A u b (p. 3) seems to have b e e n influenced b y considerations of Völkerpsychologie w h e n he says that the " C e r e m o n i a l L a w contains s u c h ordinances as do not carry w i t h i n t h e m selves their sufficient reason. T h i s lies in the inner feelings and historical m e m o r i e s w h i c h are to be aroused b y the external acts. T h e c e r e m o n i e s have their origin in t h e c o n c e p t s [Anschauungsweise] and history of a religious c o m m u n i t y . T h e y m u s t c o r r e s p o n d to that religious w a y of t h i n k i n g of w h i c h they are m e a n t to be a true expression. T h a t is w h y their evolution and r e - f o r m a t i o n m u s t not be e x c l u d e d . " T h i s h a r p i n g on the " e x t e r n a l " aspect of the c e r e m o n i e s carries c o n d e m n a t o r y overtones, w h i c h m i g h t w e l l be traced b a c k to the Protestant e n v i r o n m e n t and the p h i l o s o p h i c a l climate of Idealism. I n d e e d , S a m u e l H i r s c h (pp. 5 7 - 6 6 ) w a s most o u t s p o k e n in stressing the symbolical m e a n i n g of the dietary and ceremonial l a w s — a m e a n i n g w h i c h seems to be lost on those w h o , w r o n g l y , insist u p o n their actual o b s e r v a n c e . W i t h all this, it m u s t not be o v e r l o o k e d that m a n y o f the c a t e c h i s m s and m a n u a l s ( t h o u g h , it is true, n o t all) list quite a n u m b e r of " c e r e m o n i a l " observances. C r e i z e n a c h , for e x a m p l e (Stunden der Weihe, p. 63), listed, a m o n g o t h e r things, tallith, tephillin, shofar, lulab, kiddush, and habdalah. B u t he insisted that o n l y those w h o are animated b y the " e r f o r d e r l i c h e S t i m m u n g " s h o u l d p e r f o r m t h e m . T h e r e is also a surprising a t t a c h m e n t to the H e b r e w language. W h i l e it is, of course, stressed that the individual should p r a y in the language he u n d e r s t a n d s best, there is an e m p h a s i s o n H e b r e w as the language of Jewish c o m m u n i t y w o r s h i p . S e e , f o r e x a m p l e , the c o m m e n t s of Saalschütz, pp. i 6 j f . 50. E d u a r d K l e y , p p . I04f., e v e n takes the verse, " T h o u shalt h a v e no o t h e r g o d s b e f o r e M e , " as part of t h e First C o m m a n d m e n t , quite in line w i t h the C h r i s t i a n tradition.

Manuals and Catechisms

57

Existence of God, (2) T h e Existence of Prophecy, and (3) T h e Immortality of the Soul. 5 1 Herz Homberg gave the conventional text of the Maimonidean Creed, 5 2 and, Mendelssohnian though he was, translated ani mcfamin bé'emunah shelemah as: " I c h glaube mit vollkommenem Glauben." Kley merely gave the Three Principles of Albo, 5 3 while Creizenach listed the Thirteen Articles and quoted a responsum of Asheri to the effect that the Maimonidean Articles do not cover all the important dogmas of Judaism. 5 4 His own reading of " the three fundamental teachings of the Israelite faith " consisted of God, Revelation, and Retribution: that is, Albo's QIqqarim.b5 In a later book he rephrased them as Providence, Retribution, and Revelation. 56 Hirsch Fassel accepted the Maimonidean Creed as stated, elaborating only the Twelfth and Thirteenth Articles, in order to include the Brotherhood of Man as well as the personal Messiah and the Redemption of Israel, and the Immortality of the Soul as well as the Resurrection. 57 It is important to note that, far from denying the original contents of these two Articles, Fassel specifically affirmed them. 58 Leopold Stein quoted both Maimonides and Albo, and, while not withholding his admiration for the brevity and grandeur of Albo's Three Principles, he felt that, basically, Judaism has only one single Hauptglaubenssatz, and that was the Shemcf Yisrael.59 Most ill at ease about the whole thing was Salomon Plessner. He did give the complete text of the Maimonidean Creed, both in Hebrew and in German. He agreed that, in ages of little faith, there is value in simplifying that which has to be believed. Moreover, the mere fact that a man like Maimonides drew up the Creed speaks for it, as does its incorporation in the prayer book. Still, he also recognized that there is an argument against the acceptance of a creed, and that argument is nothing less than the principle (the "correct principle," he called it) that everything contained in Scripture is dogma and indispensable truth. And just as we are not allowed, in the case of the Commandments, to distinguish between essential and less essential ones, so, too, in the case of the truths taught to us by Scripture, 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

Ben Ze'eb, Second Preface (no page number). Homberg, pp. 29-84. Kley, pp. 3of. Creizenach, Stunden der Weihe, pp. I3ff. Ibid., p. 12. Creizenach, Confirmations-Feier, p. 21. Fassel, pp. i5gf. Ibid., p. 107. Stein, pp. io9f.

58

Jakob J. Petuchowski

we are unable to make such distinctions. 60 There can be little doubt where Plessner's own sympathies lay. We have already met him as a champion of Qabbalah against Philosophy. Actually, the formulation of a creed acceptable to the Emancipation Jew became all the more necessary at this period, in view of the steady decline of a halakah-centered way of life. 6 1 And even though the formulators of the new creeds were quite conscious of the fact that, in the absence of a supreme ecclesiastical authority, the formulation of their " d o g m a s " lacked the compelling force of the Christian prototype, 62 Jacob Katz—by no means predisposed to an acceptance of the theological systems themselves—was able to comment that " a t a time when all other ties of the individual to the Jewish community disintegrated, these systems taught and promoted the consciousness of the peculiar value and meaning of the Jewish identity." 6 3 Of course, there was a certain difficulty in the formulation of Jewish dogmas just at that particular time. Dogmas and the " Religion of Reason" are strange bedfellows. Mendelssohn had emphatically declared that he accepted no other eternal verities "than those which are not only comprehensible to human Reason, but which human ability alone can prove and demonstrate." 64 Kant had spoken of dogma in terms of a " f o r m of a debasing means of constraint," which he wanted to see exchanged for " t h e dignity of a moral religion, to wit, the religion of a free f a i t h . " 6 5 T h e ambiguity of this situation is reflected by what our manuals and catechisms have to say about belief and about Reason. Herz Homberg, whose basic Mendelssohnian position we have already noted, 66 nevertheless blithely stated: " A l l Israel believes (i) that all the stories of the Torah about miracles are true, (2) that all God's promises will be fulfilled, those that have not yet been fulfilled will be fulfilled in God's good time, (3) that God's Will is the source of all commandments and prohibitions contained in both the Written and the Oral L a w . " 6 7 There is, of course, nothing in this with which Mendelssohn would 60. Plessner, pp. soff. 61. Wiener, p. 166, and Rotenstreich, p. 16. 62. Wiener, p. 166. 63. Jacob Katz, " J e w r y and Judaism in the Nineteenth Century," Journal of World History, 4:894 (1958). 64. Cf. Jerusalem, part II, in Moses Mendelssohn, Schriften zur Philosophie, Aesthetik und Apologetik, ed. Moritz Brasch, II (Leipzig, 1880), 419. 65. Kant, pp. i i 3 f . 66. See above, Note 36. 67. Homberg, pp. i8f.

Manuals and Catechisms

59

have personally disagreed, though the formulation here is somewhat strange. Others were more concerned to stress the fact that there can be no conflict between Reason and true belief. Michael Creizenach saw it as the task of the teacher of religion to show that " o u r religion corresponds in every respect to the pure concept of Gotteslehre, that it is not only in accord with the assertions of Reason, but that Reason itself protects it from the harmful aberrations of enthusiasm, superstition, and scepticism." 6 8 Here we also find an endeavor to reconcile rationalism with the newly championed concept of "duties of belief" (Glaubenspflichten). Creizenach asserted that " i n no manner is the Israelite obligated to give his assent to something which contradicts Reason. Altogether, our religion does not contain any proposition of this kind, though it may contain something which is incomprehensible to Reason. When, therefore, it is said that the Israelite has Glaubenspflichten, it simply means that he must never leave out of sight—but, instead, must ever give his full attention to—the exalted verities of religion, which man recognizes through his common sense." 6 9 Here we hear echoes of Sa c adia and Maimonides as well as of Mendelssohn. But we are also aware of a dilution of traditional concepts. " C o m m o n sense" (der einfachste Sinn), after all, is not quite what Maimonides must have had in mind. Hirsch Fassel was more outspoken in his admission that "revealed religion can teach something which human reason cannot comprehend." 7 0 He also admitted that "Religion can command something the usefulness of which Reason does not comprehend. It can also prohibit something of which Reason does not understand the harmfulness." 7 1 All in all, Fassel was overwhelmed by the many phenomena in the visible world of which man's reason can comprehend neither their origin nor their purpose. " H o w , then, could man have the effrontery to claim complete understanding of the purpose of the divine commandments and prohibitions ? ! " 7 2 68. Creizenach, Stunden der Weihe, pp. ν f. 69. Creizenach, Confirmations-Feier, pp. j ç f . 70. Fassel, p. 9. 7 1 . Ibid. 72. Ibid., p. 10. On pp. i7of., he states that, in his earlier edition, he had two paragraphs to the effect that Religion cannot teach what Reason recognizes as untruth. Since God has endowed man with Reason, it would be a contradiction were God to command something which Reason finds to be evil, or to prohibit something which Reason recognizes as good and just. These paragraphs, however, were omitted in the present edition, after critics had pointed out that they were beyond the comprehension of children. Fassel quotes with approval from Mendelssohn's Jerusalem, where a distinction is made between that which Reason does not comprehend, and that which actually contradicts Reason. Judaism does not teach or command anything which is contrary to Reason.

6o

Jakob J. Petuchowski

It is statements like these, coupled with what several of the textbooks have to say about God and about revelation, which make us wonder whether Max Wiener was altogether fair in evaluating this whole literature by saying, "Hardly one of them goes beyond the sober, reasonable, and bare teachings of virtue, and the deistic doctrines of G o d . " 7 3 T h e very emphasis on the need for revelation in order to attain unto a true concept of God, which we find in so many of the textbooks, indicates that Deism has been left behind, even though some of its vocabulary might linger on for a while. Thus, Hirsch Fassel found the sources of religious knowledge not only in " m a n ' s innate awareness, in the contemplation of nature, and in the study of history," but also in " divine revelation." He utilized the argument ex consensu gentium, of which the deists were so fond, but he also noted that the God concept thus arrived at "remains obscure." 7 4 "Only divine revelation leads to true religion." 7 5 Creizenach, in the tradition of Sa c adia, and, no doubt, with a touch of Lessing, held that " m a n could, through the exercise of his reason, arrive at the truths and duties which religion teaches." But man's instincts and his constant striving for pleasure would lead him to consider that to be permissible which he most passionately desires. " W e may, therefore, deem ourselves fortunate in that the Heavenly Father has given us a true guide through the labyrinth of life by means of His revealed L a w . " 7 6 Moreover, Creizenach distinguished between the "general revelation" which is "available to all men, in all places, and at all times" (this God grants of necessity [!] to all His creatures as a means to fulfill their destiny) and the "special revelation which He addressed to us, the Israelites, through Moses and the Prophets." 7 7 Herxheimer, too, felt that the existence of God can be proved on the basis of conscience, design, and ex consensu gentium, " b u t man could not reach true religion except through revelation." 7 8 In downright opposition to deism is Kley's assertion that, "before revelation, the night of error and delusion was spread over all the generations of the earth. And, to this very day, peoples who have not yet been reached by God's revelation walk in the same night. Instruction, such as 73. Wiener, p. i66. 74. Fassel, pp. sf. 75. Ibid., p. 8. 76. Creizenach, Confirmations-Feier, p. 16. 77. Creizenach, Stunden der Weihe, p. 35· Note his terminology, on page 36, where he speaks of "Allgemeine Offenbarung für das ganze Menschengeschlecht." 78. Herxheimer, pp. 1—2.

Manuals and Catechisms

6ι

is provided by revelation, could not originate in man's spirit. It had to come from God Himself. Man's spirit can only receive i t . " 7 9 And quite beyond deism are the catechisms and manuals written by men who were "system-builders" in their own right. Francolm, distinguishing "belief in G o d " from "historical belief," and the revelation which is "original within man, coming to everyone" from the revelation which is "positive, given through God-intoxicated m e n , " 8 0 showed Kantian influence by rejecting proofs for God's existence based on "cause and effect." 8 1 "You imagine that you have found God through your investigation. But, in reality, you have merely set an end to your investigation by means of the God you had known beforehand." 8 2 Instead, he began with an analysis of Being itself. The whole world is a revelation of Being. T h e highest form of revelation takes place in man, who, in terms of his physical structure, is not only the highest creature of nature, but also one who finds God within himself, as knowledge ( Wissen) independent of the whole of nature. 8 3 Here we are moving in the realm of Subjective Idealism. Similarly, the Hegelian Samuel Hirsch argued that all proofs for the existence of God which take their departure from external, visible nature could, at best, lead to a nature deity. T h e true God is Spirit (Geist), and, therefore, He can only be found when we start from our own spirit: that is, our spiritual-moral life. " T h e first source for the knowledge of God is and remains our own heart."84 On the whole, however, at least the Sinaitic Revelation is understood by our catechisms and manuals quite in the traditional sense. " M o r e than three thousand years ago," says Creizenach, " G o d descended on Mt. Sinai, and, to the accompaniment of the terrible noise of the thunder and the horn, there sounded a voice [eine Stimme—not seine Stimme—perhaps in line with the medieval concept of the qol nibrtf], which was heard by the entire people assembled there. And God spoke to them the following words." Here, the Decalogue is quoted. 8 5 Hirsch Fassel stressed that the Ten Commandments were directly revealed by God Himself. 86 Following in the footsteps of Judah Halevi 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86.

Kley, p. 67. Francolm, pp. 3gf. Ibid., p. 2. Ibid., p. 4. Ibid., pp. 22f. Hirsch, p. 106. Creizenach, Confirmations-Feier, Fassel, p. 12.

pp. 25-28.

62

Jakob J. Petuchowski

and of Mendelssohn, he classified the Sinaitic Revelation as a "historical truth," which can be demonstrated (i) by the Preparation (that is, the facts preceding Revelation), (2) by the Consequences (that is, the undeniable happenings following upon the Revelation), (3) by the Memorials which have been preserved until this day, and (4) by the Testimony of the greatest of all historiographers. 87 If anything, the treatment of the Revelation of the Decalogue in our literature tends to leave us with the impression that here again the very heresy which led the early Rabbis to the exclusion of the Decalogue from the daily liturgy—that the Ten Commandments alone, and not the rest of the Torah, were directly revealed by God 88 —was trying to re-establish itself. Limitations of space compel us to bring this survey to a conclusion, even though there is a great deal more of interest in the literature under discussion. But enough, we believe, has been said to help us visualize what Judaism has come to mean to German Jewry in the period of Emancipation. What should be noted here in particular is that we have not been dealing with the isolated systems of individual thinkers (such as Steinheim's somewhat neglected Die Offenbarung nach dem Lehrbegriff der Synagoge), but rather with what might be termed the religio laici of German Judaism, in which the young generations were reared. And, in this respect, the period of Emancipation marks a definite, a revolutionary change. There are indications that the breakdown of the traditional Jewish structure began long before our period, although the extent of that breakdown is still a matter of scholarly debate. 89 It also seems certain that, as late as 1845, the majority of German Jews were still clinging tenaciously to the traditions of their fathers. 90 But, in the course of time, even some of the protagonists of Orthodoxy felt the need to fall in with the new approaches to the teaching of Judaism, 9 1 although they tried their best, as the 87. Ibid., p. 49. 88. Cf. B T Berakoth 1 2 a ; P T Berakoth 3c. 89. Cf. Jacob T o u r y , " N e u e hebräische Veröffentlichungen zur Geschichte der J u d e n im deutschen Lebenskreise," Bulletin of the Leo Baeck Institute 4 : 5 5 - 7 3 ( 1 9 6 1 ) . T o u r y discusses the works of Katz, Shohet, and Eliav. He tries to establish a mediating position between the claim of K a t z that G e r m a n - J e w i s h society was religiously static until the eighteenth century and the claim of Shohet that the dissolution of the traditional framework already set in a century or so before Mendelssohn. T o u r y reaches the conclusion that the " b r o a d m a s s e s " remained more faithful to the tradition than either the upper and educated classes or the poorer and uneducated sections of J e w r y . 90. T o u r y , pp. 7 i f . 9 1 . Eliav, pp. 268ff.

Manuals and Catechisms

63

example of Plessner shows, to save as much of the Tradition as they could. 92 From a community, ordering its life on the basis of halakah, Judaism was in the process of becoming a " Konfession." It tried to be as much like the other Konfessionen as possible. This led to the "Westernization" of the Jewish worship services, the transformation of the rabbinic figure into the Seelsorger and Prediger, the borrowing of the confirmation ceremony, and, with it, the production of a literature of catechisms. It also led, in conjunction with the other causes which we noted at the beginning of this paper, to a transformation in Jewish instruction. Textbooks, instead of sources, were the order of the day, and, when the decision had to be reached as to what was of primary importance and what of secondary, it was the dogmatic content of Judaism which was stressed, its beliefs and its creedal affirmations, at the expense of the now more or less dispensable "Ceremonial Law." Textbooks on the Jewish religion which did not so much as mention the dietary laws will devote pages and pages to "proving" the existence of God and listing and expounding His attributes. These latter disquisitions are, indeed, often heavily indebted to the writings of medieval Jewish philosophers, even as the Maimonidean Creed is hardly ever absent from these presentations. Furthermore, the authors of manuals and catechisms, apart from being heirs to the Jewish past, were also very much children of their own age. " T i m e and conditions," proclaimed Eduard Kley, "are sent and formed 92. Cf. Plessner, pp. i-xxxviii, where he offers us a kind of apologia for writing this type of book at all. He shows us how, for better or worse, religious instruction in this form can no longer be avoided, although it should supplement, not displace, the study of the sources. He criticizes the catechisms which had hitherto been published for not dealing sufficiently—or at all—with the Divine origin of the Law, and with the messianic expectations. He also wants to lay greater stress on the "attractive" aspects of Judaism, so completely ignored by the other writers, and he mentions specifically such " m i n o r " feasts as the New Moon, the Thirty-Third Day of the O m e r , and the Fifteenth of Shebhat. On the other hand, the leader and organizer of Orthodox Judaism in the United States, Isaac Leeser, published, in 1839, A Religious Manual for Jewish Children, in which he openly admitted his indebtedness to Kley's Catechismus. The following words from his Preface (p. vi) deserve to be quoted in full: I retained the division of subjects, nearly all the questions, and occasionally an answer, of Dr. Kley. Still, the book is no translation; because, in the first place, it contains fully double the quantity of the doctor's book; and, secondly, not to mention that several important points had been omitted or too obscurely given by him, he had imparted a peculiar colouring to his ideas, which unfortunately have become rather too famous, since his connexion with a society of schismatics, to whom he has borne the relation of pastor for many years past. Nevertheless, I would not detract the least from the merits of this learned and eloquent man, despite of his errors . . . It should be noted that Leeser disagrees with Kley's theology, not with the method of religious instruction by catechism.

64

Jakob J. Petuchowski

by God. God's Voice speaks in time, in the conditions. God's Hand rules over everything which must obey the call of the times, and submit to change." 93 While the early Reformers have indeed been criticized for not applying the much-invoked Zeitgeist to anything beyond the practical whittling down of the halakic way of life, 94 it cannot be gainsaid that, when they talked theology, even on the level of their children's religious instruction, they spoke in the accents of the dominant philosophies of their times. 93. K l e y , p. 83. 94. Rotenstreich, p. 95.

The New Style of Preaching in Nineteenth-Century German Jewry BY A L E X A N D E R A L T M A N N The nineteenth century saw the rise and development of a new type of Jewish preaching, replacing the traditional Derashah. The changes involved in this innovation concerned not only the outward form and structure of the sermon but also its substance. The very concept of the purpose of preaching as well as the theology behind it underwent a radical transformation. Obviously, the impact of contemporary trends in the Christian pulpit and in the philosophical thinking of the period accounts for a great deal in this connection. The remarkable degree of symbiosis which characterized the integration of the Jews into the realm of German culture was manifested in the phenomenon of the modern Jewish sermon as it was in so many other fields. The present study endeavors to trace the evolution of the new style of preaching in the context of the history of ideas in nineteenth-century theology and philosophy. In doing so, it resumes a line of investigation already pursued by the author's earlier study entitled " Z u r Frühgeschichte der jüdischen Predigt in Deutschland: Leopold Zunz als Prediger" {Publications of the Leo Baeck Institute, Year Book VI, London, 1961, pp. 3-59). While the previous inquiry was devoted primarily to Zunz as one of the pioneers of the modern Jewish sermon, the present paper operates within a wider perimeter. It takes in the entire range of the century, without, however, laying claim to comprehensiveness. In a sense, its scope is narrower than that of the earlier study in that it is concerned with formative influences rather than with homiletical content. An analysis of the theology of the sermon is still a desideratum. Here nothing more is attempted than a preliminary orientation offering some signposts for a more detailed work. Ι . CHRISTIAN MODELS OF PREACHING

The modern Jewish sermon arose at a time when the Protestant pulpit in Germany had reached its zenith in the art of rule-bound (schulgerecht) 65

66

Alexander Altmann

preaching. At no other period before or after was there a similar abundance of treatises on homiletics offering guidance in the preparation, composition, and delivery of a sermon. 1 T h e sermon had to conform to definite rules. It had to be schulgerecht. Homiletics was treated as a science. T h e classical work in the field, Johann Lorentz von Mosheim's Anweisung erbaulich zu predigen ("Directive for edificatory preaching") 2 laid down (i) general rules of ecclesiastical oratory (geistliche Beredsamkeit), (2) rules concerning the parts composing a sermon, and (3) the method of writing a sermon. Mosheim gave the collection of his own sermons the title Heilige Reden ( " Holy Speeches") 3 in order to emphasize the character of the sermon as a piece of oratory in the service of religion. T h e stress laid by him and his followers on the rhetorical element in the sermon owes a great deal to the influence of the English and French schools of preachers. 4 By the time the modern Jewish sermon appeared on the scene (1808), Mosheim's manner of preaching had already become antiquated, 5 but the influence of his Anweisung still persisted. 6 His insistence on the essentially oratorical nature of the sermon commanded a large following. It also gave rise to strong misgivings. T h e old discussion as to whether oratory (Beredsamkeit) was legitimate in the pulpit still went on in the nineteenth ι . " M a y b e there was no period in which more was written on homiletics and in which more collections of sermons appeared than in the heyday of rationalism . . . " (Christian Palmer, Evangelische Homiletik [Stuttgart, 1842], p. 38). A s early as in 1 7 8 7 Johann Wilhelm Schmid speaks of " t h e great number of homiletical w o r k s " to which his Anleitung zum populären Kanzelvortrag was adding yet another specimen. See the preface to the first edition, reproduced in the second edition (Jena, 1795), p. vii. F o r bibliographical data on homiletical manuals see Philipp Heinrich Schuler, Geschichte der Veränderungen des Geschmacks im Predigen. . . , part I I I (Halle, 1794), pp. 1 0 6 - 1 0 8 ; August Hermann Niemeyer, Grundriss der unmittelbaren Vorbereitungswissenschaften zur Führung des christlichen Predigtamtes . . . (Halle, 1803), p. 1 1 9 et passim; Christoph Friedrich A m m o n , Geschichte der Homiletik (Göttingen, 1804); and G e o r g Benedict Winer, Handbuch der theologischen Literatur, 3rd ed., I (Leipzig, 1838), I I (1840). 2. Johann Lorentz von Mosheim, Anweisung erbaulich zu predigen, ed. by C h r i s t i a n ] Ernst von Windheim (Erlangen, 1 7 6 3 ; I I , 1 7 7 1 ) . See the account in Schuler, Geschichte, part I I (Halle, 1793), pp. 1 6 2 - 1 6 3 . 3. Johann Lorentz von Mosheim, Sämmtliche Heilige Reden über wichtige Wahrheiten der Lehre Jesu Christi (Hamburg, 1765). 4. Schuler, Geschichte, part I I , pp. 1 1 2 , 208-209, mentions in particular J o h n Tillotson, Archbishop of Canterbury ( 1 6 3 0 - 9 4 ) , and Jacques Saurín, preacher at the Hague ( 1 6 7 7 173°)· 5. See a remark to this effect in Heinrich Gottlieb Tzschirner's extremely interesting Briefe veranlasst durch Reinhards Geständnisse seine Predigten und seine Bildung zum Prediger betreffend (Leipzig, 1 8 1 1 ) , pp. 69-70. 6. See Johann Friedrich Wilhelm T h y m , Briefe die Simplizität des Predigers betreffend (Halle, 1798), p. 80; idem, Historisch-kritisches Lehrbuch der Homiletik (Halle, 1800), p. 79.

The New Style of Preaching

67

century. 7 Some preachers decried the use of classical models of rhetoric (Cicero, Quintilian) as sheer paganism and deceitful mockery (Gleissnerei). 8 How perilous the rhetorical element could be to the evaluation of preaching may be gauged from Kant's remark that oratory—as distinct from mere eloquence and style—"is not to be commended either to courts of justice or to the pulpits" since it is " t h e art of persuading, i.e., of deceiving by beautiful semblance." 9 Most works on homiletics do, however, consider preaching as an art belonging to the genre of rhetorics. Heinrich August Schott, who was Professor of Theology at Jena, disagreed with Kant and vindicated oratorical eloquence as a legitimate means of moving the feelings as well as creating convictions. He defined ecclesiastical oratory as " t h e art . . . of producing . . . the particular direction of the mind toward the Eternal which is called Christian edification." 1 0 In still more radical fashion, an earlier theoretician of the sermon, Johann Friedrich Teller, had declared that " t h e preacher is meant to be an ecclesiastical orator [geistlicher Redner]" and that " h e must differ from the general class of orator in nothing but his subject matter." 1 1 Other writers on homiletics pointed out the desirability of keeping oratory within the bounds of simplicity. 12 Perhaps the most eloquent plea in this direction came from Johann Friedrich Wilhelm T h y m in his eminently readable Briefe die Simplizität des Predigers betreffend (" Letters concerning the simplicity of the preacher "). 1 3 7. Schleiermacher's sermons avoid all excess of rhetoric. See Alexander Schweizer, Schleiermachers Wirksamkeit als Prediger (Halle, 1834), pp. 7 9 - 8 3 . On the illegitimacy of rhetoric in the pulpit see Palmer, Evangelische Homelitik, pp. 1 3 - 1 7 . T h e authentic " l a n g u a g e of the s e r m o n " is discussed by Claus Harms, Ausgewählte Schriften und Predigten, ed. Peter Meinhold (Flensburg, 1955), I I , 39Ôf. C f . Dietrich Rössler, " Z w i s c h e n Rationalismus und Erweckung, Z u r Predigtlehre bei Claus H a r m s , " Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, fourth series, Χ , 7 3 : 7 1 (1962). 8. See Schuler, Geschichte, part I I , pp. 2 o i f f . 9. Immanuel K a n t , Kritik der Urtheilskraft (Berlin, 1 7 9 3 ) in Werke (1922—23), ed. Ernst Cassirer, V , 403, 3 9 6 - 3 9 7 . 10. Heinrich August Schott, Die Theorie der Beredsamkeit mit besonderer Anwendung auf die geistliche Beredsamkeit. . . , I (Leipzig, 1 8 1 5 ; 2nd ed., 1828 [quoted here]), 383. Schott cites in support Herder's essay, " K ö n n e n wir deutsche Cicerone haben? u n d : sollen wir sie in den Kanzeln haben ? " (p. 384). 1 1 . Johann Friedrich Teller, Theorie der christlichen Beredsamkeit (Leipzig, 1774), P· 3 ° · 1 2 . T h u s Schuler criticizes the " s e r a p h i c t o n e " — a " f a l s e glitter of o r a t o r y " — f o u n d among preachers bereft of natural eloquence and cultivated under English and French influence: such oratory "tickled the e a r " but " l e f t the heart e m p t y . " See Geschichte, III, 9-10. 1 3 . See Note 6. T h y m praises the " n o b l e " {edle) simplicity of the sermons of Spalding, Teller, Zollikofer, and Löffler as distinct f r o m mere " p o p u l a r " simplicity. See pp. 26, 108. His ideas about simplicity are reiterated in his Historisch-kritisches Lehrbuch, pp. I 2 9 f ï .

68

Alexander Altmann

The sermon had evolved into a type of pulpit oratory decidedly different from the genre of the homily. It was not to be an exegetical discourse on Scriptural verses loosely strung together but was to be a disquisition on some definite theme based on a text and presented according to a welldefined pattern of component parts. It was to be "synthetic" as distinct from the "analytical" homily. It had to avoid the scholastic aspect of the older dogmatic sermon, and the preacher was advised to shun subject matters and terms of too technical a nature. Its purpose was to " e d i f y " the congregation, and it was to achieve this aim by observing the rules laid down in the manuals of homiletics. T h e customary parts of the sermon were the exordium, the prayer, the exposition, and the blessing. T h e sermon, at least the opening prayer, had to have " u n c t i o n " (Salbung) so as to find the way to the heart in an exalted mood. 1 4 It is this type of sermon that the Jewish preachers in the early nineteenth century felt they had to imitate. There is a wealth of evidence testifying to the fact that at its initial stage, if not later, Jewish preachers took the Protestant edificatory sermon for their model. They had hardly any choice in the matter, seeing that the traditional Derashah had become repugnant to current taste and no homiletical manuals comparable to the Christian ones were available. 15 It is, therefore, understandable that the early Jewish preachers—all of whom were virtuosos of religion, not accredited rabbis—turned to Christian models. Joseph Wolf (1762-1826), who had been bred in the spiritual climate of Mendelssohnian Haskalah, and who was teacher and 14. See Thym, Briefe, p. 54; Tzschirner, Briefe, p. 29: " J e lebendiger der religiöse Sinn und je reger das Andachtsgefühl ist, desto mehr wird der Kanzelredner mit Salbung zu reden vermögen." The term Salbung retains its positive quality during the first part of the nineteenth century. Its derogatory character in modern usage—e.g., describing a speech as salbungsvoll—is somewhat foreshadowed in Palmer's distinction between true Salbung, which is the hallmark of a sermon "filled with the divine Spirit," and the "high-pitched rhetoric and rule-bound declamation," which "should not be called Salbung" (see his Evangelische Homiletik, pp. 55-56). The term is of New Testament origin (I John 2 : 2 0 , 27). Cf. Palmer, p. 6. 15. Joseph ben Shemtob's 'Eyn ha-Korea treatise on homiletics written shortly after 1455 ( M S S Paris and Oxford), is still unpublished. Jehudah Messer Leon's work on rhetoric (Nofet Zufim), composed between 1454 and 1474, was printed in Mantua between 1476 and 1480 and republished by Adolf Jellinek (Vienna, 1863). The rare Mantua incunabulum could hardly have served the purpose of a Jewish manual for preaching in the early nineteenth century. A short treatise on rhetoric by Moses Hayyim Luzzatto was published from a manuscript in Kerem Hemed 6:1 (1841). A reviewer in Israelitische Annalen, ed. Isaak Markus Jost (1841), p. 295, expressed regret that this work had remained unknown until then; otherwise, it might have prevented the "Babylonian towers and senseless Alfanzereien [i.e., pilpulistic extravagances]" of the earlier preachers. It is, however, doubtful whether any of these works would have been of much use to nineteenthcentury preachers.

The New Style of Preaching

69

community secretary at Dessau, took Georg Joachim Zollikofer's sermons for his guide. 16 Zollikofer (1730-1788) had cultivated the moralizing sermon 17 and, although he represented an older school of preaching, was still considered as one of the most important German pulpit orators. 18 Wolf's sermons deliberately avoided the complicated artfulness of the Derashah. His manner of preaching has been justifiably described as "lucid, simple, easily understandable," criteria which reflect the prevalent homiletical rules. 19 Gotthold Salomon (1784-1862), who achieved fame as a preacher at the Hamburg temple and was highly prolific in his sermonic output, 20 had spent his formative years in close association with Wolf at Dessau. A local minister, Pastor Demarées, introduced him to the sermons of Zollikofer, Johann Friedrich Wilhelm Jerusalem, Franz Volkmar Reinhard, and others, including some French preachers, and occasionally criticized his pulpit performances, pointing out offences against the homiletical rules. 21 His early homiletical library, he himself tells us, contained the sermons of Zollikofer, Reinhard, Marezoll, Löffler, and Claus Harms's Winter postille.''·'2· This is an interesting collection, testifying to a rather catholic taste. Whereas Zollikofer and his disciple Marezoll 23 represent the moralizing sermon of the strictly rationalist school, Reinhard was the dominant figure on the right wing of Aufklärung theology, the so-called supernaturalist school. Although his influence was already waning, he could still be held up, as late as 1 8 1 1 , as a model preacher par excellence.24 Claus Harms, on the other hand, was a revivalist preacher of great original power who believed in the " S p i r i t " rather than in homiletical rules, and

16. See Phfoebus] Philippson, Biographische Skizzen, books I and I I (Leipzig, 1864), p. 186. 17. See C[arl] G[eorg] H[einrich] Lentz, Geschichte der christlichen Homiletik, part I I (Brunswick, 1839), pp. 3 2 7 - 3 3 0 . 18. See Tzschirner, Briefe, p. 69. 19. See Philippson, Biographische Skizzen, books I and I I , pp. 1 8 6 - 1 8 7 . 20. A list of his sermons is found in Philippson's Biographische Skizzen, book I I I (Leipzig, 1866), pp. 8 3 - 1 1 2 , and in M[eyer] Kayserling, Bibliothek jüdischer Kanzelredner, I (1870), 1 5 6 - 1 7 3 . A collection of speeches devoted to freemasonry (Stimmen aus Osten) appeared in H a m b u r g (1845). F o r a full bibliography of his writings see Philippson, Biographische Skizzen, book I I I , pp. 2 5 4 - 2 6 0 . 2 1 . See Philippson, Biographische Skizzen, book I I I , pp. 35, 8 1 . 22. See preface to Salomon's Festpredigten für alle Feiertage des Herrn (Hamburg, 1829), quoted by Philippson, Biographische Skizzen, book I I I , pp. 1 1 6 - 1 1 7 . Claus Harms's Winterpostille, oder Predigten an den Sonn- und Fasttagen von Advent bis Ostern (Kiel, 1 8 1 2 ; 1 8 1 7 ; 1820). 23. See Lentz, Geschichte, 329. 24. See Tzschirner's Briefe, with their impressive account of Reinhard's towering virtues as a preacher.

7°

Alexander Altmann

found little to choose between the naturalist and supernaturalist schools of theology. 25 Salomon's sermons invited comparison with Harms's because of their obvious warmth of feeling, 26 but the comparison is misleading. His manner of preaching is sentimental rather than inspirational. Salomon was also likened to the famous Johann Heinrich Bernhard Dräseke, from 1 8 1 4 until 1832 Pastor in Bremen, later Bishop of Magdeburg. 2 7 A Christian reviewer of one of Salomon's earlier collections of sermons 28 in fact suggested that he had taken for his model " a well-known and renowned teacher of the Christian Church," an allusion which Salomon felt safe in considering a reference to Dräseke. His rejection of this particular allegation is of some interest. He felt flattered, he declared, by the insinuation; to have chosen such an excellent model would reflect honor on any preacher, Jewish or Christian; in point of fact, however, Dräseke's sermons were unknown to him when he was writing the sermons in question. 29 He had, moreover, been careful not to appropriate or copy the manner and method of any single Christian preacher, notwithstanding the fact that many of the masterworks of Christian pulpit oratory had not remained wholly unknown to him. T h e manner in which he at times expounded the Scriptures he had learned from none other than the rabbis; strangely enough, he asserts, Dräseke's hermeneutics in many of his sermons bore the most striking resemblance to rabbinic exegesis, as he had had occasion to demonstrate to a Christian scholar who was now deceased. 30 It is interesting to observe how Salomon seeks to play down his indebtedness to Christian models. He is obviously motivated by a sense of Jewish pride. T h e compliment paid to him by another Christian author calling him " t h e Israelite Dräseke" he refuses to accept, since he "deserved neither the bee's honey nor its s t i n g . " 3 1 25. Although Claus Harms described himself as a "supernaturalist" (see Rössler, "Zwischen Rationalismus und Erweckung," p. 62), he belonged to a group of preachers in the early nineteenth century who sought a return to the "Christian sermon" beyond both naturalism and supernaturalism. See Palmer, Evangelische Homiletik, p. 40, η. ι, and pp. 36-41. For Schleiermacher's stand beyond the parties see Schweizer, Schleiermachers Wirksamkeit als Prediger, pp. 2off., and Palmer, pp. 41—43. 26. See Philippson, Biographische Skizzen, book I I I , p. 82. 27. For a characterization of Dräseke see Lentz, Geschichte, II, 257-259. 28. Das Familienleben. Drei Predigten . . . (Hamburg, 1821), reviewed in Ergänzungsblätter zur Allgemeinen Hallischen Literatur-Zeitung, no. 142 (December, 1 8 2 1 ) (quoted in Philippson, Biographische Skizzen, book I I I , pp. 1 1 6 - 1 1 7 ) . 29. At this point Salomon listed the items of his homiletical library (Pastoral-Bibliothek), mentioned above. See Page 69 and Note 22. 30. Professor Johann Samuel Ersch, joint editor of the Hallische Literatur-Zeitung. See preface to Festpredigten, quoted by Philippson, Biographische Skizzen, book I I I , pp. 1 1 6 - 1 1 8 . 3 1 . Philippson, Biographische Skizzen, book I I I , p. 1 1 8 .

The New Style of Preaching

71

Yet the fact remains that Salomon felt no hesitation in using and occasionally even in borrowing from Christian models. A case in point is his devotional treatise Selima's Stunden der Weihe,32 which emulates C. W. Spieker's Emiliens Stunden der Andacht und des Nachdenkens,33 Both are addressed to educated young women, and Salomon's book appeared in the year (1816) in which the second edition of Spieker's came out. Salomon personally knew Spieker well. T h e latter was a Christian preacher in Dessau and took a friendly interest in Salomon. 34 T h e remarkable aspect about Salomon's book lies, however, not so much in the fact that it took Spieker's treatise for its model but that it contains a whole chapter on the vocation of man (Bestimmung des Menschen), which on closer scrutiny reveals itself as a mere paraphrase of Johann Joachim Spalding's famous essay under the same title. 35 Other preachers were less reluctant to acknowledge their debt to Christian models. Isak Noa Mannheimer (1793-1865), the most vigorous and most endearing of the early preachers and undoubtedly the outstanding figure in the nineteenth-century Jewish pulpit, 36 is the least rule-bound and formalistic among his contemporaries. He is also in the forefront of those pressing for a closer link with the Jewish tradition in homiletics. 37 Yet he admits "that we as pupils and disciples, as novices in the art of preaching which we have been practicing only a little while, can learn a great deal from the masters of the art, and we have gratefully to accept every guidance and instruction offered to us in their schools." 3 8 Rulebound (schulgerechte) homiletics, he declares, does have a useful purpose. 32. Gotthold Salomon, Selima's Stunden der Weihe, eine moralisch-religiöse Schrift für die Gebildeten unter dem weiblichen Geschlecht (Leipzig, 1 8 1 6 ) . 33. C. W . Spieker, Emiliens Stunden der Andacht und des Nachdenkens. Für die erwachsenen Töchter der gebildeten Stände, 2nd ed. (Reutlingen, 1 8 1 6 ) . 34. See Philippson, Biographische Skizzen, book I I I , p. 35. 35. T h e chapter on the vocation of man appeared first in Sulamith, vol. I V , part 2, pp. 8 - 3 1 ( 1 8 1 5 ) . Salomon indicates Spalding as the author of a passage literally quoted (p. 18), but thereby all the more obscures the fact that the entire discussion merely paraphrases Spalding. He may have assumed the readers' familiarity with the well-known treatise. It was first published in 1 7 4 8 ; the 1 3 t h edition had appeared in 1794. See Spaldings Bestimmung des Menschen, ed. with an introduction by Horst Stephan (Glessen, 1908). Fichte confessed that Spalding's treatise had " i n j e c t e d the first seed of higher speculation into [his] soul." See Eduard Spranger's Geleitwort to J o h a n n Gottlieb Fichte, Die Bestimmung des Menschen (Hamburg, 1954), p. 160. 36. F o r a biographical account see M . Rosenmann, Isak Noa Mannheimer, Sein Leben und Wirken (Vienna-Berlin, 1922). M a n y tributes to M a n n h e i m e r appeared in MannheimerAlbum, ed. M a j e r K o h n Bisstritz (Vienna, 1864). 37. See below, Page 79. 38. See I. N . Mannheimer, Gottesdienstliche Vorträge über die Wochenabschnitte des Jahres, I (Vienna, 1 8 3 5 ) , vii.

72

Alexander

Altmann

It helps the preacher to express his thoughts in a manner that is comprehensible {fasslich), well ordered {geregelt), and pleasing (gefällig). 39 These criteria echo the leading concepts of current homiletics. On the other hand, Mannheimer exercises a sovereign freedom from the tyranny of rigid rules. What matters is not the smoothness of the outer form but the power of the preacher's innermost convictions. Only the "living spirit" will compel the respect of a receptive, though skeptical, congregation.40 If Mannheimer refused the lead of Reinhard's homiletics according to rule, he was certainly imbued with the inspirational pattern of Claus Harms's preaching. Although Mannheimer does not mention Harms's name, there is evidence that Mannheimer, born and bred in Copenhagen, was well aware of the great preacher's activities in neighboring Lunden and Kiel in the province of Holstein.41 The evidence lies not only in the constant use Mannheimer made of the concept of the "Spirit" in the sense in which it is employed by Harms. It may also be found in at least one definite literary borrowing. Mannheimer's simile of the sick man who instead of applying the medicine prescribed for him is content to carry the prescription with him and to read it morning and evening42 is taken from Harms. In 1817, Harms had expressed the malaise of modern preaching in the words: " T h e character of their sermon is this : They make [the people] take the prescription instead of the medicine." 43 Mannheimer elaborated the simile in his own way, and used it more than once in his sermons.44 While Mannheimer's manner of preaching is decisively formed by the influence of Claus Harms, his friend Leopold Zunz experienced in Berlin at close quarters the impact of Schleiermacher's sermons. Although the letters from Zunz's early years in Berlin make no mention of the great Christian preacher, we have clear evidence from one of the sermons preached in 1821 that Schleiermacher served him as a model.45 Zunz's 39. Ibid. 40. Ibid., χ—xi. 4 1 . Mannheimer was a young man of twenty-one when Harms preached his famous political sermon in 1 8 1 4 in Lunden. It was the year of the emancipation of the Jews in Denmark. T w o years later ( 1 8 1 6 ) Mannheimer was appointed as "catechist" (teacher of religion) in the Copenhagen Jewish community. On Harms's pastoral activities see Rössler, "Zwischen Rationalismus und Erweckung," pp. 6 2 - 7 3 , particularly p. 68. 42. See Mannheimer, Gottesdienstliche Vorträge gehalten im israelitischen Bethause . . . (Vienna, 1834), p. 43. 43. See Harms, Ausgewählte Schriften, I, 2 1 7 (quoted by Rössler, "Zwischen Rationalismus und Erweckung," p. 73). 44. See Mannheimer, Gottesdienstliche Vorträge (1834), p. 4 3 : " . . . und wie es Jenem ging, von dem ich Euch einmal erzählt habe." 45. See my article, " Z u r Frühgeschichte der jüdischen Predigt in Deutschland. . . " (referred to above, Page 65), p. 12.

The New Style of Preaching

73

activity as a preacher at the N e w Synagogue in Berlin, though only of short duration (1820-22), was remarkably productive. Of the sixty-one sermons he delivered, eighteen appeared in print and thirty-nine are extant in his own hand. A close analysis of the entire material has shown the extent to which both Christian homiletical models and current philosophical trends are reflected in these sermons. Apart from Schleiermacher, Reinhard and Dräseke seem to have guided the young preacher. 46 W e have no reason to assume that Zunz was in personal contact with Schleiermacher. W e know, however, that at a slightly earlier period the young preachers at Jacobson's temple

in Berlin (Isaac

Levin

Auerbach,

Karl

Siegfried

Günsberg, Eduard Kley) had the benefit of such contact. A notice in the Schlesisches Schriftsteller-Lexikon

reports: " I t was interesting to see how

the most popular Christian preachers of the time, viz. Haunstein, [Georg Karl Benjamin] Ritsehl, Schleiermacher, and others occasionally visited the German Synagogue on Sabbaths and listened attentively to the young preachers who had ventured into a new field not previously cultivated by their coreligionists; [it was interesting] to the young men themselves to receive, after the services, manifold hints and directives from those great preachers." 4 7 T h e reliability of this priceless notice is borne out by a report in Julius Fürst's Der Orient describing the career of K . S. Günsberg. It mentions inter alia the " e n t h u s i a s m " with which in his younger days, jointly with K l e y , he preached at the Berlin temple, "encouraged and esteemed by a Schleiermacher, a Ritschl, and other famous Christian orators." 4 8 T h e novel spectacle of Jewish preachers imitating the style of the Protestant pulpit drew mixed reactions from non-Jewish observers in Germany. W e have already recorded the instance of one of the reviews of Salomon's sermons. T h e " s t i n g " wrapped up in the compliment did not pass unnoticed, as Salomon's retort indicates. T h e r e were a number of similar incidents. A review of Salomon Plessner's sermons states that they " f o l l o w closely the Christian pattern in both form and content (e.g., immortality, love of neighbor)" and that " o n e meets here once again a Christian preacher in Israelite garb, the like of whom there are several nowadays." 4 9 Plessner admits that the form of his sermons takes for its model the rule-bound (schulgerechten) Reinhard. He rejects, however, the suggestion that their content is likewise borrowed from Christianity. T h e Old Testament and rabbinic literature were sufficiently rich in content, 46. Ibid., pp. 1 1 - 1 2 . 47. Ibid., p. 11. 48. See Der Orient, no. 29, p. 222 (1840). 49. Repertorium (ed. Karl Gotthelf Gersdorf), 9:6, 521 (quoted by Plessner, see following note).

74

Alexander

Altmann

including teachings on immortality and love of neighbor, to absolve a knowledgeable Jewish theologian of the necessity of borrowing.50 In drawing a line between form and content Plessner thought he had settled the issue. He was certainly right in his own case. His sermons are saturated with rabbinic and even Qabbalistic material. A scholar of note and imbued with traditional piety, Plessner is a somewhat unique figure among the Jewish preachers of the time. He is also a highly controversial figure, praised by some as "the Schleiermacher of the Jews" and severely criticized by others. 51 Far from following the rule-bound form of sermon, he rather inclines to the traditional Derashah.52 The Christian reviewer could not have hit on a more un-Christian specimen of Jewish preaching. Applied to others, the charge was not entirely without foundation in regard to both form and content. In the case of the moralizing Jewish preachers there was little to distinguish them from their Christian models, except the absence of references to the New Testament. Whether their essential ethos was Christian or merely "enlightened" in the sense of Aufklärung theology is a moot point. The Jews certainly felt that the tenets of Aufklärung represented a common, neutral ground between the faiths rather than a sublimation of Christianity.53 Many Christians, on the other hand, gave the Jews at best credit for being receptive to the enlightened ideas of their environment.54 Others even resented Jewish receptivity. 50. See Salomon Plessner, Religiöse Vorträge, zunächst für Israeliten, 2nd ed., I (Berlin, 1840), vii—viii. 51. Plessner is praised to the skies as der Schleiermacher der Juden and as in some respects even superior to Schleiermacher in Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, 2 : 3 3 8 (1838). T h e bibliographer Joseph Zedner is "enchanted" (entzückt) by his sermons and describes him as " t h e first truly Jewish orator" he had heard. See Moritz Veit's letter to Michael Sachs (December 16, 1837) in Michael Sachs und Moritz Veit Briefwechsel, ed. Ludwig Geiger (Frankfurt am Main, 1897), p. 9. See, however, Ludwig Philippson's severe criticism in Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, 3 : 3 8 7 (1839). For Geiger's view of Plessner see my article " Z u r Frühgeschichte . . . , " p. 10, η. 40. 52. See the editor's remark in Die Rhetorik und Homiletik von Dr. Ludwig Philippson, ed. Meyer Kayserling (Leipzig, 1890), p. 51, note. 53. See Jacob Katz, Tradition and Crisis (New York, 1961), pp. 245-259; idem, Exclusiveness and Tolerance (Oxford, 1961), pp. 156-168. 54. A characteristic instance of this attitude is provided by the Göttingen physicist and astronomer Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, author of the satirical "apologia" Timorus (Göttingen, 1773), which ridiculed Lavater's missionary zeal. In a letter to J . D. Ramberg, Secretary of War at Hannover, he ascribed Moses Mendelssohn's merits solely to the cultural influence of Berlin: "Berlin ist es und nicht Judaea oder Jerusalem, was ihm einigen Vorzug gab. Es müsste ja mit dem Teufel zugehen, wenn ein Geschöpf, das wenigstens Menschengestalt hat, nicht hie und da f ü r Wahrheit empfänglich sein sollte. Mendelssohn in Berlin war empfänglich dafür, und das gereicht ihm zur Ehre. Aber ich wünsche nicht, dass er ein Zürcher sein sollte." (Quoted by Leo Weisz, " G e o r g Christoph Lichtenberg und Johann Caspar Lavater, I. Die Judentaufen," Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Literatur und Kunst, ι April 1962, Blatt 5, no. 1279 [34].)

The New Style of Preaching

75

The progress of enlightenment and Bildung (education) among the Jews in Germany was felt to be incongruous with loyalty to Judaism. Thus, a reviewer of J. L. Saalschütz's devotional treatise Mahnungen an Gott und Ewigkeit (1840) takes umbrage at the term "spirit of eternal redemption" (1Geist ewiger Erlösung) used by the author. The reviewer, Professor Ludwig August Kahler, feels that this term is "foreign" to Jewish sources and betrays the influence of "Christian Bildung" in contemporary Jewish thought and way of speech. The "sunrays" of Bildung had melted the "frozen soil of positive Judaism." Why, then, refuse to join Christianity and take root in the "warm soil of the spirit" that had given them a new interpretation of what the Jewish prophets had "merely hinted at in dark symbols" ? Why should Jews deceive themselves by trying to revivify their religion ? 5 5 Saalschütz's reply merits to be quoted at some length because it expresses the prevalent Jewish attitude of the period. His first point is that Bildung, though specifically colored in every nation, is essentially universal and humanistic. The Jews living in Germany, being "children of the country," have a right to share in the specific forms of German culture which are not denied even to strangers. He, then, takes up the main challenge. "Perhaps, the culture [Bildung] of the modern world is Christian to such a degree that in absorbing it we automatically absorb Christian elements, thus becoming, in part, Christians in our way of thinking." 66 He denies this assumption. First, he points out, we have to differentiate between scientific and religious culture. Scientific Bildung is by no means Christian. "Even philosophy, which bears an intimate relation to religion, cannot start out, in its a priori method, from revealed teachings. Hence it cannot allow positive Christianity to dominate and guide the course of its investigations. It can only in the end meet religion in so far as the truth it has discovered independently appears to be identical with religion." 57 Obviously, Saalschütz alludes here to German Idealist philosophy, 55. Kähler's review appeared in Preussische Provinzialblätter (ed. O. W . L . Richter), January-February 1841. Saalschütz replied in the June issue of the same journal. A n abstract of his reply was published in Jost's Annalen, nos. 35 and 36, pp. 2 7 4 - 2 7 7 , 2 8 3 - 2 8 4 (1841). The gist of Kähler's review is given on pp. 2 7 3 - 2 7 4 . Our account in the text is based on the abstract in Annalen. For a Jewish review of Saalschütz's book see Literaturblatt des Orients, no. 10, pp. 1 3 7 - 1 3 9 (1841). It suggests that it drew its inspiration from (Spieker's ?) Stunden der Andacht. 56. Cf. Franz Rosenzweig's remarks in one of his early letters (November 6, 1909): " W e are Christians in every respect; we live in a Christian state, attend Christian schools, read Christian books, in short, our whole 'culture' [Kultur] is fundamentally Christian" (Franz RosenzweigIBriefe, ed. Edith Rosenzweig [Berlin, 1935], p. 45). 57. Annalen (1841), pp. 2 7 4 - 2 7 7 .

76

Alexander Altmann

particularly Hegel's. His reading of it as merely "in the end" concurring with Christianity is, however, hardly correct.58 He is on safer ground when he speaks of the moral aspect of religion. While crediting Christianity with the spread and deepening of morality in the world, he does not want to see the role of Judaism belittled. If it is a question of who is indebted to whom, modern Judaism cannot owe more to modern Christianity than the Christian religion in its infancy owed to Judaism. The Old Testament is the basis of the New. 59 Moreover, and this is his final and crucial point, Christianity as a moral power is essentially one with Jewish teaching. He qualifies this statement by describing Jewish teaching as still full of vitality wherever taught according to the "truly Divine and pure spirit" that dwells in it. In other words, he confines the postulated identity of Christian moral teaching with Judaism to an enlightened version of Judaism such as is preached from modern Jewish pulpits. To Christian ears, he says, the preaching by Jews of a purified morality, of the solace of religion, and of a holy trust in God (geläuterte Moral, Tröstungen, heilige Zuversicht) sounds like a Christian message. " B u t we are conscious of the fact that thereby we say nothing foreign to our own religious sources or in conflict with the s p i r i t . . . of our holy Scriptures, which is the spirit of eternal redemption as revealed in them too (albeit in a Jewish dogmatic sense)." 60 Hence, Saalschütz concludes, our morality as following from the principles of monotheism is "wholly and totally " Christian as much as Christian morality is "wholly and totally" identical with ours. 61 It can hardly be assumed that this reply satisfied Saalschütz's critic. As Abraham Geiger remarked a few years later (1845), when answering Bruno Bauer's strictures upon Judaism, Christian resentment was directed particularly to Reform Judaism, which sought to preserve the Jews within the bounds of their faith by means of an enlightened approach. The employment of Bildung in the service of a revival of Judaism as understood by the Reform movement was for this very reason anathema to certain Christians. They would have preferred a clear-cut alternative between a rigid tradi58. See Karl Löwith, Von Hegel zu Nietzsche, 4th ed. (Stuttgart, 1958), p. 39: " D i e christliche Lehre vom Leiden und von der Erlösung war ihm [sc. Hegel] massgebend auch f ü r die Spekulation." Goethe rejected Hegel's connection of Reason and the Cross. See Löwith, pp. 2 8 - 3 1 . The Christian elements in German Idealism have been stressed in recent years by Alois Dempf, Kurt Leese, H. Fuhrmans, and others. 59. Annalen (1841), p. 277. 60. Annalen (1841), p. 283. 61. Annalen (1841), pp. 283-284. The moral aspect of monotheism is the subject of an article ( " D e r Monotheismus in sittlicher Beziehung") which Saalschütz published in Geiger's Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie, 5:44ff., I52ÍF., 39iff. (1844).

The New Style of Preaching

77

tional Judaism and—baptism.62 Seen in this light, the copying of Christian models of preaching in the nineteenth-century Jewish pulpit was bound to arouse the mixed feelings which we have noted. An awareness of this fact may help us toward a readier appreciation of the efforts made by the early preachers to express the message of Judaism in a manner commensurate with the tastes and ideas of their age. Starting from scratch, as it were, they soon mastered the art of which the Christian sermon furnished the model. In 1815, David Frankel in an article in Sulamith surveyed the brief span of development from 1808 onward. In the course of his highly interesting account he takes occasion to counsel patience with the standard of Jewish sermons. One could not expect too much at the beginning, seeing that Jews had had no opportunity nor encouragement to train as pulpit orators. One could not, therefore, entertain the hope of finding preachers of the rank of a Demosthenes, Aeschines, Cicero, Spalding, Zollikofer, or a Reinhard, who aroused such general admiration and delight. It might, however, be expected that popular and famed preachers would arise among the Jews. The experiments of the last few years had proved that such hope was well founded. 63 Over two decades later (in 1839), Isaak Markus Jost could express admiration of the progress which Jewish pulpit oratory (Kanzelberedsamkeit) had made in the three decades since its inception. In his view, it had, generally speaking, ascended to the high level of the period, and Jewish preachers could, in some instances, be considered the equals of the best orators of the time. He wishes, however, to apply his praise only to nonrabbinic preachers, since the rabbis, with a few exceptions, were still suffering from a woeful neglect of homiletical training.64 2. TOWARD A JEWISH

HOMILETICS

The moralizing type of sermon known as Erbauungspredigt ("edificatory sermon") held sway in the Jewish pulpit until the late thirties of the nineteenth century. It had not completely ousted the traditional Derashah, particularly in the eastern parts of Germany, 65 but was generally held to be incomparably superior to it. A modernized form of Derashah was cultivated by men like Hakam Isaac Bernays in Hamburg and Rabbi Solomon Judah 62. See Abraham Geiger, "Bruno Bauer und die Juden," Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie, 5 : 3 2 9 (1844). 63. See David Frankel, "Einige Worte über religiose Reden und Predigten unter den Israeliten," Sulamith IV, II, part I, pp. 2 4 1 - 2 5 4 , particularly pp. 2 5 0 - 2 5 1 . 64. Annalen (1839), p. 319. 65. See my article, " Z u r Frühgeschichte . . .," p. 13, η. 55.

78

Alexander Altmann

Rapoport in Prague. A correspondent in Geiger's Zeitschrift66 describes Bernays' manner of preaching as conducive to neither instruction nor edification. His sermons were as useless as, perhaps even less useful than, the earlier disputations and controversies displayed in the Talmudic Derashah. Passages chosen from Scripture, Talmud, and Midrash were " subjected to exegesis, etymological analysis, criticism and anatomical dissection of all kind without the audience understanding the least of it. Poor people! . . . How I pity them." Yet Heinrich Heine had a different estimate: " I have heard Bernays preach. He is a charlatan. None of the Jews understands him . . . but he is, nevertheless, an ingenious [geistreicher] man and he has more spirit within him than Dr. Kley, Salomon, Auerbach I and I I . " 6 7 Rapoport's scholarly mind found displeasure in the traditional halakic-haggadic type of Derashah which he was obliged to deliver twice a year in accordance with time-honored custom.68 He seems, however, to have developed also a modern type of Derashah which greatly appealed to the more progressive section of the Prague community. A glowing report from the year 1844 on his manner of preaching speaks of his way of combining the ancient (das Antike) with the modern; of his unfolding of the past and showing how the present is reflected in it. " He vivifies and stimulates by the plenitude of his thought, astonishes by unexpected [frappante] interpretations, satisfies by brilliant explanations, and not only appeals to the heart but also gives food to the intellect." He is not a "popular orator" as the term is usually understood, for he presupposes in his listeners a "certain degree of education and scholarly receptivity." Yet the correspondent prefers him to the more glib popular preachers. " I f one hears complaints that some famous preachers of our time lack profundity— substituting for it a superficial longwindedness [seichte Breite]—it would seem that it is precisely Rapoport's profundity . . . which repels the vulgar majority." 69 The contrast between the richness of the more traditional type of preaching and the poverty of the modern one was bound to lead to some reappraisal of the situation. The enthusiasm with which the edificatory sermon had been received began to cool off. Its moralizing tone, plain 66. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie, 2 : 5 9 0 - 5 5 1 (1836). 67. See Heinrich Heine Briefe, ed. Friedrich Hirth (Mainz, 1948), no. 62, pp. 7 1 - 7 2 . 68. See his plaintive letter to Samuel David Luzzatto (dated Nisan 1 1 , 5603/1843) in S. L. Rappoport's hebräische Briefe, ed. Eisig Gräber, part I (Przemysl, 1885), 1 3 2 - 1 3 3 . 69. See " B e r i c h t über Synagoge und Schule in B ö h m e n , " Zeitschrift für die religiösen Interessen des Judenthums (ed. Z . Frankel), 1 : 3 1 3 (1844). Rapoport's personality is described in glowing terms by another correspondent in Der Orient, no. 52, pp. 804-805 (1840).

The New Style of Preaching

79

rationality, and sentimentalism no longer satisfied. There is some irony in the fact that the charge of tediousness which had been leveled against the Derashah was now applied to the sermon. 70 It was increasingly felt that Jewish preaching should free itself from Christian tutelage and evolve a more genuinely Jewish approach. T h e clamor for a Jewish homiletics found expression in newspaper articles, critical reviews of sermons, prefaces to collections of sermons, and magazines. T h e prevailing sentiment was for a return, in some limited way, to a more exegetical type of sermon and a more liberal use of midrashic material. T h e first strong plea for greater freedom from Christian models came from Mannheimer, in the preface to a volume of sermons published in 1835. Notwithstanding his sense of obligation to the Christian "masters of the art," he does not want to forget "that in God's sanctuary we stand on our own native g r o u n d " ; that " w e have received a treasure from our Fathers which God has called upon us to preserve. . . It would be treason . . . if we wanted to erase with a single stroke of the pen the whole past of our nation or a few millenia in between, as would seem to be the manner of not a f e w . " Referring specifically to the sermon, he says: " I t is always better to feed on one's own resources than to live from alms, and it is better to cultivate one's own soil than to glean sparingly [ein dürftige Nachlese halten] on foreign ground." He does not want to regard the rule-bound sermon of the Protestant type as " t h e one and only f o r m " and as possessing a salvational monopoly. " On the contrary, it would seem to me as if the acquisition of a form not particularly our own only served to cover up a poverty of spirit, without, however, concealing, let alone preventing it ; for form cannot create ideas ; it fetters rather than liberates the spirit." 7 1 Mannheimer's sermons fully live up to the principles he professed. They struck his contemporaries as extremely powerful and moving, precisely because of the Jewish spirit that animated them. Rapoport wrote to Samuel David Luzzatto in 1832: " I read one of his [Mannheimer's] sermons [derashot] for the seventh day of Pesach and found it truly precious." 7 2 T h e young Abraham Geiger writes in the same year to S. Frensdorf : " Mannheimer of Vienna was here [in Frankfurt], and I believe [myself] . . . to be right in considering him a very good Jewish preacher. He excerpts the Talmud and the Midrashim 70. E.g., the reviewer of Joseph K a h n ' s sermon Das Pesach- als Aussöhnungsfest (Saarbrücken, 1 8 4 1 ) , in Annaìen ( 1 8 4 1 ) , p. 304, welcomed sermons of this kind, which " c o m p e n s a t e for the boredom offered us in this field more than anywhere else." 7 1 . See Mannheimer, Gottesdienstliche Vorträge, I ( 1 8 3 5 ) , vii-ix. 72. Letter dated T e b e t 5, 5 5 9 2 / 1 8 3 2 , in S. L. Rappoport's hebräische Briefe, part I I (1885), p. 228.

8o

Alexander Altmann

for use in his sermons." 73 It is significant that Mannheimer's concern with rabbinic material is specially mentioned. Such practice was obviously considered a novelty in a modern preacher. Mannheimer, in fact, appended to his sermons a table of source references which gives tangible evidence of his perusal of rabbinic material. An attempt in the direction of a new theory of Jewish homiletics was made by Ludwig Philippson in an essay on the vocation of the Jewish preacher (1835). 74 In reviewing the situation he declared: "There is one party which demands from the Israelite preacher only pure moralizing: the extremists of this party want the Israelite sermon to resemble altogether the sermon of other religions ; indeed, an imitation and copying of the forms of speech [Rede-Formeln] of those [religions] is welcomed. Another party wants the Israelite sermon to be but a Derashah in a new garb ; the more it approximates to the latter in form, content, and subject matter, the more worthy of approval it appears to be. As experience has taught me, the great majority [of people] takes the right road . . . by demanding an intermediate position." 75 The theological considerations which prompted Philippson's attitude need not detain us here.76 In the present context, his reappraisal of the form of the sermon is to be noted. In order to link up with tradition and achieve a more "organic" character, Jewish theology has to cultivate a type of sermon different from the Christian. It must not restrict itself to a "free exposition of a Biblical text" but has to utilize "our theological literature" in its wider range. Thereby it will reflect the "older [bisherige] 73. Abraham Geiger's Nachgelassene Schriften, ed. Ludwig Geiger, V (Berlin, 1878), 60. Mannheimer is reported to have followed in the footsteps of earlier darshanim such as Isaac Arama (ca. 1420-1494) and Isaiah Hurwitz (ca. 1555-ca. 1625). See Adolf Jellinek, Rede bei der Gedächtnisfeier für den verewigten Prediger Herrn Isak Noa Mannheimer (Vienna, 1865), p. 1 2 : " Z w e i Männer hatten, wie er mir einst mitteilte, auf seine Entwicklung als Prediger mächtig eingewirkt: Rabbi Jesaja Hurwitz . . . und Rabbi Isaac Arama . . . und in der Tat hatte er mit dem ersteren gemein die Gottinnigkeit, den werktätigen Glauben und die salbungsvolle Darstellung, und mit dem letzteren den weiten Blick, das Zusammenfassen des Mannigfaltigen und die Kunst der Auslegung der Hagada. . . " On closer scrutiny one may discern Arama's influence in the more philosophical sermons of Mannheimer: e.g., the one on Providence (Gottesdienstliche Vorträge, 1835, pp. 1 1 7 - 1 3 8 ) . No trace can be detected, however, of Hurwitz's Qabbalistic trend of thought. Mannheimer's own testimony, as reported by Jellinek, may refer to a sense of inspiration rather than to anything specifically homiletical. 74. "Einiges über die Bestimmung des jüdischen Predigers," published in his Israelitisches Predigt- und Schul-Magazin, vol. 2 (1835); 2nd ed. (comprising vols, ι , 2, 3), Leipzig, 1854, pp. 364-370. 75. Ibid., p. 367. 76. They are related to the challenge presented by attacks upon Judaism by both the right and left wings of the Hegelian school. Philippson refers to these attacks in his article on "Homiletik" in Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, Literarisches und homiletisches Beiblatt, vol. 1, no. 7, p. 26 (1838).

The New Style of Preaching

81

popular wisdom" and come closer to actual life. The exposition must take on a historical color. Hence the analytical method is to be preferred to the synthetic. The difficulties of tracing teachings of a general character in historic events are not to be ignored. They call for greater acumen (Scharfsinn) in the production of a sermon. Seeing, however, that acumen is a characteristic trait of the Jewish nation, the appetite for it has to be satisfied.77 Philippson amplified his homiletical theory in letters and essays published in collected form posthumously by Meyer Kayserling. 78 In the preface to Siloah, a two-volume work containing a collection of his own sermons,79 he vigorously pleads for the right of the modern sermon to "lean upon her elder sister," namely, the Derashah, and to use "appropriate parts" from the mass of material offered by the Talmudim, Midrashim, and the liturgy. It could either preach on a theme based on a text or engage in an exegetical treatment of a Biblical or rabbinic passage.80 It cannot be said that Philippson's middle-of-the-road theory shows great depths of perception. It has the undoubted merit of having raised the problem of a Jewish homiletics, but it is rather superficial and not original even in its advocacy of a partial return to the analytical (exegetical) type of sermon. The same tendency prevailed also in the Christian pulpit of the time, and Philippson's use of the terms "synthetic" and "analytical" clearly indicates that he echoed the slogans of the discussion which went on in contemporary Christian circles. Some preachers regarded the analytical form or homily as deficient because it lacked "inner unity" (Schleiermacher) and was "filling but not satisfying" (Harms). Some approved of both types of preaching (Marheineke), while still others preferred the " f r e e r " form of the homily to the synthetic sermon (Tholuck). The debate is reviewed in Christian Palmer's Evangelische Homiletik (1842). Palmer himself suggests that both methods have equal right, and that a good homily has much in common with a good sermon. For neither will a good 77. "Einiges über die Bestimmung . . .," pp. 369—370. In the preface to the second edition of his Magazin (1854), p. ix, Philippson regretfully notes that the sermon of the most recent period had too frequently reverted to the "old sophistry" (alte Spitzfindigkeit), and that it suffered from a neglect of form. In the Christian pulpit, opposition to the rulebound sermon had promoted almost a cult of the angular, negligent, incorrect way of speech. See Palmer, Evangelische Homiletik, pp. 442-443. 78. I n a volume entitled Die Rhetorik und Homiletik von Dr. Ludwig Philippson (Leipzig, 1890). In his preface, Kayserling pointed out that Philippson—"one of the most celebrated preachers of our time"—was the first and only one to have established a theory of Jewish homiletics. T h e same year witnessed, however, the publication of Siegmund Maybaum's Jüdische Homiletik (Berlin, 1890). 79. Ludwig Philippson, Siloah, Eine Auswahl von Predigten zur Erbauung . . ., part I (Leipzig, 1843); part II (Leipzig, 1845); part I, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1859). 80. Siloah, part I, 2nd ed., ix.

82

Alexander Altmann

homily lack inner coherence nor will a sermon of the synthetic type be anything but an exposition of the text. 81 Philippson's essay of 1835 obviously reflects the discussion which Palmer was to review some years later. It discerns the prevalent trend toward greater latitude in the method of preaching and applies it to good advantage for a revision of the Jewish sermon. The same is true of an attempt made by a certain J . A. Frankel in an essay published in 1840. 82 The author felt that the time had come for "establishing certain rules of homiletics from a Jewish point of view." While secular rhetoric of the classical models and the Christian oratory of a Reinhard, 83 Teller, Schleiermacher, or Theremin could be consulted with profit, the "fundament" of a Jewish homiletics had to be in harmony with Jewish principles. He, therefore, proposed to investigate the historical development of the Jewish sermon so as to derive the rules of Jewish homiletics a posteriori from the best sermons. Unfortunately, this laudable effort was undertaken with insufficient means, 84 and the result is extremely meager. Yet certain observations made by the author are noteworthy. He rejects the old type of Derashah still practiced by the Polish darshanim as repugnant to the taste of modern Bildung (education). He remarks, however, that it had been more effective than the best sermons of the most recent preachers. The question, then, was how to devise modern rules of homiletics that could be expected to take the place of the Derashah. Should the sermon be analytical or synthetic ? In other words, should it take the form of the homily, or expound a set theme, or do both ? Fränkel wishes to leave the decision to the free choice of the preacher who would have to consider the text, the theme, the occasion, et cetera. His sympathies, however, he admits, lie with the homily, 85 while, rather inconsistently, he pleads in the end for the synthetic sermon. 86 Like Philippson, he also makes a plea for the use of Talmud and Midrash, albeit restricted to "moral sentences." 87 With infinitely greater authority Zacharias Frankel 88 called for a reorien8 1 . See P a l m e r , Evangelische Homiletik, p p . 443—451. 82. " Z u r G e s c h i c h t e der H o m i l e t i k , " Literaturblatt des Orients, 1 8 4 0 , nos. 3 5 , 36, 3 7 , 39. T h e author, otherwise u n k n o w n , is described as " c a n d . phil. aus K o e r l i n . " 83. T h e text has " R e i n h o l d , " which is o b v i o u s l y a mistake. 84. N o cognizance is taken of Z u n z ' s Gottesdienstliche Vorträge ( 1 8 3 2 ) . 85. " W e n n w i r . . . die P r e d i g t e n gewissermassen nach A r t der D e r a s h o t a b g e f a s s t w ü n s c h e n . . . " (p. 558, n. 1). 86. S e e F r ä n k e l , " Z u r G e s c h i c h t e der H o m i l e t i k , " p p . 5 9 0 - 5 9 1 . 87. Ibid., p. 590. 88. In a review of Elias G r i i n b a u m ' s Gottesdienstliche Vorträge (Carlsruhe, 1844), published in F r a n k e l ' s Zeitschrift für die religiösen Interessen des Judenthums, 2:63-66 (1845).

The New Style of Preaching

83

tation in Jewish preaching. Remarkably enough, he too echoes the Christian discussion of the topic sermon versus homily, and makes explicit reference to it. Writing as he did in 1845, he might have read Palmer's Homiletik of 1842, which Manuel Joel was to use from 1858 onward in his lectures on homiletics at the Breslau Seminary. 89 " F o r every listener," Frankel says, "especially the Jewish one, there lies an extraordinary charm in an ingenious [geistreichen] development and exposition of the text. . . The sermon will thereby perhaps approach the homily but we see in this no disadvantage: even many excellent Christian pulpit orators desire a return to the homily, since the sermon, although a product of art, offers many a time too little that is essential [wesentlich] and of enduring value; it dwells on a single concept and flattens it out by rhetoric until it becomes tedious. For the Jew, whose vivacious mind loves the unexpected \das Frappante]90 and who is accustomed from former times to ingenious interpretations, the sermon is bound to be somewhat unsatisfactory. Hence our rabbis and orators should give more consideration to the characteristic element of Jewish homiletics and should not take the Christian sermon alone for their model." 9 1 All these remonstrations did not have the effect of considerably altering the character of the Jewish sermon. True, preaching became less stilted and less subservient to rigid rules but it did not revert to the homily or to a kind of modern Midrash. It did not evolve a specifically Jewish type of homiletics. Nor did it follow the example of the traditional Derashah by making a rabbinic haggadah or midrash the object of exegesis. A glance at the long list of published sermons compiled by Siegmund Maybaum toward the end of the century 92 clearly indicates that the form of the sermon remained more or less static: most of the sermons deal with some general theme based on a Biblical text. Maybaum only reflects the prevalent trend when he declares the exegesis of Talmudic or Midrashic passages on their own as impermissible in a sermon, and disagrees with Philippson's view to the contrary. 93 The deeper reason for this attitude lies in the fact that the concept of edification ( Erbauung) as the purpose of preaching was never seriously challenged throughout the century, as will be shown further 89. See below, Page iiz. 90. T h e report on Rapoport's manner of preaching published in Frankel's Zeitschrift in 1844 had used the same expression. See above, Page 178. 9 1 . See Frankel's Zeitschrift, 2 : 6 6 (1845). A somewhat critical review of a collection of sermons modeled on the Derashah appeared in Frankel's Zeitschrift, 3 : 1 4 2 - 1 4 5 (1846). 92. Siegmund M a y b a u m , Jüdische Homiletik nebst einer Auswahl von Texten und Themen (Berlin, 1890), pp. 1 9 1 - 3 8 5 . 93. Ibid., pp. 45-48.

84

Alexander Altmann

below.94 The only change brought about by the groping for a more Jewish tone in the sermon was the use, in varying degree, made of Talmudic and Midrashic material in a subsidiary capacity. Maybaum himself gives unstinted approval to the judicious employment of such material in this limited sense.95 As we have seen, Mannheimer had been the first to act in this manner. He was followed by Michael Sachs and later, on a more lavish scale, by Adolf Jellinek. Sachs, who was preacher in Prague from 1836 until his appointment in Berlin in 1844, came under the influence of Solomon Judah Rapoport, who held a high opinion of him. 96 The atmosphere of learning in the Prague community of that time and, in particular, the impact of Rapoport's personality enabled him to develop an inner affinity with the authentic Jewish tradition.97 As early as 1839 he conceived a plan to "describe the character of midrashic literature in its entire range." Zunz's Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, which had appeared in 1832, did not seem to him to do justice to the inner life pulsating in the Midrash. It was but an outline that needed filling in. 98 His friend Moritz Veit had urged him in 1837 99 to devote his attention to Midrash. " I f I were to become a Jewish preacher, I would engage in no other literature, for it [sc. Midrash] seems to me an inexhaustible store for the popular speaker." 1 0 0 He himself had just discovered, under the tutorship of Salomon Plessner, 101 the "true life" animating midrashic literature. Sachs's first literary effort in the midrashic field was an essay published in 1843 1 0 2 which was, however, rather poor and called forth Veit's undisguised criticism. 103 All the greater was the success of Sachs's Die religiose Poesie der Juden in Spanien (Berlin, 1845). The introductory chapter contains an enthusiastic account of the character of Midrash and Talmud. 1 0 4 As a work of scholarship it is obviously unconcerned with the practical application of the insights won to the requirements of homiletics. Yet the fact that as a result of his studies 94. See Section 3 of this paper. 95. Maybaum, Jüdische Homiletik, pp. 47-48. 96. See Rappoport's hebräische Briefe, part I, p. 128. 97. This has been rightly stressed by Simon Bernfeld, Michael Sachs, Me'oracot liayyav u-feculato ha-sifrutit (Berlin, 1900), p. 15. 98. See Michael Sachs und Moritz Veit Briefwechsel, p. 25. 99. Ibid., pp. 8 - 1 0 . 100. Ibid., p. 9. ι ο ί . Ibid., pp. 8-9. 102. " Z u r Charakteristik des Judenthums, seiner Lehre und seiner Lehrer," Kalender und Jahrbuch für Israeliten auf das Jahr (ed. Isidor Busch), 2 : 1 7 5 - 1 8 6 (Vienna, 1843). 103. See Briefwechsel, pp. 66-67. 104. Sachs had read this chapter in the manuscript to Rapoport and had won his warm approval. See Briefwechsel, p. 73.

The New Style of Preaching

85

Sachs now " l i v e d " in the world of Midrash 1 0 5 was bound to express itself in his preaching. In contrast to Abraham Geiger, who saw in rabbinic exegesis a regrettable aberration, 1 0 6 he was able to appreciate the sense of piety manifested in the midrashic way of interpreting Scripture as an ever-present guide to life. 1 0 7 Midrash, as distinct from normative halakah, had been the veritable domain of popular teaching and had served the

purpose of "edification" (Erbauung) and "elevation" (Erhebung).108 Sachs's posthumously published sermons, 1 0 9 though based on Biblical texts throughout, indeed make ample use of rabbinic material. Talmudic and midrashic texts are skillfully interwoven with the exposition and help to introduce a traditional flavor. Passages of a decidedly mystical nature are interpreted in a rational sense and thus integrated into the prevalent tenor of the sermon. A few examples will illustrate the point. T h e statement

{Gen. R. 47:6), " T h e patriarchs are the merkabah," means: T h e patriarchs founded the kingdom of a higher life in the world ; they are the carriers of the highest thoughts: that is, the knowledge of G o d (I, 241). — R a b b i Akiba's warning: " W h e n you come to the place of the pure marble plates, do not say 'Water! W a t e r ! ' " (Hagigah 14b)—a reference to the dangers facing the mystic in his ascent 1 1 0 —is interpreted as a warning not to consider the fundamental pillars of the faith as subject to the flux of change (I, 349-350). — T h e haggadic motif (Baba Bathra 16b) of the pearl worn by Abraham hanging from his neck and, when he was about to die, fixed upon the sphere of the sun is said to refer to his wisdom (see Proverbs 1:9), his most noble conviction openly confessed; when he died, his example had not been in vain; it did not become invisible and powerless. He had taught others to look up to heaven to draw courage and joy from those mysterious realms above (I, 202-203). Sachs's concern with Midrash and Haggadah is not merely the historian's interest in documents of the past. It evinces his desire to revive the true " s p i r i t " of Judaism, which he sees throttled by a misconceived enlightenment. In Midrash and Haggadah he sees an expression of a living spirit interpreting the present in the light of the past and integrating the past into 105. See Briefwechsel, p. 25. 106. See Sachs's refutation of Geiger's view in Die religiöse Poesie, pp. 160-163. 107. See Die religiöse Poesie, pp. 148fr. 108. Ibid., p. 159. 109. Predigten von Michael Sachs, ed. David Rosin, vol. I (Berlin, 1867); vol. II (Berlin, 1869). 110. See Gershom G . Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1946), pp. 52—53 ; idem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition (New York, i960), pp. 14-16.

Alexander

86

Altmann

the present. Imbued with this view of the " o r g a n i c " character of the Jewish tradition, he is not content to use the old texts, Biblical and rabbinic, merely as convenient proof texts to support some current opinion but senses in them the authentic power of the Jewish spirit. 1 1 1 Whether his own reading of midrashic and haggadic texts is correct may in many cases be doubted. T h e specimens just quoted negate such an assumption. Y e t what matters to Sachs is the freedom of the Jewish spirit in every age to project itself into the past and to mould the past in the image of the present. T o him, the " s p i r i t " is " t h e vehicle for the free, creative interpretation of traditional religion by those who are neither stagnant nor blind and misled by a falsely understood enlightenment." 1 1 2 Unlike Mannheimer, whose concept of the " S p i r i t " reflects a revivalist theology, Sachs is obviously influenced by Hegel's notion of the " S p i r i t of G o d in His comm u n i t y . " 1 1 3 His letters to Veit (1839) mention his preoccupation with Hegel and quote the Hegelian phrase Geist des Herrn in seiner Gemeinde as being no less Jewish than Christian. 1 1 4 In one of his sermons Sachs speaks of " t h e Spirit of G o d offered to us as a free expression of the innermost life, as the free, living movement within the circle of Teaching."

115

God's

His attitude to rabbinic literature and the use he makes of it

in the sermon are thus geared to a definite philosophy, however vaguely conceived. T h e y certainly do not represent a naïve return to the older sermonic practice. T h e position is somewhat different in the case of Adolf Jellinek, the celebrated preacher of Vienna who succeeded Mannheimer. 1 1 6 A prolific scholar in the fields of Midrash and Qabbalah, he excelled in the art of weaving an abundance of quotations from Biblical and rabbinic sources into the texture of his sermons. His associative memory and the skillfulness of his interpretations, wedded to his oratorical brilliance, single him out as the most fascinating preacher of the period. In him Jewish homiletics as advocated by Zacharias Frankel certainly came into its own. Many of his sermons are mosaics of citations from the most variegated fields of Jewish literature without even indications of the sources except in footi n . See the highly enthusiastic letter to Veit (March

17, 1840) in

Briefwechsel,

ΡΡ· 33-37112. See Predigten, I, 245. 113. See Hegel's Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, vol. II (Berlin, 1832); 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1840), p. 191. 114. See Briefwechsel, pp. 16, 19, 23. 115. See Predigten, I, 170. 116. See Moses Rosenmann, Dr. Adolf Jellinek: Sein Leben und Schaffen (Vienna,

1931)·

The New Style of Preaching

87

notes to the printed editions. In a sense, they continue the process of free midrashic production by giving novel and unexpected turns of meaning to the texts quoted. In terms of their strong Jewish flavor they are poles apart from the sermons of the early nineteenth century and its later survivals. 1 1 7 3 . EDIFICATION AS THE PURPOSE OF THE SERMON

Throughout the nineteenth century Jewish preachers subscribed to the concept of edification (Erbauung) as the main purpose of the sermon. With it were linked such subsidiary notions as instruction (Belehrung), solace (Trost), enthusiasm (Begeisterung), and, above all, elevation (Erhebung), the latter being often used as almost synonymous with edification. Under Hegelian influence the term Erhebung acquired a specific connotation which tended to supersede the validity of elevation as the true end of preaching. Some prominent Jewish preachers (Sachs, Holdheim, Geiger, Joel) reflect this tendency without, however, discarding the concept of edification. At the end of the century, Maybaum sums up the purpose of the sermon as the "sentiment of edification," in which preacher and congregation jointly experience a sense of happy "connection" (Zusammenhang) with G o d . 1 1 8 The term "edification" is a New Testament coinage and a key notion in Christian homiletics. Its acceptance by the Jewish preachers was facilitated by the fact that eighteenth-century Aufklärung theology had gradually emptied this concept of its specifically Christian connotation and invested it with a meaning which involved no conflict. T h e eighteenthcentury development of this concept is therefore of paramount interest for an understanding of the significance it came to have for the Jewish preachers in search of a formula adequate to their purposes. The New Testament passages concerned speak of edification (oikodome) as the " b u i l d i n g " of a "holy temple": those who are "fellow-citizens with the saints" are "builded together" in God " f o r an habitation of God through the Spirit" (Ephesians 2 : 1 9 - 2 2 ) . One may " e d i f y " another by preaching the kingdom of God (Romans 1 4 : 1 9 ) and by seeking his good (Romans 1 5 : 2 ) . Through him that prophesies " t h e Church may receive 1 1 7 . Jellinek's strong sense of Jewish nationalism blended with the ideal of Humanität is attested to both in his sermons and his Der jüdische Stamm: Ethnographische Studien (Vienna, 1869). In a sense, he preached a pre-Zionist humanistic Zionism (see, e.g., his sermons on " Z i o n , " published in Predigten, part 2 [Vienna, 1863], pp. 155ft., 167ft'.). For other tendencies in his sermons see below. Page 1 1 4 . 1 1 8 . See his Jüdische Homiletik, p. 26.

88

Alexander Altmann

edifying" (I Corinthians 14:5). "Edification" becomes a technical term in the Pietist movement, initiated by Philip Jacob Spener (1635-1705). Mutual edification (aedificatio mutua) was introduced in 1670 at Spener's devotional meetings (collegia pietatis), which were considered more salutary than listening to sermons. 1 1 9 The stress on edification led, however, to a new conception of the sermon. In his Pia Desideria (1675) Spener advocated a reform of preaching in the direction of edification in order to counteract the excessive rationalism which had become rampant in the pulpit. The edificatory sermon in its extreme form was developed by Nicolaus Ludwig Count von Zinzendorf (1700-60), founder of the "Herrenhuter Brüdergemeinde." His mystical-sensuous language and the eruptive, enthusiastic nature of his utterances testify to a sense of charismatic experience. 120 His emphasis on feeling influenced Schleiermacher, and his inspirational theory of preaching was echoed by Claus Harms. 1 2 1 T o the Jewish preachers in the nineteenth century Pietism in its excessive form was utter anathema. 1 2 2 T h e pietistic trend in preaching was strongly contested by the theology of Aufklärung. Mosheim took issue with the Spener school and created a type of edificatory sermon different from Spener's. In his Anweisung erbaulich zu predigen (1763) he defined the purpose of preaching as twofold: (1) to confirm and enlarge the congregation's understanding (Erkenntnis) of religion, and (2) to awaken and encourage it toward a zeal and increase 1 1 9 . On the " m a n y quarrels and controversies" raised by the Pietists' plea for replacing the sermon by catechisms, Biblical exegesis, and devotional hours (Erbauungsstunden) see Mosheim, Anweisung, p. 30. 120. See the account in Schuler, Geschichte, part I I I (1794), p. 1 2 . 1 2 1 . C f . H a r m s ' s lecture entitled " M i t Z u n g e n ! ! liebe Brüder, mit Z u n g e n r e d e n ! " which describes the sermon as a work of inspiration, as influxus spiritus sancti (Ausgewählte Schriften, I I , 395). His treatise " D a s s es mit der Vernunftreligion nichts i s t " ( 1 8 1 9 ) attacked the view that regarded the sermon as a means of conveying knowledge (Ausgewählte Schriften, I, 3 0 1 - 3 7 0 ) . Harms's inspirational theory of the sermon is foreshadowed in Novalis, " A u f z e i c h n u n g e n zu einer Abhandlung über die P r e d i g t , " Briefe und Werke (Berlin, 1943), vol. I I I , Die Fragmente, pp. 2 8 1 - 2 8 4 ) : " P r e d i g t e n enthalten Betrachtungen G o t t e s — u n d Experimente Gottes. Jede Predigt ist eine Inspirationswirkung—eine Predigt kann nur, muss genialisch sein [936].—Predigten müssen Assoziationen göttlicher Inspirationen, himmlische Anschauungen sein [ 9 3 7 ] . — D e r Prediger muss zuerst E n t h u siasmus zu erregen suchen, denn dies ist das Element der Religion. Jedes Wort muss klar, heiss und herzlich sein . . . [943].—Der heilige Geist ist mehr als die Bibel. E r soll unser L e h r e r des Christentums sein—und nicht toter, irdischer, zweideutiger Buchstabe [944]." 1 2 2 . Michael Sachs (Briefwechsel, p. 48) speaks of "Pietisten und augenverdrehende L ü g n e r . " Pietism was rejected chiefly as a reactionary force in politics. Philipp Ehrenberg, writing to L e o p o l d Z u n z ( 1 8 3 5 ) , expects nothing good from the Puritans in England and the Pietists in Prussia. See Leopold and Adelheid Zunz, An Account in Letters 1815-1885, ed. N a h u m N . Glatzer (London, 1958), p. 87. Heinrich Graetz (Geschichte der Juden, X I , 1 8 1 ) speaks with contempt of Herrenhuterei.

The New Style of Preaching in the blissful state of soul called Gottseligkeit ultimate goal is Gottseligkeit.

89

(happiness in God). T h e

T h i s term does not denote a mere state of

pious emotion, nor is it " f a i t h " in the Lutheran sense, but it indicates " h o l i n e s s " as the state of grace. 1 2 3 Edification leading to

Gottseligkeit

concerns both the intellect and the will. " T h e will is edified when a good resolution is either entered into or, having existed before, is strengthened and confirmed." 1 2 4 In order to edify the will the preacher has to arouse the emotions by a vivid portrayal of the subject matter. 1 2 5 T h e arousal of emotions is clearly not an end in itself but merely a way of moving the will. Mosheim distinguishes between the arousal or " a w a k e n i n g " of those still in a state of corrupted nature and those already partaking of grace. T h e former will as a result of edification enter the state of grace. T h e y will be edified in the sense of the N e w Testament meaning of the term: " p u t t i n g on the new man." T h e latter will be encouraged to grow in

Gottseligkeit,

edification in this case meaning " t o build a house on a groundwork already laid."

126

T h e edificatory sermon as understood by Mosheim has a thor-

oughly Christian character. It is meant to create the Christian state of grace and to confirm it in the converted. It does, however, not imply the operation of supranatural grace upon the emotions. It is the preacher's art and it alone which moves the will. T h e pietistic doctrine is clearly discarded. 1 2 7 Moreover, Mosheim's homiletical theory already tends in the direction of the moralizing sermon. It describes the edification of intellect and will in terms of their " i m p r o v e m e n t . " " H e who preaches wants to improve or edify . . . the intellect and will of his listeners." 1 2 8 T h i s term foreshadows the moralistic interpretation of the term "edification" which became prominent in the latter part of the eighteenth century. Mosheim's doctrine broke the pietistic monopoly of the concept of edification by adopting this term for a definition of the Christian sermon as such. His theory was taken up by Christian Friedrich Engelmann in his Versuch einer Theorie über die Erbauung (Breslau and Leipzig, 1771). From 123. See Mosheim, Anweisung, p. 12. Gottseligkeit and Heiligkeit (p. 13) are almost synonymous terms. In his sermon " D a s s die Gottseligen klüger seyn als die S ü n d e r " (Sämmtliche Heilige Reden . . . II, no. X I I I , pp. 613-662), Mosheim says: " E i n Gottseliger ist ein Mensch, der sich durch die Gnade Gottes innerlich bekehren lassen, der durch diese K r a f t der Gnaden sein Fleisch gekreuzigt hat samt den Lüsten und Begierden" (p. 620). 124. Anweisung, pp. 13, i78ff. 125. Ibid., pp. i84ff. 126. Ibid., pp. 13-14. 127. See Mosheim's reference (p. 30) to the Collegia pietatis. 128. Anweisung, p. 16.

Alexander Altmann

90

now on every treatise and manual on homiletics in Protestant literature in Germany will define preaching in terms of its edificatory purpose, and these publications will differ only in the interpretation of this term. Of the numerous tracts published in the period from 1771 down to Palmer's Evangelische Homiletik (1842) 1 2 9 we shall mention only a few as specimens of prevailing trends of development. Like Mosheim, Johann Friedrich Teller tends toward the moralizing sermon. His Theorie der christlichen Beredsamkeit (Leipzig, 1774) sees the dual purpose of the sermon in the "improvement" of the intellect and the will. The sermon "wants to make the whole man wiser and more virtuous." It will achieve this goal by "moving" the listener, provided the effect is a lasting one. " I n short," the sermon is to " e d i f y " the congregation, which means to "pull down the old edifice and establish a new one in its place"; in other words, "to make man into a temple of God in which God's Spirit dwells." This, however, can be done only "with the help of God's cooperation," which is "indispensable" to the preacher. "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it" (Psalm 1 2 7 : 1 ) . 1 3 0 It is interesting to see how both Mosheim and Teller wish to preserve the Christian character of edification by invoking the New Testament imagery, supported in Teller's case by an ingenious exegesis of Psalm 1 2 7 : 1 . Moral "improvement" is given a spiritual quality. It becomes the state of grace. While Mosheim, strangely enough, attributes the salvational effect to the preacher's art, Teller emphasizes the need for Divine cooperation. There is a Calvinist ring in his reference to making "the whole man" better and to the need of "pulling down" the old edifice. These theological references cannot, however, conceal the growing trend toward pure rationalism. They no longer express a predominantly theological orientation nor are they testimonies to a full-blooded religious experience. They bear a rather shadowy character and could be construed to signify mere metaphors of man's moral improvement. The Jewish preachers obviously regarded them in this light when, in the nineteenth century, they adopted the current notion of edification. They believed they could safely ignore its theological implications, such as the Christian doctrine of the Fall and of grace. The moralistic interpretation of edification received a decisive stimulus from Johann Joachim Spalding, the eminent representative of the Berlin theology of Aufklärung. In attacking the Pietist notion of edification, his 129. See above, Note I. 130. See pp. 44-49.

The New Style of Preaching

91

Gedanken über den Werth der Gefühle in dem Christenthum131 made the point that the moral conscience and its sentiments (Empfindungen) are the sole evidence of the manifestation of God's Spirit in man. 1 3 2 The emotions (Regungen) of love, terror, shame, desire, doubt, trust, and joy, which are involved in the religious experience of conversion, are the work of the uniform Divine Power operating upon the conscience. It is the moral faculty of the soul which is awakened and vivified by the influence of the Divine Spirit. The diversity of feelings is due to the differences of individual temperament and to the play of the imagination. 133 Spalding denies the value of feelings unrelated to the moral edification of man. This view has an important bearing on the evaluation of preaching. In one of his sermons 134 Spalding explains that edification is to be measured by the fruits it produces. Edification means our moral improvement, by which alone we become pleasing in the eyes of God and achieve a state of mind (Gemüthsverfassung) characterized by peace of soul, contentedness, and hope. 135 A sermon which creates an enduring moral disposition may be called edificatory (erbaulich).136 Spalding's view of the sermon is expressed on similar lines in his Über die Nutzbarkeit des Predigtamtes und ihre Beförderung (1772). His writings were still popular in the early part of the nineteenth century. Moses Mendelssohn's preoccupation with Spalding's Bestimmung des Menschen in response to Thomas Abbt's request 137 helped to enhance the Christian theologian's prestige among the Jews. 1 3 8 His doctrine of the purpose and character of preaching must, therefore, be reckoned among the formative influences upon the Jewish sermon. In 1785 there appeared Immanuel Kant's Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, to be followed in 1788 by his Kritik der praktischen Vernunft and in 1793 by his Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft. The impact of Kant's moral and religious philosophy on homiletics can be traced immediately in Johann Wilhelm Schmid's Anleitung zum 1 3 1 . Leipzig, 1761 ; fifth edition, 1787; English translation by Arthur B. Evans under the title Thoughts on the Value of Feelings in Religion (London, 1827). 132. See preface to the second edition (1764), p. xvi. 133. Ibid., pp. xix-xx. 134. On the theme " V o n dem, was erbaulich ist" in Neue Predigten, II (Berlin, 1784), 87-122. 135. Ibid., pp. 92-93. 136. Ibid., p. 105. 137. See Moses Mendelssohn's gesammelte Schriften, ed. G. B. Mendelssohn, V (Leipzig, 1844), 279-408. 138. Evidence of Spalding's popularity among Jews may be seen in Gotthold Salomon's paraphrase (see above, Page 71).

92

Alexander Altmann

populären Kanzelvortrag,139 which defines edification as "the promotion of moral improvement in the spirit of the religion of Jesus." T h e preacher must "guide the listeners toward correct moral principles" which imply respect (Achtung) for the moral law and the preponderance of the moral viewpoint over the inclinations {Neigungen).140 From the fairly large body of Kant-inspired works on homiletics 1 4 1 we may also mention Johann Friedrich Wilhelm Thym's Historisch-kritisches Lehrbuch der Homiletik (Halle, 1800). It considers morality as " t h e chief purpose of all preaching." T o teach religion is to "present the laws of practical reason as divine precepts." Hence "improvement is and remains the principal part of true edification." 1 4 2 There is, however, still another aspect to edification. T h e edificatory sermon not only perfects morality but also "awakens devotional feelings" {Andachtsgefühle).143 This introduces a pietistic element into the definition of the purpose of preaching. T h e emotional element is, however, not an end in itself, as is the case in Pietism. It is subordinated to the moral purpose as a means toward it. 1 4 4 Herein, too, T h y m follows the lead given by Kant. For Kant, devotion {Andacht) and the emotion {Rührung) accompanying it have meaning as leading toward moral improvement or edification. They help to attune the mind to the adoption of moral principles. Hence edification is the result of devotion, not identical with it. Kant derides the Pietists, who "believe themselves tremendously edified [erbaut] . . . while absolutely nothing has been built [gebauet], yea, where no hand has been put to the work." Edification as moral improvement becomes actual only if man, on the basis of firm principles squaring with well-understood concepts, "builds up a new man as a temple of G o d . " This " b u i l d i n g " can progress but slowly. It will not rise by itself, like the walls of Thebes, to the music of sighs and yearning wishes. 1 4 5 T h y m adopted this view of edification as the combined result of Andacht and moral effort. Erbauung and Andacht henceforth appear frequently together as the purposes of preaching, although, strictly speak1 3 9 . Part I (Jena, 1 7 8 7 ) ; 2nd ed. (1795). 140. See 2nd ed., part I, pp. 2, 4 - 5 . 1 4 1 . In 1796 (1798) there had already appeared C . W. Flügge's Versuch einer historischkritischen Darstellung des bisherigen Einflusses der Kantischen Philosophie auf alle Zweige der Wissenschaft und praktischen Theologie (Hannover, 2 parts). A volume of Predigten nach Kantischen Grundsätzen was published in Königsberg (1794). 142. See pp. 9 0 - 9 1 . 1 4 3 . Ibid., p. 92. 144. "Improvement is and remains the principal part of true edification. . . " (ibid., pp. 92-93). 1 4 5 . Immanuel K a n t , Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, 2nd enlarged ed. (Königsberg, 1794), in Werke, ed. Cassirer, V I , 3 4 9 - 3 5 0 .

The New Style of Preaching

93

ing, they are not coordinated but related to each other as means and end. By admitting devotional feeling as an integral, though subordinate, part of the purpose of the sermon, T h y m , like Kant before him, paid a tribute to Pietism. He must have felt that the promotion of morality alone did not suffice as a raison d'être of preaching. Something more specifically religious was called for as an additional, albeit subsidiary, purpose. Devotional feeling seemed to supply the want. Y e t on close inspection this undefined feeling turns out to be somewhat vague and barren. Being denied the full-blooded life of the Pietist religious experience

and

being made wholly subservient to moral ends without anchorage in theological doctrine, it is bereft of any substance of its own. It is this kind of pure feeling which becomes the locus of mere "sighs yearning wishes,"

which

Kant

and

diagnosed in the Pietists but which

soon turned out to be even more pronounced in the romantics, as Hegel pointed out. In his Phänomenologie des Geistes (1807) Hegel characterized romantic religion as " b a d subjectivity" or " u n h a p p y consciousness," in which the mind {Geist) is unfree and as yet unrealized. In this state man is dominated by a sense of feeling which has itself as the object of this feeling. Sublime words like "eternal," " h o l y , " " i n f i n i t e " exercise an elevating power over him precisely because they are devoid of conceptual content. Whereas the Middle Ages and the scholasticism of seventeenth-century Enlightenment still possessed a " H e a v e n with an ample wealth of ideas and images," the eighteenth-century theology of Aufklärung had shrunk to mere shades and shells of concepts. In this impoverished state the mind, like a wanderer in the desert yearning for a mere drink of water, seemed to long for but a feeling of the Divine in order to revive itself. He w h o seeks to escape the vanity of the Finite is left with only a yearning for a vacuous Beyond, and thus religion is driven back upon mere feeling. " Religion builds in the heart of the individual its temple and altars, and sighing and prayers seek the G o d whose contemplation it denies itself." Knowledge and faith are replaced by edification. Viewed in this light, edification appears as purely subjective, unsubstantial and inferior to knowledge and faith. 1 4 6 By the same token, the common type of devotion (Andacht) is rejected by Hegel. In it, " o n e

146. See G e o r g Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Phänomenologie des Geistes, ed. Johann Hoffmeister, in Sämtliche Werke, V (Hamburg, 1952), 1 3 - 1 4 ; Dokumente zu Hegel's Entwicklung, ed. Johann Hoffmeister (Stuttgart, 1936), p. 364; cf. the account in Otto Pöggeler's Hegels Kritik der Romantik (Bonn, 1956), pp. 43, 103-106 and passim. See also my article, " Z u r Frühgeschichte . . . , " pp. 35-37.

94

Alexander Altmann

rises above finitude and forgets it; but by forgetting it one has not really canceled i t . " 1 4 7 T h e devotion of the " u n h a p p y consciousness" is mere An-dacht, that is, a mere approach to thinking, as it were (es geht sozusagen nur an das Denken hin) ; it remains " a musical thinking which fails to achieve conceptuality." 1 4 8 By way of contrast, the truly devout (der

Andächtige)

"immerses himself with his heart, his devotion, his will in his object so that at this highest point of devotion he has canceled the separation that prevails at the stage of consciousness." 1 4 9 Hegel himself did not evolve a theory of preaching, but his philosophy of religion furnished the elements from which such a theory could be constructed. O f relevance in this respect are his notion of " e l e v a t i o n " (Erhebung) and of the Kultus as the means whereby the finite spirit becomes conscious of its oneness with the absolute Spirit. Hegel defines religion as " t h e knowledge of the divine Spirit of itself by the mediation of the finite s p i r i t . " 1 5 0 T h i s involves two aspects: the activity of the divine Spirit as knowing itself in the finite spirit, and the activity of the finite spirit as knowing itself essentially one with the absolute Spirit. In the Kultus the finite spirit becomes conscious of its essence: that is, of its oneness with the absolute Spirit. T h e relation of God, the absolute Spirit, to the finite spirit is G o d ' s revelation to man. Correspondingly, the relation of the finite spirit to G o d is realized in the Kultus, in which man's elevation to G o d takes place. Religion comprises both aspects: it is G o d ' s moving toward man and man's moving toward God. In elevating itself to G o d , the spirit exercises its freedom. Man recognizes in everything accidental and finite something infinite and necessary. A s he finds no satisfaction in the accidental nature of things, he elevates himself from the finite to the Absolute. In the Kultus Hegel sees therefore a conversion of the spirit, a return to the Absolute. In it the alienation which the consciousness experiences as soon as it awakens is being healed. M a n relinquishes his isolation and finds his true self in the general. He liberates himself from the vanity of the finite and elevates himself to himself in truth. 1 5 1 T h i s elevation demands a price: that is, the sacrificial abandonment of the finite, the annihilation of mere individuality. Y e t in the Kultus such sacrifice becomes an 147. See Hegel's Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, vol. I (Berlin, 1832); 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1840), p. 122. 148. See Hegel, Phänomenologie des Geistes, p. 163. 149· See Hegel's Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, II, 195. 150. See Hegel's Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, I, 216. 151. T h e above account is indebted to the discussion of Hegel's doctrine in Johann Werner, Hegels Offenbarungsbegriff (Leipzig, 1887), pp. 43-48.

The New Style of Preaching

95

object of supreme enjoyment. For in it man experiences the reconciliation of his finite spirit with the Absolute. 1 5 2 In his Grundlegung der Homiletik

(1811) Philipp Konrad Marheineke,

the outstanding theologian of the Hegel school, elaborated his master's views from a homiletical viewpoint. " A l l priestly life and activity is borne upon the idea of sacrifice . . . sacrifice is the soul of priesthood. . . For to sacrifice is but to consecrate what is transient and mere appearance to the eternal and primordial." T h r o u g h the act of sacrifice reconciliation is effected. 1 5 3 Edification is interpreted as the reconciliation between G o d and man in the sense in which Hegel had understood this term. T h i s reconciliation, which, again following Hegel, is seen to be expressed in Christ as the God-man, forms " t h e one and only ever-recurrent and inexhaustible theme of the Christian s e r m o n " ; it is the ground " u p o n which a temple of G o d is to be built in every sermon." T h e preacher's task is not teaching (for he is not concerned with ignorance) nor producing the sentiment of Rührung (being moved), but edification in the sense of reconciliation. 1 5 4 T h e Christological element comes back also with full force in Schleiermacher's sermons and theory of homiletics. Notwithstanding his intimate concern with philosophy and the philosophical interpretation of religion, his sermons are imbued with a thoroughly Christian piety. T h e y are intended solely for the "joint edification" {gemeinsame Erbauung) of Christians qua Christians. A s Alexander Schweizer's penetrating account of Schleiermacher as a preacher has it, " H e wanted to address his community as brethren so as to develop their Christian consciousness, not to found it j he wanted to show it to them, to purify and strengthen, not to impart it to them as something n e w . " 1 5 5 T h e morality which he preached was not philosophical but Christian morality. Preaching, therefore, was to him not an exercise in moral improvement but was meant to communicate the preacher's own personal sense of piety. Schleiermacher defined the sermon as a "testifying to one's own experience so as to arouse in others a desire to have the same kind of experience."

156

A s for edification, it is " t h e

awakening and vivification of the pious consciousness," and it is based 152. See Hegel, Phänomenologie des Geistes, pp. 498-502. 153. See Philipp [Konrad] Marheineke, Grundlegung der Homiletik in einigen Vorlesungen über den wahren Charakter eines protestantischen Geistlichen (Hamburg, 1811), pp. 12-13. 154. Ibid., pp. 58, 81-87. 155. See Schweizer, Schleiermachers Wirksamkeit als Prediger, p. 13. 156. See Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, trans. H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart (Edinburgh, 1928), p. 69.

96

Alexander

Altmann

upon the communication of the pious self-consciousness reflecting upon itself (Mitteilung des zum Gedanken gewordenen frommen seins).151

Selbstbewusst-

Finally, in Claus Harms's view of the sermon the

Aufklärung

approach is radically discarded. Reason is not the organ of religion. Only what comes from the heart goes to the heart. T h e Christian preacher must be oriented toward the Christian salvational order (Heilsordnung). His experience of inspiration and of love determines the sermon. Before he can edify others, he has to be edified first himself. 1 5 8 In all definitions of Erbauung the concept of edification is based on the N e w Testament meaning of the term. T h i s semantic approach is responsible for the stress on the final achievement of the sermon: that is, the " b u i l d i n g u p " of the new man as a lasting effect. T h e emphasis on the true end and purpose of the sermon does not, however, obliterate the more colloquial meaning of the word Erbauung as " e n j o y m e n t " of a sublime kind. Nor is this particular meaning ignored or lost sight of. O n closer inspection it will be found to be either implied Or articulated in some way. It is assumed as a potent factor in the " m u t u a l edification" cultivated by the Pietists. T h e collegia pietatis develop edification to a fine art of spiritual enjoyment of an individualistic character, and the Pietist sermon follows suit. T h e edificatory quality (Erbaulichkeit) assumes a highly subjective note. T h e German verb erbauen is from now on used with a reflexive pronoun: sich erbauen,159

T h i s expression clearly indicates a sense of

enjoyment. Mosheim's term Gottseligkeit likewise signifies more than the objective achievement of the state of grace. It implies also the subjective element of Seligkeit (bliss, happiness). T h e theologians of Aufklärung

seem

to leave little scope for edification in the sense of enjoyment when they define this term in purely moralistic fashion. Yet they obviously regard moral edification as yielding a noble kind of spiritual satisfaction and uplift of soul. Even Kant, for all his rigorous emphasis on duty as opposed to the inclinations, speaks of the " m o r a l enthusiasm" (sittliche Begeisterung) which the sermon is meant to arouse, and describes devotion (Andacht) as the "subjective aspect " o f the effect of the moral idea. 1 6 0 T h e romantics' indulgence in " b a d subjectivity" certainly produced a type of edification amounting to self-enjoyment. A s for Hegel, the element of enjoyment is 157. Quoted by Schweizer, Schleiermachers Wirksamkeit als Prediger, p. 61, from Schleiermacher's Darstellung des theologischen Studiums, §§ 279-280. 158. See the account in Rössler, " Z w i s c h e n Rationalismus und Erweckung," pp. 64, 66, 70. 159. C f . the article " Erbauung," Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3rd ed., pp. 538ff. 160. See Kant, Die Religion innerhalb . . ., pp. 348 (note), 349.

The New Style of Preaching

97

seen as a characteristic feature of the cultus: in the sacrifice of mere subjectivity which is the essence of the Kultus the people achieve the highest degree of self-enjoyment. As we have seen, Marheineke made this view fruitful for an understanding of what edification through the sermon means. We may add that he describes the "power of the Word" uttered by the preacher as " instructive, regenerative, and imparting a sense of blissfulness [beseligend]." 161 This aspect of enjoyableness as the psychological secret of Erbauung was given its due emphasis in Palmer's Evangelische Homiletik. In his view, an analysis of edification has to proceed from the semantic value of the word as used in current speech, not from its original meaning in the New Testament. Consequently, the purpose of the sermon will be found to lie not merely in the ultimate fruits (regeneration, improvement) it is to produce but also in the present enjoyment it offers. " N o t just the factual transformation, renewal and promotion of the spiritual life but the very enjoyment of the food which the word of God offers us in the sermon is edification." Even those whom the sermon will fail to "awaken" to a new life may still be "edified" by it. 162 This is an important observation. It explains the peculiar attraction which the sermon may have even for those who will not be converted by it. The fascination it holds is described as due to the fact that there is an element of sheer enjoyment in a good sermon. In a deeper sense, the enjoyment consists in the exhilarating effect of hearing the truth of the Scriptures expressed through the living personality of the preacher. 163 Palmer's homiletical theory broke new ground in the understanding of the nature of edification by articulating what had been vaguely felt before. In a sense, he de-Christianized the definition of Erbauung by reverting to the colloquial meaning of the term as "enjoyment" rather than "building u p " the new man. The Jewish preachers in the early nineteenth century were well aware of the various shades of meaning attaching to the term "edification." This is attested to by the far from uniform manner in which they speak about the concept of Erbauung. We hear echoes of Mosheim's discussion of the subject in David Fränkel's review of Jewish preaching in 1815, when he refers to the sermon as "highly salutary and necessary for the awakening [Erweckung] and vivification [Belebung] of religious virtues and 1 6 1 . Quoted by Palmer, Evangelische Homiletik, p. 673, from Marheineke's Entwurf der protestantischen Theologie, §§ 341—345. 162. See Palmer, Evangelische Homiletik, pp. 673-676. 163. Ibid., pp. 25-27, 688-720.

98

Alexander Altmann

for the promotion of morality." 164 The term Gottseligkeit, which, according to Mosheim, denotes the ultimate purpose of the edificatory sermon, occurs not infrequently in Jewish speech. Here it is understood as identical with either moral virtue or piety. Kley preached on "Gottseligkeit and virtue" 1 6 5 and treated as synonyms the "exhortation toward the good, encouragement toward virtue, and spur toward a way of life that is gottselig." 1 6 6 Mannheimer, on the other hand, preached Gottseligkeit in the sense of piety. 167 It may be noted that Moses Mendelssohn had already used the term in connection with the concept of edification. 168 Moral "improvement," which from Mosheim onward figured so prominently in the discussion of our topic, was likewise a recurrent theme in Jewish accounts of the purpose of the sermon. As late as 1841 G. Philippson could still sum up the aim of the sermon as "the improvement of the individual through edification." 169 It was the setting up of this goal which produced the moralizing type of sermon. In the Jewish social and political context "improvement" was, however, considered as a concern not merely of the individual. In the struggle for emancipation it came to signify the effort toward raising the moral level of the Jewish people as a prelude to "civil improvement" (bürgerliche Verbesserung). Dohm's famous treatise had blamed the oppression to which the Jews had been subjected as responsible for their moral degeneracy. 170 Mendelssohn had rejected the charge of moral inferiority, 171 but in the ensuing struggle for civil equality the Jews were eager to raise their moral, social, and cultural standards. "Improvement" or "ennoblement" (Veredelung) thus became a prominent 164. Sulamith, I V , part I I : 2 4 1 . 165. "Gottseligkeit und T u g e n d , sie haben ewige J u g e n d , " in Blätter der Erinnerung (Hamburg, 1844), quoted by Kayserling, Bibliothek, I, 57. 166. See Kayserling, Bibliothek, I, 88. 167. Ibid., I, 305, 308. 168. Interestingly enough, Mendelssohn gave both terms a somewhat pietistic flavor. See his Jerusalem oder über religiose Macht und Judentum (Berlin, 1783), section ι , pp. 9 4 - 9 5 : " I n der T h a t , die wesentlichste Absicht religiöser Gesellschaften ist gemeinschaftliche Erbauung. M a n will durch die Zauberkraft der Sympathie die Wahrheit aus dem Geist in das Herz übertragen, die zuweilen todte Vernunfterkenntniss durch Theilnehmung zu hohen Empfindnissen beleben. Wenn das Herz allzusehr an sinnlichen Lüsten klebt . . . so werde es hier vom Schauer der Gottseligkeit ergriffen, und lerne Freuden höherer Art kennen, die auch hienieden schon den sinnlichen Freuden die Wage h a l t e n " (emphasis supplied). See also p. 92; section 2, p. 27. 169. Literaturblatt des Orients, 1 8 4 1 , no. 6, p. 77. 170. See Christian Wilhelm D o h m , Uber die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden, part I (Berlin, 1 7 8 1 ) ; part I I (Stettin, 1783). " D i e Geschichte zeigt, wie die J u d e n nur deshalb als Menschen und Bürger verderbt gewesen, weil man ihnen die Rechte beider versagt h a t " (I, 3 - 4 ) . C f . also pp. 92-97. 1 7 1 . In the preface to Manasseh Ben Israel, Rettung der Juden, Moses Mendelssohn's gesammelte Schriften, I I I , 1 8 2 - 1 8 3 .

The New Style of Preaching

99

topic in the pulpit. Zunz's sermons in particular stress the wider political aspect of this theme. 1 7 2 Moralizing preaching, though taking its cue from the Aufklärung sermon, is here fulfilling a specific function. The extent to which "improvement" came to denote a sociopolitical goal may be gauged from the fact that sermons sometimes stressed the need for occupational changes and pleaded with parents to give their children a training in agriculture and the handicrafts. 1 7 3 From the time of Mendelssohn onward this kind of change was constantly being advocated as a means toward creating healthier moral and social conditions. A reviewer in Fiirst's Annalen praised a sermon published by Leopold Schott, Rabbi of Randegg, because it urged the members of the congregation to effect such changes: "edification" was one thing, but it was not of lasting and practical value. It was necessary to implant the "true seed of improvement." 1 7 4 It is interesting to perceive the definition of edification as "improvement" in this critical remark. In addition to improvement, devotion (Andacht) was considered to be an essential purpose of the sermon. As in Christian homiletics, the interpretation of the value and character of Andacht varied. For Zunz this term denoted the very arcanum arcanorum of religion. It was not merely, as it had been for Kant, a state of mind attuned to the acceptance of moral principles but an end in itself. It bears all the features of romanticism which Hegel had analyzed. 1 7 5 T h e same is true of Kley's concept of devotion. In a sermon preached in 1821 he defined Andacht as the "nostalgia and yearning of the heart for its home [in heaven]." 1 7 6 In another sermon (on " H o w to achieve true devotion") he explained Andacht as the mind's recalling ([dar]an [ge]dacht) of God, as attention directed toward God. It is " t h e highest feeling in the human breast," a remembering of our " h o m e " (Heimat) in heaven, nay, our ability to feel being in heaven. This feeling is said to be denoted by the Hebrew term kawwanah and to constitute the worship of God par excellence. 177 Kley's semantic interpretation of An-dacht is reminiscent of Hegel's but, unlike his, it seeks to establish romantic devotion as the highest form of religion. In yet another context he described Andacht as the oil feeding the flame of prayer and as 172. See my article "Zur Frühgeschichte . . .," pp. 29-35. 173. See, e.g., L. Adler, Vorträge zur Förderung der Humanität (Kassel, 1860), pp. yiñ. 174. See Annalen (1840), p. 20. 175. See my article, " Z u r Frühgeschichte . . .," pp. 41-42. 176. See Kayserling, Bibliothek, I, 104. 177. See Eduard Kley, Predigt-Skizzen; Beiträge zu einer künftigen Homiletik, II (Leipzig, 1856), 85-86.

Alexander

100

Altmann

imparting a sense of consecration (Weihe). It is this sense of consecration which, in his view, constitutes the character of the religious life as distinct from " m e r e morality."

178

In a sermon preached at a synagogue conse-

cration service in 1823, K l e y connected the theme of Andacht with that of Erbauung and, like Teller before him, declared G o d to be the edifier in accordance with Psalm 127:1. " W h e n devotion prevails among the worshippers, they cannot leave the temple except enriched in holiness, piety, faith and in the fear of God. Where devotion prevails G o d builds up anew in the heart what the world, alas, so often tears down : the higher life is raised up, the spirit is elevated, the heart is healed and restored; man feels edified [erbaut]. Here G o d himself builds the house; for he builds the true temple, the temple of your hearts. In this way, this house [that is, the newly built synagogue] achieves its purpose ; otherwise, you have labored in vain who built it. Y o u will have 'built,' but you will not be ' e d i f i e d . ' " 1 7 9 T h i s passage comes extremely close to the Christian understanding of edification. It uses the N e w Testament image of edification as the building of a temple for the Spirit of God, and follows Teller's precedent in linking the theme with Psalm 127:1. T h e idea of God as the builder or edifier occurs also in the title of the homiletical journal Erbauungen oder Gottes Werk und Wort, edited by K l e y jointly with Giinsberg (Berlin, 1814-15). Mannheimer's view of Erbauung and Andacht flowed from his inspirational concept of preaching, which, we have noted, was indebted to Claus Harms. T r u e edification and devotion—the two were treated by him as practically synonymous—are possible only when the preacher's word is uttered and listened to as the word of God. T h e heart of man is likened to a " t e m p l e of devotion," and a "sacred fire" is seen to be lit upon its altar only by the glow of the Divine word. Where there is no ardor in the preacher nor a corresponding warmth in the congregation, Andacht becomes a mere Glockenspiel and empty pastime. 1 8 0 In a sermon describing " H a n n a h at prayer," Mannheimer sees the necessary precondition of all edification and true devotion in the heart's yearning for G o d as Hannah and the Psalmist (84:3) experienced it. T h e futility of preaching was in many cases due to the absence of a felt desire (Bediirfniss) to enter into communion (Seelenverkehr) with G o d and to regard the word of G o d as the " b r e a d of life." Mannheimer castigated those who, rather than listening to the preacher as God's messenger, preferred to see in him merely a good orator. In 178. Ibid., p. 343 ( " D i e Weihestunden des höheren L e b e n s " ) . 179. See Kayserling, Bibliothek, I, 79. r 80. See Mannheimer, Gottesdienstliche Vorträge, gehalten im israelitischen in Wien, part II (Breslau, 1885), 20-37, particularly p. 31.

Bethause

The New Style of Preaching

ιοί

such a f r a m e of m i n d an attitude of devotion will not arise, and prayer will be bereft of soul. 1 8 1 H o w deeply M a n n h e i m e r was concerned with Erbauung and Andacht as the essential elements of religion may be seen f r o m many of the opening prayers of his sermons. T h e y often seek to create the very atmosphere and tone of devotion by praying for it. T h e i r sincerity and beauty of language can be presumed to have produced the desired effect. A few examples will suffice to convey an impression of their quality : God who art enthroned in the heavens and powerfully rulest on earth; who hast ordered the times and ordained days and hours for Thy name's glory that we may announce Thy praise and hearken to Thy Divine word and receive Thy blessing on consecrated ground in an hour of grace—hallow Thou this hour in which we appear before Thee for the sake of the worship of Thy name, the illumination and edification of our spirit, the ennoblement and strengthening of our hearts, and the union of our souls in faith and love. Grant that it be a solemn, sacred hour, and that our work and deed be pleasing in Thine eyes. Grant that it be an hour of rest to the weary, and an hour of return to their Heavenly Father of those who have departed from Thy ways, O Lord ; a joyful hour of grateful recognition to the fortunate ones ; and a serene hour of heavenly comfort, spiritual strengthening and Divine consecration to the unfortunate and bereaved. . , 1 8 2 Once more I have entered this place which in anticipatory feeling of hours of holiness and bliss to come we have consecrated to devotion [Andacht] and happiness in God [Gottseligkeit] . . . in order to place before you and commend to your hearts the word of faith and love in this hour of grace and solemn peace of soul when all voices of men have ceased around us and God's voice is sounding within us in clearness and purity. . . May God in His mercy sanctify and bless His word in both you and me that it may issue forth and enter into you for salvation and for a blessing; granting me inner satisfaction and quietude, and helping you toward true illumination and edification for goodness; toward impelling and awakening of hearts and souls asleep . . . to be received in love and truth as it is offered you in love and truth. . , 1 8 3 T h e concern for Erbauung and Andacht which M a n n h e i m e r expressed with such nobility and depth of feeling was shared by all preachers. It epitomized the revolution in religious thinking which had occurred as a result of the breakdown of the ghetto and the cultural reorientation of G e r m a n Jewry. T h e edificatory sermon was part and parcel of a new type of divine service which cultivated Andacht and had to this end taken over 1 8 1 . See Kayserling, Bibliothek, I, 2 9 4 - 3 0 3 . 182. See Mannheimer, Gottesdienstliche Vorträge (1834), p. 3. 1 8 3 . Ibid., p. 57 (opening prayer of a Y o m K i p p u r sermon).

I02

Alexander

Altmann

certain features (organ music, communal singing of hymns in German) from the Protestant service. At its lowest level, Andacht was identified with decorum and dignity (Würde). T h e loud and often uncontrolled manner of praying which had for a long time provoked sarcastic comment by non-Jews was felt to be undignified and incompatible with true devotion. T h e sermonic literature of the period contains many pleas for Würde and Andacht in the house of God. T h e style of the new sermon itself was designed for a setting in which devotion prevailed, and was meant to enhance devotion. T h e radical rejection of the traditional Derashah in the early period stemmed from the realization that this type of preaching now failed to " e d i f y . " 1 8 4 This was true not merely because the Derashah presupposed a degree of familiarity with Hebrew sources, Biblical, Talmudic, and Midrashic, which no longer existed, but also because the type of piety it reflected had largely become defunct. T h e concentration of religion in specific hours of devotion as evidenced in the new cult of the " h o u r " 1 8 5 was in striking contrast to the halakic ordering of the Jew's total existence. T h e change from the Derashah to the Predigt (sermon) was therefore indicative of a deep-going transformation of Jewish outlook. It is interesting to note that discerning minds like Mannheimer and Sachs were well aware of the loss of substance that had been incurred. In one of his sermons Mannheimer nostalgically remarked that there was more religiosity in the loud crying of former times than in the concert-like performances of the decorous service. Real dignity and devotion were present then and were absent now. 1 8 6 Sachs expressed himself in similar terms. 1 8 7 T h e edificatory sermon, too, we have noted before, ran into serious criticism. Heine spoke bitingly of the "emotional moral sermons with the orthographical hymns [framing them]." 1 8 8 Above all, Hegel's critique of Erbauung began to make its impact felt and challenged the 184. See Philippson, Biographische Skizzen, III, 78: " H o w could one be edified by the tedious Derashah of a Polish or Ashkenazi rabbi?"; David Frankel, "Einige Worte über religiöse Reden und Predigten unter den Israeliten," Sulamith, IV, II, 3, p. 247: " I t is altogether to be taken for granted that the former manner of preaching . . . is nowadays thoroughly useless, nay . . . damaging to the holy cause of religion. Those members of the community—their number is legion—who . . . are in no way edified by the content and delivery of some sermons . . . appear rarely or not at all in the synagogue." The same sentiments are expressed in Zunz's Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt (1832); 2nd ed. (Frankfurt, 1892), pp. 460—463, 464, 474-475. 185. Cf. the recurrent mention of the solemnity of the " h o u r " in the two opening prayers quoted from Mannheimer's sermons. The whole sermonic and devotional literature of the period abounds in references to "Stunden der Andacht" and "Weih estunden." 186. See Mannheimer, Gottesdienstliche Vorträge, part I (Breslau, 1885), 1 3 2 - 1 3 3 . 187. See Sachs, Predigten, I, 249-250; II, 42, 438. 188. Quoted in Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, 2 : 3 3 8 (1838).

The New Style of Preaching

103

validity of the romantic type of edification as the avowed object of the sermon. It was Abraham Geiger who represented the new trend in its most vigorous form. A n analysis of Geiger's writings shows two stages in the development of his views on the sermon. A t the first stage, he still regarded preaching as an exercise in the romantic type of edification. His essay on " t h e lack of sincere belief [Glaubensinnigkeit] in contemporary Jewry," written in 1835, reflects a mood wholly consonant with that of the early preachers. It castigates the rigidly orthodox on account of their opposition to " e v e r y innovation designed for the purpose of elevation [Erhebung] and edification [Erbauung],"

such as the modern sermon, the introduction of instru-

mental music, singing and praying in the "mother tongue," all of which is " m o v i n g " (ergreifend) and "touches a chord in the h e a r t . " 1 8 9 His pamphlet on the Hamburg temple controversy, published in 1842, shows an entirely fresh approach. N o w the type of reform represented by the Hamburg temple is criticized for its failure to produce more than aesthetic improvements in the service and more than a purely edificatory kind of sermon. It was important enough to restore to the service its lost edifying character, but the Kultus made sense only if it was part of a total religious organism which by its spirituality and life could generate true edification. 1 9 0 Reform must be guided not by mere aesthetic criteria but by principles. 1 9 1 Hence the need for a Jewish theology based on scholarship (Wissenschaft). T h e Hamburg temple had not initiated a movement in this direction. T h e literary activity which had emanated from it was confined to the editing of sermons. Unfortunately, those sermons had no scholarly and theological background. T h e y lacked " f i r m principles" to guide them, and they therefore uncritically adopted from the maggidim of olden times and from modern preachers of all shades of opinion whatever appeared to suit their taste. 1 9 2 If the Jewish preachers had wanted to be more than mere "maggidim in a new dress" they might have endeavored to advance Jewish 189. See Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie (ed. Geiger), 1:144—145 (1835), reprinted in Abraham Geiger's Nachgelassene Schriften, ed. L u d w i g Geiger, I, 459-460. 190. Der Hamburger Tempelstreit, eine Zeitfrage (Breslau, 1842), reprinted in Abraham Geiger's Nachgelassene Schriften, I, 1 1 3 - 1 9 6 ; see p. 193. 191. Abraham Geiger's Nachgelassene Schriften, I, 177, 194. See also Geiger's pamphlet, Notwendigkeit und Mass einer Reform des jüdischen Gottesdienstes (Breslau, 1861), reprinted in Nachgelassene Schriften, I, 203-229, where Geiger says: " D i e ästhetische Form und die Predigt können, trotzdem dass ihnen allgemein die erbauende K r a f t zuerkannt wird, diesem Übel nicht ganz abhelfen" (pp. 204—205). T h e Übel referred to is the Verödung (desolation) of the synagogue. 192. Abraham Geiger's Nachgelassene Schriften, I, 178.

104

Alexander

Altmann

theology by scholarly pursuits and thereby to compensate for the loss of rabbinic activity which had been incurred by the deplorable

divorce

between the offices of rabbi and preacher in modern times. 1 9 3 Geiger developed his views more fully in an article on " t h e task at the present t i m e " published in 1844. 1 9 4 He admitted that the sermon was the only element in the service which attracted people to the synagogue. It was the spiritual and life-giving part of it. Y e t " s a l v a t i o n " could not be expected from it unless it drew its strength from a definite and outspoken theology. " F o r , what is the sermon? It is the popular expression of a conviction come by and elaborated in a scholarly way. It is the exposition, in an ordered and substantiated manner, of some religious proposition which has its roots, in however impure and confused a form, also in the religious consciousness of the people." If the sermon shies away from the task of " m a k i n g intelligible" (verständlich machen) what is dimly present in the religious consciousness and is acknowledged by scholarship, it will miss its purpose. In other words—if we understand Geiger correctly—the sermon which fails to tackle boldly the main religious issues of tradition in the light of modern historical scholarship stands condemned. It will not do if it "confines itself to general moral and religious questions" or if it "approaches the inner core of positive [confessionell] religious l i f e " in but a vague and undecided manner. In either case it will leave unfulfilled the task of " m a k i n g religion a vivifying force in all domains of life." It follows that the sermon by itself cannot be considered the " o n e and only f e r m e n t " ; it presupposes a "veritable life of the spirit" (wahrhaftes Geistesleben) on which to draw. 1 9 5 Geiger's new theory of the sermon bears all the marks of Hegelian influence. Its key notion is that of the " S p i r i t " (Geist). It signifies, in typical Hegelian fashion, both the Spirit of G o d and man's spirit as evolving in time. T h e " f o r m s " of religion are said to manifest the Spirit and also to become redundant in time. 1 9 6 Y e t there is one single life of the Spirit amid all change of direction and form. It binds together all individual members of a nation and all mankind. 1 9 7 T h i s "eternal life of the Spirit" must be discerned " e v e n in those times which we consider to be the dark a g e s . " 1 9 8 T h e sermon seeks to connect the individual with the life 193. Ibid., I, 178; 69-70. Some of the older preachers had welcomed the distinction between " r a b b i " and " p r e a c h e r . " See my article, " Z u r Frühgeschichte . . . , " pp. 19-20. 194. See Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie, 5:1-35 (1844). 195. Ibid., pp. 32-33. 196. See the sermon of 1838 reprinted in Nachgelassene Schriften, I, 365-366. 197. Ibid., pp. 436, 261. 198. Ibid., p. 439.

The New Style of Preaching of the Spirit which binds the generations together. It also wants him to "feel in himself the eternal, one Spirit which time cannot vanquish" and which is the "divine portion" in man. 1 9 9 How deeply Geiger's notion of the Spirit was indebted to Hegel may be seen from his more technical account in Hegelian terms of "the Idea, its entry into the phenomenal world, and its development" which occurs in Geiger's reply to Bruno Bauer. 2 0 0 It is, then, the impact of Hegel which caused him to reject the edificatory sermon as inadequate to the life of the Spirit. Geiger's emphasis on the need for a Jewish theology as the necessary prerequisite of the sermon, again, voiced a fundamental Hegelian concern. Hegel had taught that while the absolute religion (which for him was identical with Christianity) possessed the truth in the form of faith or representation ( Vorstellung), philosophy possessed the same truth in the form of thinking. 201 He had repeatedly warned against reducing religion to mere feeling. Doing so was courting the dissolution of religion. For "community is in [accepting] a doctrine, whereas each individual has his own feeling. . , " 2 0 2 Marheineke had extended the task of conceptualizing religious representations, beliefs, symbols to theology as a " s c i e n c e " (Wissenschaft).203 Geiger's conception of theology as Wissenschaft was likewise Hegelian in spirit and akin to Marheineke's, except that its outlook was historical rather than metaphysical. T h e scholarly pursuits which he urged in his pamphlet of 1842 were intended to be on the lines of historical investigation. This is borne out by one of the letters of that year (addressed to Jakob Auerbach), which referred to the pamphlet he had just written on the Hamburg temple controversy, and enthusiastically described his research and lecturing in Jewish history. 204 T h e scholarship on which he wanted to see theology based was clearly historical learning. Interestingly enough, he assigned to the sermon the task of conceptualizing ("making intelligible") the representations ("impure and confused" notions) of 199. Ibid., p. 359. 200. See Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie, s:33off. (1844). 201. See Hegel's Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, vol. II (Berlin, 1832); 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1840), p. 353. 202. See Hegel's Vorlesungen, p. 352. See also Hegel's preface to Hermann Friedrich Wilhelm Hinrich's Die Religion im inneren Verhältnisse zur Wissenschaft . . . (Heidelberg, 1822), reprinted in Hegel, Sämtliche Werke, Jubilee edition, ed. Glockner, X X (Stuttgart, 1958), 3-28, esp. pp. 19-22. 203. See Philipp [Konrad] Marheineke, Einleitung in die öffentlichen Vorlesungen über die Bedeutung der Hegeischen Philosophie in der christlichen Theologie (Berlin, 1842), PP· 53ff· 204. Abraham Geiger's nachgelassene Schriften, V (Berlin, 1878), 159. T h e date of the letter is February 8, 1842.

ιο6

Alexander Altmann

popular religion. The sermon was thus to assume a function which, in Hegel's view, philosophy and, according to Marheineke, theology were to discharge. In Geiger's view, philosophy was hardly to be trusted to do justice to religion, and theology was historically oriented. His estimate of the philosophy of religion is expressed in his public letter to M. Mass (1858), who had characterized the "philosophical standpoint of contemporary Judaism" as "unsatisfactory." Geiger rejected the very notion of "philosophical standpoint of religion." "Religion," he declared, "teaches dispositions of mind [Gesinnungen], convictions, history, actions205 without presenting them in an ordered system; philosophy . . . seeks to transform them into concepts." The history of philosophy, however, showed that the conceptualizing of religion by philosophy actually dissolved religion. This had been the case in medieval Aristotelianism, Renaissance Platonism, Kantianism ("which had no room for Christianity"), and Hegel's philosophy ("which sublimated Christian dogma and dissolved it in concepts without reality"). " W e find," he concluded, "enough guidance in our religious standpoint toward true and authentic philosophy." 206 We infer from the trend of his discussion here and in the other places mentioned that the "true and authentic philosophy" of Judaism was to be presented in the sermon, which in turn was to be based on a theology founded on historical scholarship. It can hardly be asserted that Geiger's view was compatible with Hegel's. Yet it does reflect the spirit of Hegelianism in a broader sense, as we have pointed out before. Geiger himself admitted this. When the Protestant theologian H. J . Holtzmann207 described him as echoing ideas of Hegel (and Schleiermacher), he confessed that he "had attentively listened to the words of these masters" and that "without becoming a captive of theirs had adopted with pleasure from them" such "correct thoughts" as he "could find" in them. The manner, however, in which he had combined the "heterogeneous tendencies" they represented might be considered evidence of his essential independence of mind. 208 205. T h i s definition harks back to Moses Mendelssohn's Jerusalem. See I, 1 9 ( " H a n d lungen und G e s i n n u n g e n " ) ; I, 27 ( " K e i n e Handlung ohne G e s i n n u n g " ) ; I I , 1 1 2 - 1 1 5 (Religionslehren, Geschichtswahrheiten, Gesetze). 206. Nachgelassene Schriften, I, 262. Geiger's estimate of Kantianism is certainly off the mark. His view of Hegelianism is also incorrect, seeing that Hegel insisted on the historicity of Jesus. It reflects, however, the current theological criticism of Hegel, which Marheineke's treatise (see Note 203) was designed to refute. 207. In his review of Geiger's Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte, part I (Breslau, 1864), in Protestantische Kirchenzeitung, 1865, no. 10, pp. 2 2 5 - 2 3 7 . 208. See Geiger, Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte, part I I (Breslau, 1865), " A n h a n g , " Ρ· ΐ 9 3 ·

The New Style of Preaching Whether Geiger succeeded in welding into a unity the "heterogeneous tendencies" of the two "masters" is another matter. It would seem that he did not. While he was a Hegelian in his notion of the "life of the spirit," in his plea for conceptualism and in the short shrift he made of Erbauung, he still inclined to share Schleiermacher's view of religion as the life of "feeling." There are passages in his writings which read like restatements of Schleiermacher's romantic view of religion. Thus he said: " T h e true essence of religion is precisely the innermost life of feeling [das innerste Gemiithsleben] which in its mobility [Bewegtheit], in its upward striving is of the highest value. . . The unattainably high that rules above us and the consciousness of our smallness and puniness, the beauty and loving guidance that meets us everywhere, and the yearning that draws our heart towards i t . . . these moments cause by their friendly touch the religious stirrings of the heart." 209 True, this passage was written in 1835 when Geiger was still advocating the romantic view of edification. Yet he reaffirmed the same definition of religion in 1843 in opposition to the Young Hegelians : " I openly confess that I do not subscribe to pantheism; that I acknowledge that which exceeds mere immanence; that I recognize something ungraspable above us ; that I concede the right of feeling which in its highest form is the feeling of dependence [Schleiermacher's definition!] . . , " 2 1 0 It is this recognition of feeling as the "true essence" of religion which caused Geiger to retain a degree of romantic Andacht as an element in his sermons. This he wedded to the notion of Erhebung (elevation) and Versöhnung (reconciliation), both of which had acquired a specifically Hegelian ring. We quote a passage from the opening prayer of one of his sermons (preached in 1838) in order to illustrate our point: " L e t my word be a means of elevation toward Thee, who art holy and pure, to the end that the spirit strive upward toward Thee and humbly bow before Thee; let my word be a word of peace and reconciliation in order that in closeness of heart men unite in love for common deeds of charity . . . To this end I make supplication to Thee in quiet devotion \in stiller Andacht]."211 Hegel's emphasis on the conceptual content of religion remained a potent influence in Jewish preaching in spite of the considerable force exercised by Schleiermacher's doctrine of feeling. The growing demand for a more specifically Jewish type of sermon stemmed, in part, from the impact of Hegel's speculative interpretation of Christianity as the "absolute 209. Nachgelassene 2 1 0 . Nachgelassene 2 1 1 . Nachgelassene by Geiger are meant

Schriften, I, 457—458. Schriften, V , 167 (emphasis supplied). Schriften, I, 357 (emphasis supplied). M a n y of the reforms advocated to promote Andacht. Nachgelassene Schriften, I, 1 4 2 - 1 4 4 , 2 1 1 .

ιο8

Alexander Altmann

religion," which was felt as a serious challenge. 212 The sermon will no longer be satisfactory with mere edification as its purpose. It will have to interpret the " i d e a " of Judaism; to lift into clear consciousness the "spirit" (Geist) that revealed itself in the history of the Jewish community. The function of the Jewish people in world history becomes a focus of interest. The horizon of the sermon expands far beyond the moralizing and emotional concerns of the earlier phase. The term "spirit" acquires a specifically Hegelian connotation. The phrase "Spirit to spirit," by which Hegel had described revealed religion, 213 is echoed by the Jewish preachers. It appears in Mannheimer, who, although his concept of the Spirit is essentially of a revivalist nature, 214 could not resist the impact of the Hegelian notion: " T h e spirit in him [sc. in man] is the eternally stirring living Spirit of the Lord. Keep it in order that the Spirit may address the spirit. . , " 2 1 5 Philippson contrasts, like Hegel, the nature god with the revealed God "who has given us, his children, of his Spirit which he can now address. . . " 2 1 6 The very character of the sermon is epitomized as " Spirit addressing spirit " in an inscription on the pulpit of the synagogue in Trier (consecrated in 1859), which read: "Where Spirit addresses 2 1 2 . See Ludwig Philippson's remarks in Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, Literarisches und homiletisches Beiblatt, vol. I (1838), no. 7, p. 26: " T h e attacks . . . which are directed against religious Judaism at the present time are . . . no longer of a moral kind but have a dogmatic tendency. Judaism is accused of dogmatic deficiencies concerning . . particularly, the reconciliation and mediation [Versöhnung und Vermittlung] of human sinfulness. It is, therefore, the present vocation of Jewish homiletics to defend the purity of Jewish dogmatics by elaborating the doctrine of the unmediated relation of man to God as presented in highest perfection . . . by Judaism ; . . . [Jewish homiletics] will thereby be able to present Judaism in particular as the union [ Vereinigung] of faith and the highest reason [Vernunft], and thus lead humanity toward reconciliation with God in its purest sense." 2 1 3 . " D i e Religion aber ist das Verhältniss von Geist zu Geist, das Wissen des Geistes vom Geist in seiner Wahrheit. . . " See Hegel's Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, I (Berlin, 1832), 184; 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1840), p. 257. " G o t t , der Geist, kann sich nur dem Geist, der Vernunft, offenbaren." Ibid., I (1832), 189; (1840), 263. " D e r Geist ist f ü r den Geist und zwar nicht nur auf äusserliche, zufällige Weise, sondern er ist nur insofern Geist als er f ü r den Geist ist; diess macht den Begriff des Geistes selbst aus. Oder, um es mehr theologisch auszudrücken, Gott ist Geist wesentlich, insofern er in seiner Gemeinde ist." Ibid., I (1842, not in the 1832 edition), 47. See also Georg Lasson's edition of Hegel's Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, part II, p. 1 1 (in Hegel, Sämtliche Werke, ed. Lasson, vol. X I I I ) : Geoffenbarte Religion " i s t Offenbarung Gottes, Offenbarung des Geistes, und der Geist kann sich nur dem Geist offenbaren . . . ; der Geist muss Zeugnis geben dem Geiste. Alle Religion ist in diesem Sinne, dass der Geist Zeugnis zu geben hat, natürlich [sc. natürliche Religion], d.h. sie ist dem Begriffe gemäss, spricht den Geist an." 214. See above, Page 72. 2 1 5 . See Mannheimer's sermon on " T h e calling of our children to prophecy in Israel" (1835), published in Kayserling, Bibliothek, I, 318. 216. Siloah, II, 92, 96.

The New Style of Preaching spirit let the Word of G o d be thy soul's l i g h t . " 2 1 7 T h i s is an eloquent testimony to the popularity which the Hegelian phrase had attained in Jewish circles. It succinctly expressed, at the same time, the prevalent tendency to interpret Judaism as " the religion of the Spirit " (die Religion des Geistes). Preachers like Salomon Formstecher, Samuel Hirsch, and David Einhorn elaborated the concept of the religion of the Spirit in speculative terms 2 1 8 and reflected it in more popular form in their sermons. 2 1 9 Notwithstanding the Hegelian direction of Jewish preaching, edification continued to play an important role in homiletical thinking. T h e coexistence of the two tendencies is vividly illustrated in the manner in which Sachs formulated his program for a preacher, in the inaugural sermon he delivered in Berlin (1844): his aim was " t o give expression to religious thought·, to satisfy the felt desire for religion; to meet the holy divinations [Ahnungen] of the human breast, man's yearning for his G o d with the rich treasure of the Word of G o d . "

220

T h i s program represents

a rather mixed bag, with its stress on religious thinking, yearning, psychological need, and the Word of God. Idealist pathos, romantic feeling, and revivalism are joined in a strange personal union. N o wonder that Sachs's sermons and lectures evoked varied reactions. Moritz Lazarus was able to appreciate the many strands of their texture: every speech of Sachs's could be expected to "illumine our spirit [Gasi] and elevate our feeling [Gemüt] ; he may . . . at once translate us to the ideal heights of thought by 217. " H i e r , wo der Geist zum Geiste spricht, sei Gottes Wort dein Seelenlicht." T h e inscription appeared on a memorial tablet which recorded also the name of the donor of the pulpit. T h e present writer quotes from memory. T h e synagogue (now destroyed) was consecrated by Oberrabbiner Joseph K a h n . T h e sermon preached by him at the consecration service was published in Trier (i860). See Kayserling, Bibliothek, II, 299. N o copy being available, it could not be ascertained whether the sermon elaborated the meaning of the inscription on the pulpit. 218. Salomon Formstecher, Die Religion des Geistes (Frankfurt am Main, 1841); Samuel Hirsch, Das System der religiösen Anschauung der Juden und sein Verhältnis zum Heidentum, Christentum und zur absoluten Philosophie. Erster Band: Die Religionsphilosophie der Juden (Leipzig, 1842). (See Emil L . Fackenheim's analysis in the present volume.) David Einhorn, Das Princip des Mosaismus (Leipzig, 1854). 219. For a list of Formstecher's sermonic publications see Kayserling, Bibliothek, II, 138. T h e philosophical content of the two specimens published in Kayserling, pp. 1 3 9 152, is extremely meager. S. Hirsch's sermons in his Die Messiaslehre der Juden in Kanzelvorträgen : Zur Erbauung denkender Leser (Leipzig, 1843) were intended " a s a popular abstract" from his philosophical work, which had appeared a year before (see preface, p. vi). T h e y do, in fact, reflect some of the views propounded in the treatise, e.g., those on the Hegelian topic of "reconciliation" (see pp. 299-319). Einhorn's Ausgewählte Predigten und Reden were published by Kaufman Kohler (New York, 1880). For references to the "religion of the spirit" see pp. 113, 120. 220. Emphasis supplied. See Sachs, Predigten, I, 174; similarly, p. 244.

n o

Alexander

Altmann

using for his text the words of the most exalted prophetic spirits and expounding the treasure of the noblest religious sentiments [Empfindungen]. . . In every law he will reveal to us the spirit of the law. Thus we are elevated to the contemplation of the manner in which even the transient contains an abiding element. . . which we are to know [erkennen sollen]."221 Simpler souls found his way of speaking "beautiful and florid" yet diffuse, "the central point evanescing," 222 or even repellent by the impression of pretentiousness. 223 Sachs set himself the goal of making the sermon again a vehicle of "public instruction" so as to re-establish the "great and eternal basic thought [Grundgedanke] of Israel's teaching in its vital meaning." 224 T h e ideational content of his sermons is, however, lacking in clarity and precision. Geiger was not entirely wrong in describing Sachs as a romantic who, unlike Schleiermacher, had evaded the real issues of revelation and tradition. 225 An attempt to separate the purposes of edification and instruction was made by Samuel Holdheim, Sachs's radical antagonist in Berlin. To prayer he assigned the function of Erbauung, whereas the sermon was to offer instruction. In a sense, prayer, he said, taught through edification, while the sermon edified through teaching. " T o the edified . . . mind [Gemiithe] of man dawns an inner, purer light of the spirit which makes him see in greater clarity the otherwise confused contours of life. Teaching, on the other hand, will result in the adoption of better principles, and its inevitable fruit will be 'reconciliation' [die Versöhnung]." 226 T h e first of these two final ends of preaching harks back to Kant and the moralists, the second adopts without any hint of an explanation Hegel's and Marheineke's key notion, giving it a Jewish coloring by quoting the midrashic statement: " A t the hour when the scholar [ha-zaken] sits and expounds [Torah], the Holy One, blessed be He, forgives all his sins." 227 In Holdheim's view, 221. Quoted in Josef Eschelbacher, "Michael Sachs," Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, vol. 52, N. S. 16 (1908), p. 406. A reference in laudatory, though rather empty, terms to Sachs as a rhetorician occurs in Karl August Varnhagen von Ense's Tagebücher, 2nd ed., I I I (Leipzig, 1862), 272, dated December 29, 1845. 222. Adelheid Zunz in a letter dated likewise December 29, 1845, and obviously referring to the same lecture as the one attended by Varnhagen von Ense. See Leopold and Adelheid Zunz, pp. 1 3 3 - 1 3 4 . 223. Julie Fischel in a letter dated March 3, 1846. See Leopold and Adelheid Zunz, p. 137. Cf. p. 286. 224. See Sachs's inaugural sermon in Berlin, Predigten, I, 178. 225. See Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben (ed. Geiger), 6:66-67 (Breslau, 1868). 226. See Samuel Holdheim, Predigten über die jüdische Religion, II (Berlin, 1853), 66-67. 227. Ibid.; the passage (Kohelet Rabba ad Eccl. 9 : 1 4 - 1 5 ) is quoted from Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, p. 345 (2nd ed., p. 358).

The New Style of Preaching

III

the sermon is not an indispensable part of the service, as prayer and edification are. An ideal congregation of scholars and preachers would not require it. Yet as a rule, the service will be fulfilling its purpose only with the help of the sermon. For the individual who in prayer has become one with the congregation will find his individuality restored through the sermon. By addressing him and making him see life in its true perspective the sermon will "illumine and ennoble" him. It will arouse more than a "transient edification" (eine flüchtige Erbauung), a "momentary soft and sentimental disposition and motion" (Stimmung und Rührung). It will give rise to "serious instruction" and will "strengthen principles." T h e preacher's office consists in teaching, and the Jewish preacher, in particular, has to teach Judaism as a historical religion, as " t h e product of the life of the spirit [Geistesleben] over the millennia." He has to interpret the historical tradition and by using its materials and its spirit he has to shape and order contemporary Jewish life. 228 While Sachs and, in some measure, Geiger reflected both romantic and Hegelian elements, Holdheim sought to blend a historical approach with ideas borrowed from the older homiletics of Aufklärung theology. His notion of "illumination" (sc. of the intellect) and "ennoblement" (sc. of the will) reintroduced the well-worn definition of Erbauung, which goes back to Mosheim, without, however, admitting Erbauung as the purpose of the sermon. It may be assumed that Holdheim's reason for using the formula without the name lay in his realization that the name had meanwhile come to indicate a romantic concept which he was unwilling to accept. His whole character was indeed as unromantic and dry as could be. As for the moral aspect of the purpose of preaching, it can hardly be said to fit in with the function of "teaching," with which he sought to join it. T h e two simply do not go together. What he meant by the teaching purpose of the sermon becomes clear from his statement that the loss of Hebrew and traditional knowledge in modern Jewry necessitated a revival of Jewish loyalty through the sermon, as the only means still left for this end. 2 2 9 In one of his sermons (on "Hear, O Israel") he declared that Judaism was not merely the sum total of certain religious ideas but the history of these ideas in the sense of their impact on the development of the human race. T o profess Judaism, therefore, meant more than knowing and acknowledging a set of fundamental ideas. It meant also the feeling for the historical significance of Judaism. This feeling engendered love and 228. Holdheim, Predigten, 229. Ibid., pp. xiv—XV.

I I , χ—xiii.

112

Alexander Altmann

enthusiasm for the past and a sense of dignity in the present. Although the idea of monotheism was no longer a Jewish prerogative, since it was universally shared, the way Jews subscribed to it was different by virtue of historical memories and associations. Once these vanished from the Jewish consciousness, the Shemac Yisrael became an empty formula. 230 The function of the sermon was, then, essentially concerned with the invigoration of historical awareness of Judaism as a " f o r m of culture [Bildungsform] of the human spirit." 2 3 1 Holdheim's program of radical reform was the logical corollary of this viewpoint, and vice versa. Its naked historicism can be described only as a travesty of the Hegelian spirit. We are on different ground in Manuel Joel's homiletics. A scholar and preacher of high rank, he lectured on homiletics at the Breslau Seminary from 1858 until 1864, 2 3 2 taking Palmer's work for his model. 233 There is, however, a marked difference between his view of the sermon and Palmer's. For the latter the sermon was not to be subsumed under the genre of rhetoric. It "must be understood solely by itself and presented according to its specific concept; it is merely its external and less essential aspect in which it concurs with rhetoric." 2 3 4 For Joel the form of the sermon was identical with that of secular oratory as defined by the classical rules (Cicero, Quintilian), and it was "modified" only by the subject matter and certain conventions. 235 Hence his manner of preaching was intended to be "clerical" (geistlich) not so much in its form as in its content. He deliberately shunned the "exquisite tone of the pulpit" and wished to speak of things divine humanly. 236 While poetry addressed the feeling part (Gemüth), and prose spoke to the intellect, oratory sought to move the will. In order to influence the will it had to consider the nature of the listener. The motivation it wished to provide might in some cases depend on the ability to move the emotions, in others on reasoning and convincing. Nothing, however, convinced more than conviction on the part of the speaker himself. 237 The strength of Joel's own sermons lay in the power of his convictions and the crystal-clear manner in which they were expressed. With Hegel he insisted on the elevation of religious teaching to the level 230. Ibid., pp. 1 4 - 2 1 . 2 3 1 . Ibid., p. 14. 232. Joel commenced his activities as a teacher at the seminary in 1854 and relinquished them in 1864. See A. Eckstein, Monatsschrift, vol. 70, N . S. 34 (1926), p. 320. His lectures in homiletics started in 1858, as attested by Eckstein, Monatsschrift, vol. 6o, N. S. 24 (1916), p. 8 1 . 233. See Eckstein, vol. 60, p. 81. 234. See Palmer, Evangelische Homiletik, p. 14. 235. See Joel, Festpredigten (Breslau, 1867), pp. xiv-xv. 236. Ibid., p. XV. 237. Ibid., pp. xiii-xiv.

The New Style of Preaching of conscious knowledge (bewusster Erkenntnis).238 The "edifying and elevating" aspect of the religious festivals consisted in our "elevation" to the eternal " i d e a " which they expressed. 239 Judaism was concerned with the " l i f e of the spirit" as distinct from nature. 240 The experience of the "sublime" (das Erhabene) in nature was one thing; the "sublimity" (Erhabenheit) presented to the spirit in the act of revelation was another. "Before the sublimity of this [Sinaitic] historical revelation, the revelation of nature must keep silent" (interpreting the midrash about the hush that fell on all creatures at the moment of the Divine Revelation at Sinai). 241 The Festival of Revelation was not concerned with a historical remembrance only: it "challenges the most spiritual element within u s " ; it expects us to "relive the heartbeat of those that were affected by the event"; to " r e experience revelation in all its overwhelming power." In our "elevation" and "enthusiasm" the historical event becomes presentness, and we experience the " H o l y . " 2 4 2 Joel thus interpreted the edification and elevation which the sermon wants to create as an inner experience and not as a mere act of intellect or feeling. Hegel's " s p i r i t " to which the " S p i r i t " reveals itself is seen in terms of a happening, as the total impact of the Spirit upon thinking, feeling, and willing. 243 With Schleiermacher, Joel designated the religious experience also simply as "feeling." " I n thinking God, we are separated from him; in feeling, we are united with him." 244 This immediate revelation, for which Hegel had only contempt, was for him the true revelation, a ' ' thinking of the heart. " 2 4 5 Joel particularly emphasized the experiential character of the religious act. The state of feeling or Stimmung in which and through which man becomes aware of himself as "spiritual" (geistig) in the innermost core of his being, as a citizen of a higher world, is called Andacht. In it man experiences himself in his elevated, higher nature, as a "child of heaven." The immediate, unreflected character of this "experience" is superior to any rational argument. 246 Obviously, Joel departs here significantly from Hegelian premises, in the direction of Schleiermacher. The supreme religious act is Andacht, not in Hegel's sense of one's "immersion in the 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246.

Ibid., p. 59. Ibid., p. 19. Ibid., p. 14. Ibid., p. 86. Ibid., p. 78; see also p. 2 1 3 . See the passages quoted by Eckstein in Monatsschrift, Ibid. Ibid. See Festpredigten, pp. 2 1 2 - 2 1 3 .

vol. 70, N. S. 34, p. 327.

114

Alexander

Altmann

object" but in Schleiermacher's sense of feeling. One of Joel's sermons ends with a prayer which echoes the famous sentence from Schleiermacher's Speeches," . . . the religious feelings are to accompany every deed of man like a holy music; let him do everything with religion, not because of religion." 247 Joel's prayer reads: " L e t religion accompany us throughout life like a holy melody in order that no unconsecrated sound may from the ear penetrate into our heart ; that we may be able to say with the consecrated singer, ' T h y statutes have been a song unto m e . ' " 2 4 8 In Joel's homiletics and preaching the nineteenth-century Jewish sermon reached its zenith so far as disciplined thinking and a true sense of purpose are concerned. After him a marked decline sets in. Jellinek's brilliant sermons lacked a firm philosophical orientation. Erbauung is conceived primarily in aesthetic terms. " T h e pre-eminence [Vorzug] of modern Judaism is revealed in its striving for beauty." 249 Jellinek was greatly concerned with the aspect of decorum in the service. " It is one of our most sacred duties to win honor for Judaism [das Judentum zu Ehren zu bringen]... by the forms of worship; to free it from the contempt that has weighed upon it long enough." 250 He praised the choral chant as characteristic of Biblical worship, 2 5 1 and rejoiced in its restoration in many contemporary synagogues. 252 No doubt, his advocacy of beauty in the manner of worship was motivated not merely by a desire to improve the " i m a g e " of Judaism in the eyes of the world. Devotion and edification, too, demanded it. Yet there is a strong element of Jewish defense and apologetic in his sermons. They are concerned, above all, with the " h o n o r " of Judaism. " H o w long are they [sc. the non-Jews] still to be misled concerning the character [das Wesen] of Judaism, to be permitted to believe that it is not a religion 247. See Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, Uber die Religion, Reden an die Gebildeten unter ihren Verächtern (Leipzig, 1 9 1 1 ) (following the first edition of 1799), p. 45248. Festpredigten, p. 2 0 1 . 249. See Adolf Jellinek, Predigten, part I I (Vienna, 1863), p. 4. 250. Predigten, part I (Vienna, 1862), p. 85. T h e concern for decorum is already in evidence in Jellinek's early sermons. See his Zwei Kanzel-Vorträge in der Synagoge zu Ungarisch-Brod (Leipzig, 1847). 2 5 1 . See Predigten, part I, pp. 93ff. ( " I s r a e l ' s G e s a n g " ) ; idem, Reden bei verschiedenen Gelegenheiten, part I (Vienna, 1874), p. 54. In Der jüdische Stamm (Vienna, 1869), PP- 1 3 5 - 1 3 6 , Jellinek quotes (without reference) Alexander von Humboldt's enthusiastic description of the sublimity of Hebrew nature poetry. T h e passage mentions inter alia the magnificence of " T e m p e l - und C h o r g e s ä n g e n " among the " S e m i t i c or Aramaic n a t i o n s " (meaning the Hebrews, as is clear from the context). Jellinek's praise of the choral chant (Choralgesang) as characteristic of Biblical worship possibly derives f r o m here. T h e passage occurs in Alexander von Humboldt, Kosmos, Entwurf einer physischen Weltbeschreibung (Stuttgart-Tübingen, 1847), 44ÎÏ. Jellinek's admiration for Alexander von Humboldt is expressed in Predigten, I, 2 5 0 - 2 5 1 . 252. Predigten, I, 97.

The New Style of Preaching of the Spirit [eine Religion des Geistes], of the heart, of the loving deed, of holiness, justice, freedom, charity, and truth but [a religion] of petty externalities, unessential minutiae, antiquated customs?" 2 5 3 Finally, Maybaum's homiletics (briefly referred to above, Page 83) sees in Erbauung the true purpose of the sermon. His theory tried to combine elements of the various definitions we have encountered in our survey. With Mosheim and his successors, he wanted the preacher to "awaken a better knowledge [Erkenntnis] in the listener and influence his will." With Schleiermacher and the romantics, he stressed the "feeling of edification" and the "edification of feeling" (Erbauung des Gemütes). With the Hegelians, he demanded the conceptualizing of religious truth resulting in the "blissful consciousness" of an edification that unites preacher and congregation and establishes their "connection" (Zusammenhang) with God. Lastly, with Palmer he saw in the momentary edification produced by the sermon a value of its own, irrespective of whether or not a lasting effect was achieved. To be sure, he was confident that some salutary aftereffect was to be expected; that the Word of God uttered by the preacher would "not return void except it accomplish" its purpose (Isa. 55:11). Yet the preacher's work was, in a sense, done if it created an hour of "edificatory feeling" (erbauliche Stimmung).254 Such was Maybaum's faith in the religious significance of Erbauung that he could describe it as a substitute, in a way, for traditional observance. " T h e more difficult and hopeless the struggle on behalf of the hallowing of the Sabbath becomes in the face of overwhelming conditions, the more one is forced . . . to realize the duty to use the sermon for influencing feeling [auf die Gemüter zu wirken] and, where one does not contrive to save the full Sabbath, at least to regain a few hours of the Sabbath for edification." 255 In this sentence the whole chasm between the old Derashah and the modern sermon stands revealed. Edification became an end in itself in the measure in which religion came to be located in a state of soul variously described as Andacht, Erhebung, and the like. Erbauung as the purpose of the sermon thus epitomizes the transmutation of Judaism which happened in the nineteenth century: " p i e t y " was no longer conceived of in terms of obedience to the Divine Law as the precondition for the soul's closeness to God; it now stood on its own, drawing its nourishment from the autonomy of moral Reason, the subjectivity of feeling, and the objectivity of the Idea 253. Predigten, I, 83. 254. Maybaum, Jüdische Homiletik, pp. 26-28. 255. Ibid., p. 20.

ιι6

Alexander

Altmann

to which the spirit was able to elevate itself. It was this kind of piety which the sermon sought to cultivate and to reconcile with Biblical and rabbinic theology. An analysis of the modifications which the leading theological concepts of Judaism underwent in the process lies beyond the compass of the present paper.

Parapoetic Attitudes and Values in Early Nineteenth-Century Hebrew Poetry BY E I S I G

SILBERSCHLAG

PREAMBLE

T h e limits of this paper have been arbitrarily set to comprise some fifty fateful years, 1783-1832, in the history of Hebrew poetry. But forward and backward glances are frequently unavoidable : chronological neatness does not characterize intellectual movements. T h e choice of 1783 as a starting point needs no justification. It is an annus mirabilis in Jewish history and it may be said to herald the nineteenth century for three reasons. First, it marks the publication of the first influential periodical—Ha-Me'assef—in Hebrew literature. Second, Moses Mendelssohn's Jerusalem, as well as his translation of the Pentateuch and Psalms, appeared in that year. Third, it is the date of the emergence of the United States as a separate political entity, at the end of the American Revolution. T h e periodical Ha-Me'assef

disseminated the new ideas of enlightenment

by reason rather than by faith ; Mendelssohn's Jerusalem proclaimed the right of the Jew to unrestricted freedom of conscience and equality with others before the law, while his translations introduced his coreligionists into the arcana of a Western language. T h e United States gave political sanction to the ideas of liberty and equality of all men. T h e terminal date I have chosen, 1832, marks the year when the periodical Bikkure ha-~Ittim, the successor to Ha-Me'assef, succeeding periodicals—Kerem Hemed, Kokebe

Yizhak,

expired. 1 T h e Ozar

Nehmad,

I. Mendel Stern tried in 1844 to resuscitate the annual and published one volume under the same name. T h e n S. I. Reggio and I. Busch together published one volume of Bikkure ha-'Ittim ha-Hadashim. Neither attempt had a sequel. See Bernhard Wachstein, Die hebräische Publizistik in Wien (Vienna, 1930), pp. xxxviii-xxxix, xcix. 117

Eisig Silberschlag

ιι8

Ha-Maggid,

and Ha-Meliz—were

repetitive

in tone and

frequently

redundant in content. T h u s the early thirties can be regarded as the end of the pioneering generation in the period of enlightenment. Still, the reservation should be made that other dates could have been chosen, perhaps, with equal justification.

Ι . D E C A D E N C E OF H E B R E W

L I T E R A T U R E IN T H E N I N E T E E N T H

CENTURY

If the early eighteenth century has been called a period of "general barbarization of Jewry,"

2

the early nineteenth century may be designated

as a period of general barbarization of Hebrew literature. With the sole exception

of three graceful poets,

Solomon

Löwisohn

(1789-1821),

Joseph Efrati (1770 ?-i8o4), and Meir Halevi Letteris (1800 ?—1871), 3 who produced some deathless poetry, no creative spark illumined the myriads of verses which marred the books and periodicals of that time. Even some scholars who still enjoy enviable reputations—like Solomon Judah Rapoport (1790-1867) and Samuel David Luzzatto (1800-65)— produced large quantities of undistinguished verse. 4 A monotony of form and content was the inevitable result. T h e six-line stanza, used by Naphtali Hartwig Wessely (1725-1805) in the lyrical sections of his epic

Shire

Tiferet (Songs of Glory), by Joseph Efrati in some dramatic sections of his play Melukat

Shcful

(The Reign of Saul),

and by Abraham D o v Bär

Lebensohn (1789-1878) in his most ambitious poem,

"Ha-Hemlah"

( " P i t y " ) , with depressing regularity of rhyme and syllable-count, dominated most narrative effluvia for a hundred years—right up to Bialik's

2. H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, 3rd ed. (Leipzig, 1897), X , 289. 3. Dates of birth and death of Hebrew writers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offer a hopeless maze of inaccuracies. T h e paucity of official documents leaves wide room for speculation. T h u s Graetz gives 1822 as the date of Löwisohn's death. See his Geschichte der Juden, 2nd ed., X I , 453. And so does Wachstein, Die hebräische Publizistik, p. 202, n. 3. But the year 1821 is explicitly mentioned in the epitaph which is reproduced in Ruben Fahn, Solomon Löwisohn (Lemberg, 1922), p. 21, and idem, Pirke Haskalah (Stanislawów, 1937), p. 68. On the dates of Efrati and Letteris see Joseph Klausner, Historiyah Shel ha-Sifrut ha- Ibrit ha-Hadashah (Jerusalem, 1930-50), I, 169, and II, 366-367. 4. Literary tastes change radically. Luzzatto's Kinnor Na'im was held in high esteem by such poets as M . H. Letteris, Micah Joseph Lebensohn, and Judah L e b Gordon. And a German scholar of the nineteenth century thought that the book contained seeds for the flowering of a new period of Hebrew poetry: "Kinnor Na'im enthält die Keime, aus denen eine ganz neue Periode jüdischer Poesie erblühen kann." See Franz Delitzsch, Zur Geschichte der jüdischen Poesie vom Abschluss der heiligen Schriften alten Bundes bis auf die neueste Zeit (Leipzig, 1836), p. 94.

Parapoetic Attitudes and Values

119

time. Not only solemn and sublime themes but trivial subjects, mere pieces d'occasion, were cast in six-line stanzas. 5 Even a treatise on chess, reminiscent of the famous poem of Abraham Ibn Ezra on the subject, was tortured into that unhappy mold. 6 The four-line stanza, with slight variations, dominated most lyric effusions even beyond Bialik's time. Content was usually didactic, though a variety of themes compensated for the poverty of rhythm and rhyme. T o put it bluntly: the poems were not poems. When Leopold Zunz wrote in his very first scholarly article that " i n our time the Jews . . . are witnessing the funeral of the neo-Hebraic literature," 7 he may have had not only the rabbinic but also the poetic output in mind. 8 5. Shalom Cohen, for instance, celebrated the appointment of Solomon Judah Rapoport to the rabbinate of Tarnopol in Eastern Galicia with a poem of ten six-line stanzas, called "Heshek Shelomoh." See Kerem Hemed, 4 : 2 5 3 - 2 5 6 (1839). A panegyric on the volume of Kerem Hemed was also cast in the six-line-stanza mold. See Kol Shire Abraham Ber u-Mikah Joseph Lebensohn (Vilna, 1895), p. 242. Abraham Goldberg published two satirical poems of considerable length in stanzas of six lines: one in seventy-six stanzas, the other in forty-one stanzas. See his Masa3 Zafón cim Ma'aseh Rokeah (Lemberg, 1848). And as late as 1868 a series of elegies was composed in six-line stanzas by Moses Danzig. See his Nife Na'amanim (Warsaw, 1868), pp. 7 - 1 0 , 1 3 - 1 8 , 20-27, 29-33. 6. See Jacob Eichenbaum, Ha-Kerab (Lemberg, i860). There is an earlier bilingual edition in Hebrew and Russian. It appeared in London in 1840. See William Zeitlin, Bibliotheca hebraica post-Mendelssohniana (Leipzig, 1891-95), p. 75. Eichenbaum may have been inspired by Abraham Ibn Ezra, whom he studied and cherished. See Kerem Hemed, 4 : 1 1 3 - 1 2 1 (1839). It is interesting to note that Isaac Samuel Reggio complained about the dearth of writings on chess when he reprinted Ibn Ezra's poem and furnished it with a scientific introduction. See Iggerot Yashar El Ehad mi-Meyuda'av, II (Vienna, 1836), 77. 7. Leopold Zunz, " E t w a s zur rabbinischen Literatur," Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin, 1 8 7 5 ) , I, 4·

8. Yet Micah Joseph Lebensohn tells us in his introduction to Shire Bat Ziyyon that Zunz persuaded him to abandon foreign themes and devote himself to Hebraic motifs. There was a close connection between scholar and poet in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Thus the philosopher Nachman Krochmal befriended the poet Meir Halevi Letteris. And though Zunz may have been the father of the Wissenschaft des Judentums, the poets were its loyal partners and popularizers. It has not been sufficiently stressed that poets preceded and perhaps stimulated scholars in the choice of important subjects for research. Thus Shalom Cohen's article on liturgy in Bikkure ha-cIttim, 1 : 3 8 - 4 8 (1820/21) (reprinted from his Seder ha-cAbodah) preceded Zunz's massive studies on the subject. Incidentally, the term Wissenschaft des Judentums has inexact equivalents in other languages : Hokmat Yisrael and even Madace ha- Yahadut in Hebrew, études juives in French, studi ebraici or studi rabbinici in Italian, "Jewish lore" or " J e w i s h learning" or "Jewish research" in English. In English, the word " H e b r e w " is sometimes used as a substitute for " J e w i s h . " Laymen in France use science juive and laymen in Englishspeaking countries use "science of J u d a i s m " or "Jewish science." The term was undoubtedly coined by Zunz, but it gradually changed its meaning from systematic research in Judaism as a classical and dead literature to a scientific study of Judaism as a living entity. See Ismar Elbogen, Ein Jahrhundert Wissenschaft des Judentums (Berlin, 1922), pp. 5 - 1 0 , 43.

I20

Eisig Silberschlag

On the other hand, all attempts to exonerate the pedestrian pedantry of Hebrew poets in the early years of the nineteenth century must end in failure. It is because of the perseverance of naïve critics of literature that such attempts have been made, contemporaneously with the enormous output of poetry, in the early decades of the nineteenth century by Franz Delitzsch, in mid-century by Heinrich Graetz, and in our own time by Joseph Klausner. T h e authority of Delitzsch contributed to the favorable reception of poets who first concentrated their efforts in Ha-Mé'assef,9 They formed, in his opinion, a small republic of brilliant scholars and poets who raised the Jews to an equal level of culture with Germans " a t the very least." 1 0 If one remembers that Schiller had died in 1805, that Goethe was still an active force in German literature in the first two decades of the previous century, that Heine had published his first book of poems in 1 8 2 1 , one can only wonder at an enthusiasm run amuck. One should not, however, be ungrateful to Delitzsch. He was a pioneer who undertook to write a history of Hebrew poetry from the conclusion of the Bible to his own age, at a time when there were few books on the various ages of Hebrew poetry and, for his own period, no bibliographies, no anthologies, no monographs of consequence, no history of the neo-Hebraic language and not even a genre inventory. 1 1 Yet he correctly estimated that " H e b r e w poetry is the most faithful image [das treueste Abbild] of the psychological history of that people [the J e w s ] . " 1 2 Delitzsch was not the sole dealer in hyperboles. Graetz valued a poet of limited abilities like Eliyahu Halfon Halevi (1760-1826) above Gabirol and Judah Halevi and Moses Hayyim Luzzatto. 1 3 In our time, Klausner pleaded the cause of early Hebrew versifiers and even waxed enthusiastic over lines and stanzas which no critical sensitivity can excuse or tolerate. A good example is Ν. H. Wessely's "Mahalal R e c a " ( " I n Praise of a Friend"), written in honor of Moses Mendelssohn; though 9. The periodical appeared with interruptions in the following years: 1783/84-1796/97, 1808/09-1810/11, 1828/29. 10. Delitzsch, Zur Geschichte der jüdischen Poesie, p. 101. In his Essai sur la régénération physique, morale et politique des Juifs (Metz, 1789), in the note to p. 262—the last page of the book—the Abbé Grégoire says about the writers of Ha-Mé'assef : " I l s aideront a la régénération de leur peuple; c'est peut-être l'aurore d'un beau jour." 1 1 . Delitzsch, Zur Geschichte der jüdischen Poesie, p. v. 12. Ibid., p. vii. 13. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, 2nd ed., X I , 240. Even Zinberg, who is a more cautious literary critic than Graetz, thinks highly of E. H. Halevi's poem "Ha-Shalom," which, in forty-nine five-line stanzas, extols the greatness of Napoleon. See his Toledot Sifrut Yisrael (Tel Aviv, 1959), IX, 261. Klausner, although he would not rate Halevi as highly as Graetz did, is also very eloquent in his praises.

Parapoetic Attitudes and Values

121

published in 1778, it is also characteristic of Hebrew verse structure of later periods: Λ Γ π η VpN s r n wx abïx ,ri,3jri

ηηψ

nya·;

" a n a 1 ? Vs?a

•πητ bsw η η « 1 ^ τιχη5* ,ιηχιτ a -inasn τ τ nb·· n"τ ι " τ : τ i n·· s: »· - lanx fin Vsa Tfn¡77¥ ¡ n n "73 " π ηχ ρπ

nnin ηχ

In the first two lines, " t h e fire of religion which is eternal b e a u t y " illumines darkness and sits high above the heights of G o d himself. Apart from inane generalities like "fire of religion," "eternal beauty," and apodictic banalities like "fire illumines darkness," there is also the poetic imprecision of fire instead of religion itself "sitting high above the heights of G o d . " In the next four lines the poet mixes his metaphors: " o u t of the light of your garment" is followed by " o u t of the well of your wisdom." A n d then the reader is treated to another meaningless generality: " t h e purity of your [religion's] j u s t i c e " is followed by the exclamatory and declamatory finale: " Y o u are the law of the living God, you are the life of all spirit." Y e t Klausner thinks that " s u c h verses can only be written by an inspired p o e t " ("meshorer be-hesed

celyon").li

So unpoetic a poet is Wessely that he denies poetry its function and its autonomy. In the notes to the fifth canto of Shire Tiferei, which were translated into German by two Christian scholars, J. J. Spalding and G . F. Hufnagel, 1 5 he maintains that his purpose is " n o t to show off sweetness of poetry or purity of diction [nocam ha-shir we-zahut

ha-

melizah] b u t . . . to guide people through the sweetness of song to a deeper understanding of the Pentateuchal stories. . . " 1 6 In other words: unabashed didacticism and exegetics motivate the foremost poet on the threshold of the nineteenth century. A naïve characterization must be added to the faults of Wessely's epic: the Jews are zerac emet ("seed of t r u t h " ) ; gefen adderei ( " a beautiful v i n e " ) ; 1 7 the Egyptians, in contradistinction, are 14. Klausner, Historiyah shel ha-Sifrut, I, 128. 15. Not Hufeland (sic!), as in M . Kayserling's " D i e jüdische Litteratur von Moses Mendelssohn bis auf die Gegenwart," in J. Winter and A . Wünsche, Die jüdische Litteratur, III (Berlin, 1897), 893. 16. N. H. Wessely, Shire Tiferet (Warsaw, 1858), notes to the fifth canto, p. ι ο ί . T h e purpose of the epic was adumbrated even more succinctly in the general introduction of the poet: ". . . to interpret the words of our G o d by way of poetry." 17. Shire Tiferet (Prague, 1809), I, 39a.

122

Eisig Silberschlag

people devoid of wisdom. 1 8 Similarly, the leader of the Jews, Moses, is characterized in numerous passages as a paragon of wisdom, Pharaoh as a hardhearted fool. This naïveté was to plague the novel, the play, and the epic during the entire century: Abraham Mapu's heroes were either black or white, and so were the dramatis personae in the elder Lebensohn's Emet we-Emunah or in Judah Leb Gordon's narrative poems. And Shalom Ben Jacob Cohen (1772 ?—1845), one of the editors of HaMe'assef and Bikkure ha-cIttim,19 the central figure in Hebrew poetry after Wessely, the arbiter of taste : what is his claim to poetic fame ? He begins his writing career with didactic proverbs, with Mishle Agur (Proverbs of Agur) in Hebrew and German, he continues with a collection of poems, Mattete Kedem cal Admat Zafon (Plants of the Orient on Northern Soil),20 again in Hebrew and German, he then publishes his allegory cAmal we-Tirzah, " t h e first social drama in H e b r e w , " 2 1 which is a slavish imitation of Luzzatto's La-Yesharim Tehillah. This poetic output is crowned with the voluminous epic, Nir David,22 an acknowledged derivative of a derivative: an imitation of Wessely's epic, which in turn stems from Klopstock's Messias.23 In the subtitle, the poet characterizes the epic as " Songs of Glory [Shire Tiferei] . . . to David son of Jesse." 24 Incidentally, the first poem in Mattale Kedem cal Admat Zafon is also called " S h i r 18. Ibid., I, 6a. 19. S h a l o m C o h e n edited t h e three v o l u m e s of Ha-Me'assef, which was p u b l i s h e d f r o m 1809 to 1 8 1 1 , and t h e first three volumes of Bikkure ha-cIttim ( 1 8 2 0 / 2 1 - 1 8 2 2 / 2 3 ) , which had a less checkered career t h a n Ha-Me'assef·. it expired in 1 8 3 1 / 3 2 . T h e two periodicals are so similar in t o n e a n d content that Bikkure ha-cIttim m u s t be considered as a repetition of r a t h e r t h a n a continuation of Ha-Me'assef. See W a c h s t e i n , Die hebräische Publizistik, p. 15. W a c h s t e i n , incidentally (p. 30), assigns the date of C o h e n ' s b i r t h to t h e year 1770. 20. So considerable was t h e influence of S h a l o m C o h e n that t h e first periodical—really an a n n u a l — t o appear in Russia in 1841 was called Pirhe Zafon. See J o s e p h L i n , Die hebräische Presse (Berlin, 1928), p. 18. 2 1 . K l a u s n e r , Historiyah Shel ha-Sifrut, I, 248. It is not the first play by C o h e n . T h e third and final section of Mattale Kedem cal Admat Zafon contains a Biblical play c u n d e r t h e title of Ma'aseh Nabot ha- Yisre eli (The Story of Nabot of Jesreel). I n a note to t h e dramatis p e r s o n a e — t h e y are called gufim and not nefashot, as they would be in m o d e r n H e b r e w — t h e a u t h o r apologizes because he has invented characters which do not appear in t h e Bible. H e regarded it, apparently, as an act of daring. 22. It appeared in 1834, n o t in 1837, as stated erroneously by Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, 2nd ed., X I , 2 4 1 , η. 3. O n t h e same page, in t h e same note, there is a peculiar spelling of D T W n [sic!] m p 3 . 23. T h e a u g m e n t e d edition of Mattale Kedem cal Admat Zafon (Zólkiew, 1 8 1 8 ) , p p . I -1 5 7 > contains a p o e m which a m o u n t s to an apotheosis of Wessely. It is, of course, written in t h e six-line stanza, so dear to Wessely. 24. T h e r e are psalmlike (Psalmähnliche) lyrics f r o m the life of David in Mattale Kedem cal Admat Zafon (Vienna, 1807), p p . 46-82.

Parapoetic

Attitudes

and

Values

123

Tiferet." 2 5 Shalom Cohen lived all his life in the shadow of a shadow. And yet Isaac Erter, who had the gift of mockery, called him "sweet singer of our generation," 26 as he himself was later called "sweet satirist of Israel." And Letteris sang his praises in an uninspired epitaph. 27 Lesser luminaries like Gabriel Berger consciously imitated him. Nife Ndramanim Minni Erez Kedem ha-Netifim be-Admat ha-Macarab (Sweet Plants from the Land of the East, Planted in the Soil of the West)—this is the title of his volume of verses that retell in measured lines Biblical episodes: the story of Creation, Paradise, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham and Isaac on Mount Moriah, Jacob and Joseph, Moses on Mount Horeb. 28 Like their numerous predecessors, Shalom Cohen and his leading contemporaries were bilingual writers. This is not a remarkable fact. Bilingualism has a long tradition in Hebrew literature: it begins with Biblical writers and continues to our own day, but usually the bilingual writers wrote poetry in Hebrew and prose in another language. Thus the medieval poet-philosophers reserved philosophy for Arabic and poetry for Hebrew, although one can point to Immanuel of Rome, who wrote most of his poetry in Hebrew, but not all ; some of it was written in Italian. Shalom Cohen wrote the self-same things in both languages. Not only did Mishle Agur and Mattale Kedem cal Admat Zafon appear in both Hebrew and German, but the very title page of the first Bikkure ha-cIttim is in Hebrew and German (in Hebrew letters). 29 Further, the German text is a more precise delineation of the functions of the periodical. It seems that Shalom Cohen as well as his contemporaries had lost faith 25. Since Cohen uses the German Epopee for Shir Tiferet, it is apparent that the latter had become a technical term: " e p i c . " Is it possible that Wessely had already used it in that sense ? At the end of the unpaginated introduction to the epic he claims that the term contains the idea of ha-Gedolot (the mighty things): the Temple, the miracles, prophecy, Torah are characterized in Scripture as Tiferet. 26. Isaac Erter, Ha-Zofeh le-Bet Yisrael (Tel Aviv, 1945), p. 147. 27. See his introduction to the third edition of Shalom Cohen's cAmal we-Tirzah (Warsaw, 1861), pp. x i x - x x . 28. T h e title of the collection of lyrical poems, Nife Na'amanim (see Note 5), may also be a reminiscence of Cohen's Mattace Kedem cal Admat Zafon, though it is obviously based on Isa. 1 7 : 1 0 . T h e phrase Nife Na'amanim attracted the enlightened, who did not and could not, at the time, suspect its strange meaning. Nazaman, on pretty conclusive evidence, is most probably identical with Adonis. See Yehezkel Kutscher, Millim weToiedotehen (Jerusalem, 1961), pp. 5 9 - 6 1 . 29. T h e two languages were usually Hebrew and German. But Joachim Rosenfeld has two poems, " D i o g e n e s " and " L o t ' s W i f e , " in Hebrew and French—perhaps because of the French dedication to Montefiore and Crémieux. See his Tenubot Sadeh (Breslau, 1842), pp. 78-79, 88-89. I n the seventies of the nineteenth century we even find a trilingual poem in Hebrew, German, and Hungarian. See Simon Bachrach, Muzal me-Esh (Budapest, 1879), PP· 94-95·

124

Eisig Silberschlag

in the Hebrew language as a vehicle of communication. Though his introductory poem to Bikkure ha-cIttim expresses hope for the eventual flowering of " t h e garden of Hebrew," it is pessimistic in tone: "nettles cover its f a c e . " 3 0 David Samóse, who published an anthology of translations and his own poetry under the title Resise Melizah in a bilingual edition, expresses the hope in his introduction that "days will come when the Hebrew language will be loved . . . and not abandoned." This alternation of despair and hope became the dominant attitude toward the Hebrew language in the nineteenth century. Loss of faith in Hebrew is one reason for the bilingualism of Hebrew poets in the beginning of the nineteenth century. Another was their childish belief in knowledge as a redemptive tool and in knowledge of German as a guarantee of intelligence and intellectuality. One who could write German was already a superior being. But neither bilingualism nor naïve rationalism was conducive to the production of poetry. T h e sad truth is that, with few notable exceptions, Hebrew poetry qua poetry ceased to exist in the early years of the nineteenth century. That the public also tired of the verses of poetasters is evident from the simple fact that the annual Bikkure ha-cIttim published less verse than had its precursor, Ha-Mé'assef, and the successor to the former, Kerem Hemed (1833-56), published almost no verse. That did not discourage the versifiers, who assembled their products in many volumes at their own expense or at the expense of solicited " f r i e n d s . " Graetz is wrong in thinking that the contributors to Kerem Hemed felt that this was no time " t o dilly-dally [tändeln] in verse, to rhyme Hebrew plays or dialogues, to offer Racine or Schiller, Petrarch or even Anacreon in Hebrew form. . . " 3 1 They continued to produce poetry, but they published only their scholarly research in Kerem Hemed. 2 . FOUR FUNCTIONS OF H E B R E W P O E T R Y IN THE N I N E T E E N T H C E N T U R Y

If the Hebrew poems of the early nineteenth century were no poems or, to use the popular terminology of contemporaneous critics and poets, nonpoems, then they had parapoetic value, which must be sought alongside the poems. This assumption skirts the barren dispute about the relative importance of matter and form. For a Matthew Arnold matter is allimportant; for a French critic like Brunetière, form is everything: " C ' e s t 30. Bikkure ha-cIttim, 1 : 4 (Vienna, 1820/21). 3 1 . Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, 2nd ed., X I , 498.

Parapoetic Attitudes and Values

125

la forme qui est t o u t . " 3 2 For our purposes parapoetic poems cannot be dismissed even though they are not poetry. T h e y occupy a zone beside (παρά) poetry in all ages and in all civilized countries. Just as medieval philosophy, which was theology to a large extent, projected preconceived ideas about the universe in massive structures of logic, so the poetry of enlightenment succeeded in fixing certain ideas of the age in the minds of people. In this century we need no proof to show that jingles, verses, lyrics, incantatory phrases, and proverbial sentences have served indiscriminately to advertise the products of industry and the products of intellect. Sociologists and psychologists and cyberneticists have combined to use new techniques for processes of information, influence, and mass diffusion. And they have often succeeded in producing planned emotional results. In the naïve days of the nineteenth century, Abraham Bär Gottlober, the Hebrew translator of Jerusalem, has this to say about Mendelssohn : ^ n s f n )» rninn Va¡? anay ja nrca ,D«n rrn r a w n s x a nei jia^a ja ns?a 33 .crVttfciTa •- τ · t nτ p ι : a· r ò τ nfes τ τ ama · · - ; ' ·73 . · ntfa This tristich fixed Mendelssohn's position in the mind of a generation. T h e author of Jerusalem became the third Moses who wielded immense spiritual power: the first Moses received the Torah, the second, Maimonides, resuscitated it, the third built for it a sanctuary in his book Jerusalem,34 S. J. Rapoport mourned the passing of Nachman Krochmal, who died in the month of A b (July 31, 1840), in less felicitous and less memorable lines: ama Vm orna 'χ Dr 35 .ama

js

T h e entire body of early nineteenth-century Hebrew poetry served four main purposes and succeeded in popularizing them to a far greater extent than prose : it bent the Hebrew language to Biblical idiom, in the mistaken notion that only the Bible is a source of linguistic purity; it encouraged 32. H. J. C . Grierson, The Background of English Literature (New York, i960), p. 267. 33. Abraham D o v Bär Gottlober, Yerushalayim (Zhitomir, 1867), p. xxx. 34. Samuel Romanelli was the first to link Moses the lawgiver, Moses Maimonides, and Moses Mendelssohn, in an elegy on the death of Moses Mendelssohn. See Ruben Fahn, Pirke Haskalah (Stanislawów, 1937), p. 13. 35. Kerem flemed 6:41 (1841); M . Letteris, Zikkaron ba-Sefer (Vienna, 1869), p. 64.

Eisig

I2Ó

Silberschlag

secular education as a means of intellectual, social, and economic assimilation ; it indulged in translations from European languages, and it regarded them as an effective vehicle of enlightenment; it fought against Hasidism, though it did not join ranks with its opponents, the Mitnaggedim. It is not mere coincidence that the first four editors of Ha-Mè'assef— Isaac (Isak) Euchel, Mendel Breslau, Simon and Sanwil (Seinwel) Friedlander—stood at the helm of a cultural society in Königsberg which called itself Hebrat Dorshe Leshon cEber. But they were conscious that Hebrew was an exotic importation. In contradistinction to contemporary Hebrew poets who deliberately occidentalize their imagery and even their syntax, the Hebrew poets of the last century hewed closely to Biblical idiom and Biblical grammar. The Bible was their exclusive source of inspiration during the entire nineteenth century. Foreign classics were imitated, but they were thoroughly adapted to Biblical prototypes. Even translations adopted Biblical idiom and Biblical form. Thus Marcus Rothberg rendered the hexameters of Goethe's Hermann und Dorothea into Biblical vocabulary and Biblical parallelism. Subject matter was also Biblical in inspiration: Moses is the subject of Wessely's epic. Abraham, David, Nabot of Jezreel—these are the subjects of Cohen's poetry. T h e language, except for grammatical mistakes, 36 is thoroughly Biblical. That is why "post-Biblical poetry" is more than a chronological term; it is a value-laden term. The Hymns of Thanksgiving in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the poems of Kalir, the entire body of Hebrew poetry in the Spanish, the French, and the Italian Middle Ages is Biblical in style. It is a continuum almost deadening in its uniformity. For more than two thousand years Biblical poetry was normative and authoritative in language and in style, a fountain of beauty and a source of religion. And post-Biblical poetry was merely a poetical commentary on and a poetical appendix to Biblical poetry. This is especially true of Hebrew poetry in the nineteenth century. When the Hebrew language is mentioned or singled out 36. It is assumed that Hebrew poets in the period of enlightenment were purists. This is not the case. T h e i r sins against the Hebrew language could easily fill a sizable volume. A few examples of grammatical mistakes, picked at random, will suffice: David Samóse writes: Π 1 ! ! ! * ' W H . See his Resise Melizah, p. 64. Ephraim Luzzatto sings : ΠΪΓΙΙΠ |Π. See Ele Bene ha-Necurim

(Vienna, 1839), p. 20. Joseph Efrati says: i a V Π1ΝΓΙ

• · · iV jrir See his Melukat

Shcful

(Lemberg, 1820), p. 16a.

Parapoetic Attitudes and Values

127

for praise in that period, Biblical idiom is ¿néant and Biblical idiom is used. And since the Bible was regarded as a divine rather than a human document, the language of the Bible was not only a holy language but a sweet and beautiful language as precious as an ancient sapphire, " o u r life and length of d a y s . " 3 7 In time it came to mean the alpha and omega of Hebrew literature, language for language's sake, phrase-mongering or melizah of the worst kind : how beautifully and closely to the Biblical idiom something was expressed—that was of prime importance; what was expressed—that was essentially of subsidiary value; 3 8 hence the many praises of an author's language in the various introductions or in the haskamot,39 and hence odes to the Hebrew language in the works which had no relation to linguistics except the fact that they were written in Hebrew. 4 0 This ecstatic attitude to Biblical idiom was taken for granted by the poets and even by a critic like Delitzsch, who thought that Hebrew lost vitality when it abandoned its Biblical word-structures and imagery. It is this criterion which impelled him to accord greatness to poetasters like Rafael Fürstenthal ( 1 7 8 1 - 1 8 5 5 ) and Aaron Wolfsohn (1754-1835). An earlier poet, David Franco Mendes ( 1 7 1 3 - 1 7 9 2 ) , was regarded by him as the greatest of modern Hebrew poets because he based his work on Jewish tradition, not on Olympian gods or a superficial deism. 4 1 This dichotomy of Hellenism and Hebraism exercised the best minds of the previous century. All men are either Jews or Greeks, said Heine, who derived the 37. It is characterized as a " s w e e t and beautiful language " in the poetry of S . D . Luzzatto. S e e Kinnor Na'im, I I (Padua, 1879), 1 6 7 . See also S . Spiegel, " T a s h l u m h a - H a k damah l e - S e f e r K i n n o r N a c i m l i - S h e d a l , " in jfezoish Studies in Memory of George Alexander Kohut, ed. Salo W . B a r o n and A l e x a n d e r M a r x ( N e w Y o r k , 1 9 3 5 ) , H e b r e w section, pp. 1 3 2 , 1 4 0 . H e b r e w is compared to an ancient sapphire by Cohen in the augmented edition of Matta'e Kedem cal Admat Zafon, p. 14. H e b r e w is characterized as " o u r life and length of d a y s " by M . Letteris in Tofes Kinnor we-cUgab (Vienna, i860), p. 58. 38. A favorite device was what H e b r e w grammarians called lashon nofel cal lashon. T h i s is sometimes carried to ridiculous lengths as in the following f r a g m e n t of S o l o m o n P a p p e n h e i m ' s chef d'ceuvre:

rvnapapi D T > O D T I » YSN 'a1' m'ygr Κ*7 a n a • • • m r a ™

O^PTO ,Η-'ΪΊΫΐ

η-ιπ ~

*7S7 ' S I N

c

PX P ^ ^

NPSI

ntra

»Π»

·Π,·,π n n ANA f w D ^ V N

? mptn 1 ? rrnx τ ' b i i

m

S e e S o l o m o n P a p p e n h e i m , Aggadat Arba Kosot (Vienna, 1 8 6 3 ) , p. 9. 39. See H a y y i m J o s e p h Pollack's haskamah in the unpaginated introduction to P a p p e n heim, Aggadat Arbac Kosot. 40. L i p p m a n F u c h s , " E l h a - L a s h o n , " in the unpaginated introduction to P a p p e n h e i m , c Aggadat Arba Kosot. 4 1 . Delitzsch, Zur Geschichte der jüdischen Poesie, p p . 1 1 1 - 1 1 3 .

128

Eisig Silberschlag

antithesis from Ludwig Börne, and Moses Hess, one of the early ideologists of Jewish nationalism, devoted much thought to the differences between Greeks and Jews. 4 2 But in Hebrew literature Samuel David Luzzatto was one of the chief exponents of that cultural cleavage, though he gave it other names: Atticism and Abrahamism. And Matthew Arnold was a champion of a similar view for English literature. For the sake of simplification it may be said that Luzzatto insisted on the superiority of the Hebrew genius, while Matthew Arnold preached the superiority of Hellenism for modern England. Both forces, according to Arnold, move and influence our world—the Hebraic force of practical morality and the Hellenic force of intellect, the ideal of perfect conduct and the ideal of precise thought; the ethical man is the ultimate aspiration of the Hebrew, the intellectual man the ultimate aspiration of the Greek. Samuel David Luzzatto, who wrote on the subject in prose and poetry, in Italian, French, and Hebrew, echoes mid-nineteenth-century concepts about the two ancient cultures: Athens gave us philosophy, arts, sciences, order, aesthetics, rational ethics ; Judaism is mainly responsible for religion, for emotional ethics, for the love of the good. 43 In a letter to Joshua Heschel Schorr (1818-95), 4 4 published in 1863 but written twenty-five years earlier, he writes: For twenty-four years I have studied the writings of philosophers . . . and I found that all of them, more or less, are lost in a pathless wilderness . . . and the worst of it is that Greek philosophy—especially in this generation—not only does not make its students more wise and more good than they were before, but it also does not make them happy . . . On the contrary : it changes their natural happiness to sorrow . . . but our ancient sages of blessed memory succeeded 42. See the epilogue to Moses Hess, Rom und Jerusalem (Leipzig, 1899), pp. 1 1 0 - 1 1 1 : " D i e Sprachen derjenigen Völker, aus weichen unsre Civilisation hervorgegangen ist, gehören mindestens zwei primitiven Stämmen an, den indogermanischen und den semitischen. Die antike Cultur der ersteren culminirte in Griechenland, wie jene der Semiten in Judäa . . . ihre grundverschiedenen Lebensanschauungen sind uns in den klassischen Werken der Hellenen und Israeliten überkommen. Wir ersehen daraus, dass die Einen von der Mannigfaltigkeit, die Andern von der Einheit des Lebens ausgingen, dass Jene die Welt als ein ewiges Sein, Diese sie als ein ewiges Werden auffassten. Dort will der Geist das räumliche Auseinander, hier das zeitliche Nacheinander durchdringen. Im griechischen Geiste spiegelt sich die vollendete Schöpfung, im jüdischen die unsichtbare Arbeit des Werdens, das schöpferische Prinzip, welches im socialen Leben erst seine Werktage anfing, als es im Naturleben schon zu seiner Sabbathfeier gelangt war." 43. " O n droit à Athènes la philosophie, les arts, les sciences . . . l'ordre, l'amour du beau et du grand, la morale intellectuelle et calculée. On droit au Judaïsme la religion, la morale du coeur . . . l'amour du bon." See Ozar Nehmad, 4 : 1 3 1 (1863). 44. On the date given here for Schorr's birth see Ezra Spicehandler, "Joshua Heschel Schorr: Maskil and Reformist," Hebrew Union College Annual, 30:185—186, n. 1 2 (i960).

Parapoetic Attitudes and Values

129

with their traditional Jewish wisdom to fortify Jews like a pillar of iron and a wall of brass . . . and they made them happy. . . 45 Simplicity rather than sophistication attracted Samuel David Luzzatto: hence his championship of a Rashi and his deprecatory attitude to an Abraham Ibn Ezra: " T h i s one [Rashi] believed his people's sages, and that one [Abraham Ibn Ezra] believed the Greek and Moslem sages. . . " 4 6 Even minor figures in the dawn of enlightenment felt moved to confront or juxtapose Judaism and Hellenism. Gabriel Berger, with his meager knowledge of history, contended that Biblical poetry is the oldest known poetry in the world and that Homer lived in the days of King Solomon. 47 And Avigdor Levi of Glogau, the grammarian, wrote a didactic poem with fifty-six notes 48 to show that Socrates and Plato and Aristotle, though they succeeded in opening the eye of man's intellect (cen siklo), were immediately contradicted by other philosophers until Moses came and brought truth and salvation to mankind. Today this ever-fascinating subject of Hellenism and Hebraism is still very much alive with us. On the scientific plane surprising interrelations in mythology, in custom, in alphabet, in ritual, and in belief have been uncovered. On the philosophical plane the dichotomy has recently again been subjected to searching analysis. Biblical patterns of thought and Platonic patterns of thought have been compared and fruitful analogies have been established. The audile Hebrew, in the opinion of Thorleif Boman, the Norwegian scholar, developed a keen understanding of the dynamic aspects of life : movement, passion, power ; the visual Greek strove for the static aspect of life: repose, discipline, harmony. Space was the thought-form for the Greek, time for the history-minded Hebrew. Finally, the Greek cherished things, the Hebrew, words. Both peoples 45. See Ozar Nehmad, 4 : 1 1 7 - 1 1 8 , 130 (1863). 46. See Kerem Hemed, 4 : 1 3 5 (1839). 47. See the unpaginated introduction to his Nit'e Na'amanim Minni Erez Kedem ha-Netcuim be-Admat ha-Ma'arab (Vienna, 1 8 1 4 ) . T h e reader was mercifully spared a second and larger volume, which was promised in Berger's introduction and which was to contain " t h r e e cantos on the war of Amalek and the giving of the Torah after the manner of the cantos of Ben Issachar [N. H. Wessely]." Berger cannot have referred to his play Moses and Zipporah, which appeared earlier in Ha-Me^assef (Altona, 1809/10), pp. 3—9, 79-85, and in Ha-Me'assef (1810), pp. 65-68. T h e play is listed in the bibliographical work of Abraham Yaari, Ha-Mahze ha-cIbri ha-Mekori we-ha-Meturgam me-Reshito we-cad ha-Yom (Jerusalem, 1956), p. 34. 48. T h e title of the poem is " H o t a m T o k n i t . " It appeared in book form with a few of Moses Mendelssohn's letters in Vienna in 1797. On the author see Zeitlin, Bibliotheca hebraica, p. 200. Graetz has uncomplimentary things to say about Levi. See his Geschichte der Juden, 2nd ed., X I , 586.

130

Eisig Silberschlag

made a lofty contribution to culture because of their one-sided physiological and psychological endowments. 49 While the Norwegian scholar attacked the problem of Hellenism and Hebraism from a philological, philosophical, and theological point of vantage, the American scholar, William Barrett, studied the problem in the context of existential philosophy. He reached conclusions which, though not startlingly original, are in the tradition of Western philosophy. " T h e ideal man of Hebraism is the man of faith; for Hellenism . . . the ideal man is the man of a reason . . . there follows for the Greek the ideal of detachment as the path of wisdom. Hebraic emphasis is on commitment."50 In short, the Hebraic man is existentialist, involved in existence; the Greek man is nonexistentialist, involved in eternity through his contemplative intellect. T h e fact remains: the modern West rests firmly on Hebraic and Hellenic bases. 51 That they have not been thoroughly fused may account for many a malaise in our present era. T h e unsophisticated poets in the early decades of Hebrew enlightenment may have yearned for Greek wisdom. Their roots were Biblical, their pattern of thought was Hebraic. Even Wessely, who is considered an innovator in educational theory, insists on a better knowledge of German only because reading a German translation of the Bible may lead to a deeper knowledge of its language and contents. In his ponderous and turgid tracts, written in a graceless prose, in Yen Lebanon (a commentary on Abot) and in Dibre Shalom we-Emet (an exhortatory essay on education), he expounded his famous distinctions between human learning and Divine laws: human learning (torat ha-adam) deals with behavioral and moral knowledge and with such general subjects as mathematics, geography, history, languages, and natural sciences; Divine laws (ha-hukkim haElohiyim) are enshrined in the Bible and in the rabbinic traditions. And human learning was to precede Divine learning. Somewhat less systematically he praised the German emperor Joseph II in a dedicatory poem for encouraging Jews to speak German, to understand rational morality, to educate their children and build proper schools for them. Successive generations of Hebrew poets did not abandon the theories of their master. But they sometimes carried their zeal for non-Hebrew 49. These cardinal theses are developed with a wealth of illustrations in the recent study by Thorleif Boman, Das hebräische Denken im Vergleich mit dem Griechischen, 2nd ed. (Göttingen, 1954)· 50. See William Barrett, Irrational Man (New York, 1958), p. 68. 5 1 . For the latest summation of the contrast between Greek and Hebrew thought see James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London, 1961), pp. 8-20.

Parapoetic Attitudes and Values languages and secular education to points of no return: to complete assimilation or even conversion. Since most of them were teachers, they were ideally suited to influence their charges. Shalom Cohen proudly announces his occupation on the title-page of the edition of Mattcfe Kedem cal Admat Zafon which appeared in 1807: "Teacher of Ethics and Hebrew at the Jewish Free School in Berlin" ( " L e h r e r der Moral u. Hebr. Sprache bey der jiid. Freischule in Berlin"). T h e Free School is the famous school which existed for forty-eight years ( 1 7 8 1 - 1 8 2 9 ) and which introduced into its curriculum modern methods of pedagogy, modern languages (German and French), mathematics, geography, history, and natural sciences besides Jewish studies. 52 Shalom Cohen also tried, unsuccessfully, to establish a modern school in London. And Joseph Perl was not only the founder and director of the Jewish school in Tarnopol, Galicia—the so-called Israelitische Hauptschule—but he endeavored to duplicate his efforts in Brody. 5 3 Samóse, who was a teacher—he even wrote an elegy on the death of one of his pupils—has a biting sestet on idiotic students who would be better off as shepherds : then they would listen to the song of birds rather than frequent the homes of teachers in vain. 54 He also described the pupils' ordeal on the day when educational inspectors or supervisors came to visit. 55 Bernhard Schlesinger, author of a drama, Ha-Hashmonaim, and translator of fragments from Klopstock's Messias, taught in the Bohemian town of Kolin. All these poet-teachers accomplished a revolution in educational practice: they contributed to the gradual deterioration of the heder and the yeshivah. And they were in no small measure responsible for the emergence of a new type of Jew: nontraditional, anchored in the culture of his environment rather than in the ancestral culture. Education, of course, was based on the rationalist attitude to hokmah, which connoted more than wisdom in the nineteenth century. It was 52. On the place and importance of that school in Jewish education see Mordechai Eliav, Ha-Hinnuk ha-Yehudi be-Germaniyah bi-yeme ha-Haskalah we-ha-Emanzipaziyah (Jerusalem, 1961), pp. 7 1 - 7 9 . It was not uncommon for Hebrew writers in the period of enlightenment to announce their teaching occupation on the title page. In the bilingual edition—the Hebrew and the German—of Solomon Pappenheim's Aggadat Arbac Kosot, its translator, Jonas Willheimer, calls himself [Gaya] X ^ J p " p a "IDS? 'Π17·' ΓΠ10 53. Raphael Mahler, Der Kampf zwischen Haskalah un Hasidut in Galizie in der ershter Helft fun igten Jahrhundert (New York, 1942), pp. 209-210. The book has been translated from Yiddish by the Hebrew poet Avigdor Hameiri and considerably enlarged by the author. See Mahler, Ha-Hasidut we-ha-Haskalah (Merhavyah, 1961). 54. See Samóse, Resise Melizah (Dyhrenfurth, 1821), p. 122. 55. See Samóse, Aguddat Shoshannim (Breslau, 1827), pp. 1 3 - 1 4 .

132

Eisig Silberschlag

regarded as a Divine instrument which was placed by a benevolent Deity at the disposal of human beings, a powerful force, a devouring fire.56 The poems of Ha-Mé'assef, as announced in the programmatic Nahal haBesor,in were to disseminate hokmah, morality, and friendship. 58 And before the end of the century Joseph Efrati has King David address hokmah as "the oar of the world" in a beautiful monologue in the play Melukat Shcful: the movements of hoktnah direct all life in animate nature ; its movements direct man's life after death and his wanderings from world to world. 59 In later times Abraham Bär Gottlober prayed for the union of religion and hokmah.60 The absorbing drama of the Middle Ages—the clash and fusion of philosophy and faith—was being played again on a different stage of history, with different characters and different arguments. Immediately in the first canto of Shire Tiferei Wessely turns to God in order to draw pearls from the sea of God's hokmah.61 Abraham is full of hokmah.62 The heart of Moses is like a flowing fountain of wisdom. 63 All men should search for hokmah·. the lovers of wisdom are loved by God, and those who are loved by Him shall not lack the good things of this earth. Though this is a naïve belief in Divine reward at its crassest, a certain nobility of concept accompanies this belief: all men are created in order to become wise and do good.64 In the poetical introduction to his lexicographical work Lebanon Wessely calls hokmah his sister, the very image of God's goodness, the balance in the hands of God. 65 The entire book is devoted to the tedious elucidation of the root hakam in the Bible. And whatever light the Talmudic sages and medieval philosophers shed on that fateful vocable is adduced with merciless thoroughness. Succeeding poets often began their book with odes to hokmah : Isaac Bär Levinsohn (1788-1860) published an ecstatic apotheosis of hokmah as a preamble to Tecudah be-Yisrael.66 David Samóse, in an unpaginated introduc56. Ha-Me'assef, 1 : 3 1 (Königsberg, 1783/84). 57. Nahal ha-Besor, the brook Besor in the vicinity of Gaza, is mentioned only in I Sam. 30:9, 10, 21. Since the root bsr means "announce," the name of the Biblical brook was unhesitatingly used in the meaning of "announcement, proclamation." It was immediately understood in the new connotation because thorough familiarity with the Biblical text was taken for granted. 58. Ha-Me'assef, 1:1 (1783/84). 59. The monologue opens the fifth act of Joseph Efrati's Melukat Sha'ul (Lemberg, 1820), p. 46b. I cite from the second edition, which was prepared for publication by Isaac Bär Levinsohn. 60. See Gottlober, Ha-Nizanim (Vilna, 1850), pp. 87-88. 61. See Shire Tiferet, Canto I, 4a. 62. Ibid., p. 2a. 63. Shire Tiferet, Canto III, p. 27b. 64. Shire Tiferei, Canto X I , p. 3. 65. N. H. Wessely, Lebanon (Amsterdam, 1765), pp. 2a-2b. 66. It was reprinted in Yalkut Ribal (Warsaw, 1878), p. 86.

Parapoetic Attitudes and Values

133

tion to his Resise ha-Melizah, made the epigrammatic statement: " H e who despises hokmah will not prosper." And those who disregard Hebrew diminish their intellectual capacity. Samóse also wrote a bilingual poem in praise of wisdom ; the burden of it was that he who finds wisdom finds happiness, joy, success, and comfort. 6 7 In short, he attains a superhuman status. Hebrew rationalists—in prose and poetry—were mild and conservative counterparts of their German and French confreres. There was among them no Hebrew Voltaire with mordant wit, no radical Baron d'Holbach who spurned religion and denied the need of theology. Their brand of enlightenment and common sense was propagated by such philosophers of the eighteenth century as Jean le Rond d'Alembert, who consistently considered his age as Vage des lumières. For them reason meant progress, development of science, restratification of society. It meant tolerance as conceived in Pierre Bayle's Dictionnaire historique et critique and in John Locke's Letters on Toleration. It meant democracy and the right of the people to govern themselves as propounded in Jean Jacques Rousseau's Contrat social. But it was not an unmixed and undiluted rationalism. After all, Rousseau was not only the father of the French Revolution but also the begetter of romanticism. 68 In Hebrew poetry there were few romantic excesses a hundred and fifty years ago. Nature was celebrated in its usual aspects. T h e seasons of the year, day and night, seascapes and landscapes, were given banal encomia. In the prose play Tó'ar ha-Zeman one of the characters waxes poetic and addresses nature as his "sweet sister who bestows upon us the very gift of love." 6 9 Jacob Samuel Byk, in a poem entitled "Loneliness," 7 0 based on Alexander Pope's " O d e on Solitude," declares that the enlightened man chooses to live in rural rather than urban surroundings and to spend his time in amiable pursuits. Translations, which served to widen the horizons of Hebraic readers, also had a share in stimulating appreciation for rural environments and idyllic modes of life. They practically inundated the field of Hebrew literature in the nineteenth century. Periodicals, annuals, volumes of poetry—they all carried their ponderous weight of translations. Though the translations were in the main made from other languages into Hebrew, 67. Samóse, Resise ha-Melizah, p. 73. 68. In a recent book the irrationality of many spokesmen for rationalism was excellently presented and convincingly argued by Harold Nicolson, The Age of Reason (New York, 1961). 69. David Samóse, To'ar ha-Zeman (Dyhrenfurth, 1 8 2 1 ) , p. 5. 70. See Bikkure ha-cIttim, 4 : 1 7 0 - 1 7 2 (1823/24).

I

34

Eisig Silberschlag

there were also translations from the Hebrew. Mendelssohn's translation of the Bible was of prime importance as an instrument of national enlightenment. The famous Zionide of Judah Halevi in Mendelssohn's translation71 evoked Goethe's admiration. These and other medieval translations—such as a fragment of Behinat cOlam by Yedayah haPenini 72 —may have been intended to show the beauty and wisdom of Jews to other nations. Translations into Hebrew were far more numerous. 73 They were made by scholars and poets, in fact by anyone who wielded a Hebrew pen. In bad verse Rapoport urged translations from all languages and all peoples.74 The enormous fertilization of Hebrew literature by European literatures has been more than matched in our times by numerous translators who were encouraged first by the well-known publisher Abraham Joseph Stybel and then by many publishing houses in Israel. 75 Though the translators of the previous century had no princely Maecenases to subsidize their efforts, they ranged over a wide lingual area. They were conscious of the fact that they were imitating and paraphrasing rather than translating. Thus Letteris frankly confessed on the French-Hebrew bilingual title page of one of his translations, " Esther . . . Imitation après celle de Mr. [«e/] Jean Racine," 7 6 and on the bilingual (German-Hebrew) 7 1 . Published bilingually in cAlim li-Terufah (Amsterdam, 1778), pp. i 6 b - i 8 a . 72. The fragment appeared in Dr. J . Heinemann's Allgemeines Archiv des Judenthums, 1:286-288 (1842). 73. The word "translations" is used loosely. Most translations of the nineteenth century lacked precision. What St. Jerome said about translations of the Bible which preceded his own may be said with equal justice about Hebrew translations of the nineteenth century : non versiones sed eversiones. 74. Bikkure ha-cIttim, 8:279-280 (1827/28). 75. It is, of course, a gross exaggeration to say that Hebrew literature between the fifties and the eighties was mainly " a literature of translations" (Ubersetzungliteratur), because the writers, who were great Hebraists but authors of small talent, had to limit their literary activities to translations from other languages. See Samuel Meisels, Deutsche Klassiker im Ghetto (Vienna, 1922), p. 10. 76. It was published under the title Shelom Esther in Prague in 1843. T h e two previous translations of the play were made by Joseph Haltern in 1798 and Solomon Judah Rapoport, who published the play under the title She'erit Yehudah in Bikkure ha-'Ittim, 8 : 1 7 1 - 2 5 4 (1827/28). Though Haltern actually preceded Rapoport, his translation appeared fourteen years after Rapoport's version. Dr. J . Heinemann received the manuscript from the author and published it in his Allgemeines Archiv des Judenthums, 1:293-298 (1842). Haltern's name is often misspelled; this happens twice in the bibliographical work of Zeitlin, Bibliotheca hebraica·, p. 234, "Holtern," and p. 454, "Haltern." In the introduction to M. Letteris, Shelom Esther (Prague, 1843), p. 1 1 , it is spelled: Klausner seems to have forgotten his existence altogether : he mentions only two known translations of Racine's Esther: Rapoport's and Letteris's. See his History, I, 17. For a brief chapter on Haltern, one of the early contributors to Ha-Me'assef, see A. Shaanan, Iyyunim be-Sifrut haHaskalah (Merhavyah, 1952), pp. 2 7 - 3 1 .

Parapoetic

Attitudes

and

Values

title page of his most famous translation: " Goethe's Faust—Eine Tragödie in einer hebräischen Umdichtung."77 The readers, like the translators, set low standards of precision. Few, if any, of the hundreds of translations of the nineteenth century can really be called translations. Books with Jewish themes, like Racine's Athalie and Esther or Ludwig August Frankl's cycle of poems, Rachel,78 had priority. Non-Jewish themes were usually Judaized in title and content. Though translations from German predominated, there was no lack of translations from the French and English and Italian, the Russian and Greek and Latin. But Greek and sometimes even Latin works were translated from translations. Of the German poets, Schiller was the most popular among Jews in the period of enlightenment. His moral tone, his didactic stance, his serious and unsophisticated manner appealed to the Hebrew poets. In the course of the nineteenth century many of his plays and poems had been translated. Goethe, on the other hand, had few translators, though he had many admirers. According to an excellent anecdote, Rabbi Zebi Hirsch Chajes of Zólkiew was so distressed at the death of Goethe that the members of his congregation noted his mournful mood at the Sabbath morning prayer. At their insistent inquiry the Rabbi told them that Goethe had passed away. The congregation knew nothing about Goethe, of course, but took it for granted that a great one in Israel had been gathered unto his fathers. And so the news spread all over town that Rabbi Goethe had died, and everybody said the proper benediction. 79 Heine, who was neither moralist nor philosopher, was thoroughly neglected in the first half of the nineteenth century. 80 But Herder and Kleist, Klopstock and Lessing, and a host of minor poets found their way into Hebrew literature in the early decades of the nineteenth century. French poets, with the exception of Racine, were not cultivated by Hebrew translators. Only a few individual poems of Jean Pierre de Béranger, Alphonse de Lamartine, Arnaud Berquin, and Antoinette Deshoulières were laboriously rendered into Hebrew by various translators in the early decades of the nineteenth century. 77. Faust was published under the title of Ben-Abuyah in Vienna in 1865. 78. T h e book, translated by M . E . Stern, appeared in a bilingual edition in Vienna in the year 1845. 79. Meisels, Deutsche Klassiker, p. 9. 80. T h e first translation of Heine appeared in 1 8 5 3 . It was, interestingly, his poem " Frau S o r g e , " which was rendered into Hebrew by Selig Allerhand of Zurawno in Galicia, under the title " B a t h a - D e a g a h . " See Kokebe Yizhak, 1 8 : 6 2 - 6 3 (1853). W o r r y was a favorite theme in Jewish poetry. Small wonder, therefore, that Herder's " D a s K i n d der S o r g e " was translated by Eisik Benjacob ( 1 8 0 1 - 1 8 6 3 ) Bikkure ha-'Ittim, i l : 1 6 2 - 1 6 3 (1830/31).

136

Eisig Silberschlag

Though the twentieth century has seen the greatest growth of interest in English and American writers—largely through the pioneering efforts of Hebrew poets in America—they had occasionally been translated in the previous century. Benjamin Franklin's extremely popular aphorisms in praise of prudence and honesty in Poor Richard's Almanack found a translator-imitator in Mendel Levin of Satanow (1749-1826). But, while translations from American literature were still very rare, translations from the English trickled steadily into the Hebrew language. It is interesting to note that a fable, " T h e Shepherd and the Philosopher" by John Gay, found an early translator.81 And so did Addison's "Ode on Gratitude," 82 which appeared in the very first issue of the Hebrew annual Bikkure ha-lttim. That was poetic justice. After all, Bikkure ha-Ittim, like its predecessor IIa-MeJassef, owed its form and format to the Tatler, which had been jointly edited by Addison and Steele and which inspired a spate of journalistic effusions all over Europe. Very popular throughout the nineteenth century were poets like Edward Young (1683-1765), whose "Night Thoughts" were eagerly translated. Today Young is almost totally forgotten. Translations from the Russian were still very rare at that early period. We find a poem of Mikhail Matveevich Kheraskov (1733-1807) in a translation by Baruch Czaczkes.83 And Samuel David Luzzatto, who was an Italian Jew and who translated poems of Petrarch (1304-1374), Giambattista Marini (1569-1625), and Pietro Antonio Metastasio (1698-1782), 84 made his translations of Anacreon from Italian renderings by Silvio de Rogati. In later life, Luzzatto translated fragments of the Latin of Boethius' De consolatione philosophiae and parts of Ovid's Remedia amoris,85 Joseph Almanzi (1801-1860) translated but did not complete Horace's longest epistle on poetry, De arte poetica. M. J. Lebensohn translated from Schiller parts of Virgil's Aeneid under the title Harisot Troyah,86 and 81. See Ha-Me'assef, 1 : 1 4 1 - 1 4 2 (1784). The translation is reprinted in Bikkure haIttim, 2 : 7 2 - 7 3 (1821/22). John Gay (1685—1732) published his Fables in 1727. He is better known as the author of The Beggar's Opera. 82. Bikkure ha-cIttim, 1 : 1 0 4 - 1 0 6 (1820/21). 83. Bikkure ha-cIttim, 1 1 : 1 7 7 - 1 7 8 (1830/31). 84. A play of Metastasio, Temistocle, in Romanelli's translation—in manuscript— is still in the Library of the Rabbinical College of Budapest. 85. An interesting fragment of Ovid's Metamorphoses, translated from an Italian translation by an earlier Hebrew poet, Sabbato Vita Marini (1690 ?-i 748), under the title Shire ha-Halifot, appears in J . Schirmann, Mibhar ha-Shirah ha-cIbrit be-Italiyah (Berlin, 1934), pp. 391-394. 86. T h e title is an imitation of Schiller's Die Zerstörung von Troja. See my " T s c h e r nichowsky and Homer," Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research, 14:256, n. 7 (1944)· c

m

Parapoetic Attitudes and Values

Bernhard Schlesinger dabbled in the work of Lucian. 8 7 But the measure of Schlesinger's knowledge of Greek can be gauged from one of his verses in Hebrew: he mentions Sophocles and Aeschines, who sang (!) within the walls of Athens, and spells the name of the disciple of Socrates as " E s h i n e s " (Or??)! 8 8 There was a fatal and inevitable misunderstanding between two movements which aimed at the regeneration of Judaism : Haskalah and Hasidism. Haskalah strove to impose regeneration from without, Hasidism from within. Haskalah had its roots in foreign languages and literatures. Hasidism relied on mystical antecedents within Judaism. Haskalah was Hebrew; Hasidism was Yiddish. 8 9 As a result, Haskalah had little or no understanding for Hasidism. 9 0 It vaunted a mood of tolerance, but it acted out extreme intolerance against Hasidism. Even the opponents of Hasidism from the orthodox ranks of Jewry rarely exceeded the envenomed barbs of the " e n l i g h t e n e d . " 9 1 It is unfortunate that the enmity took nonliterary forms: memoranda to the Austrian or Russian government which incited and encouraged persecution of Hasidim. It is also unfortunate that the memoranda were successful and resulted in harassment and imprisonment of Jews. T h e y were penned as early as 1792 by Mendel Lefin in French, and later by Perl and by Isaac Bär Levinsohn. Perl went so far as to call Hasidism " a damaging cancer spreading by the hour. . , " 9 2 His Megalleh Temirin (Revealer

of the Concealed)

appeared in 1819 and the sequel

Bohen Zaddik, in 1838. T h o u g h written in prose, they sometimes degenerate into a maqama-like

tract against the miracle-working

powers

of

Hasidic rabbis, against their greed and their venality, their love of princely ostentation and their abuse of the common people, their petty feuds and their coarse language, their lying and their cheating. A n d Isaac Bär 87. Bikkure ha-cIttim, 5:38-42 (1824/25). 88. Ibid., p. 38. Schlesinger had a weakness for Greek literature. Not only Lucian but also Pythagoras claimed his attention. See Bikkure ha-cIttim, 12:84-101 (1831/32). 89. There is a well-known Talmudic dictum in Baba Kamma 82)5-833:

• m i r ptr"? i s trrpn

in na1? ·ότιο jiwV Vint»·' p í o ό ί -ιών

S. J. Rapoport, the bitter foe of Hasidism, paraphrased thus: •iPlVlB IN Ï H p H Ï-®1? IN ΪΠΏ1? ÍClVlD Β Β ^ Ι - Γ π ΐ Π 1 JHP1? ( " W h y Yiddish in Poland? Either Hebrew or Polish [should be used].") See Bikkure ha-cIttim, 8:11 (1827/28). 90. For a rare instance of interest in Hasidic proverbs see Kerem flemed, 3:191-193 (1838). T h e editor, Samuel Leb Goldenberg, quotes with approval six proverbs of " t h e great preacher, the famous Maggid of Dubno of blessed memory." 91. An early anti-Hasidic tract, Zemir 'Arizim—one of the most vitriolic vilifications of the new sect—is comparable to Isaac Erter's Ha-Zofeh le-Bet Yisrael. 92. Mahler, Der Kampf zwischen Haskalah un Hasidut, p. 206.

Eisig Silberschlag

138

Levinsohn poked fun at " t h e stupid H a s i d " : while everywhere in Eastern Europe, he said, you can readily see " m e n of G o d , " you can search there in vain for a mere man; not one can be found. 9 3 T h e common predilection for the bottle, or rather the cup (kos), among Hasidim is satirized mercilessly: they drink beer like water, whiskey like fruit juice—especially at their Melaveh Malkah. T h e y are the true devotees of Bacchus, who is given an Aramaic etymology: Bacchus = Be Kassa (House of the Cup). 9 4 T h e satire does not spare the Hasidic rabbi who blesses barren women only too successfully. In Isaac Erter (1791-1851), satire against Hasidism reaches its apogee. It is subtler and deadlier than that of Perl and Isaac Bär Levinsohn, and it also hovers on the brink of poetry. Since Erter was a physician, he attacked with unremitting vigor the medical quackeries of the Hasidic rabbis. A n d since he loved the deeper aspects of Judaism, he mocked the Hasidic emphasis on trivial customs. It is not too much to say that the chief

intellectual

representatives

of

Jewry,

including

Rapoport

Krochmal, were against Hasidism. T h e r e was a complete volte-face

and at

the end of the century. T h e works of Freud and the far-reaching implications of psychoanalysis, Bergson's emphasis on intuition,

and

the

refined techniques of anthropology fostered a new receptivity to nonrationalist movements in general and religious movements in particular. T h e researches of Simon D u b n o w and Samuel A b b a Horodetzky into the historical backgrounds of Hasidism, the seductive paraphrases of Hasidic stories by Martin Buber and Micah Joseph Berdyczewski, the poetic tales of Judah L e b Peretz and Samuel Joseph Agnon, who recreated the world of Hasidism with nostalgic piety—all these savants and men of letters effected a new approach and a new attitude to Hasidism. 9 5 But this is another chapter in the intellectual development of Jews. SUMMARY

Fifty years elapsed between the publication of Ha-MeDassef demise of its successor Bikkure ha-Ittim.

and the

T h e poems in these and other

93. See Yalkut Rihai, p. 31. F o r even more pungent strictures against Hasidim, see Yalkut Ribal, p. 36: •A,I?V)K CRB-ORARI · ·

ΗΠΙΝΠ .D'TTA ΠΤΌΠΓΙ ,Π^^Η N^PNSN

B u t this is perhaps lingual exhibitionism. Certainly L e v i n s o h n did not want to attack the Maskilim but he could not resist the rhyme. 94. Yalkut Ribal, p. 149. 95. See m y " H e b r e w Literature's H o m e c o m i n g , " Jewish Social Studies 18:186 (1956).

Parapoetic Attitudes and Values

139

periodicals, the numerous volumes of original verse and translations of poems lead to the depressing conclusion: not a single major work of poetry emerged in that period. Yet the poetic output, insignificant as it is from the literary point of view, possesses parapoetic value. It advances and popularizes the main tenets of enlightenment: it firmly re-establishes the claim of the Bible as the main source of linguistic inspiration and it rejects the post-Biblical idioms and vocabularies as unsuitable for Hebrew poetry; it extols the virtues of non-Judaic disciplines as humanizing and enlightening agents; it surfeits Hebrew literature with translations from European languages in the hope of opening new vistas for Hebrew letters ; it fights Hasidism because it has lost faith in religious regeneration from within and it has committed itself to secular transformation from without. It even stimulates research into Judaic disciplines and it consciously aspires to the liquidation of the intellectual and spiritual ghetto after the legal abolishment of restrictive measures which checked the creative energies of Jewry for many centuries.

German Radicalism and the Formation of Jewish Political Attitudes during the Earlier Part of the Nineteenth Century BY H A N S L I E B E S C H Ü T Z

The epoch which saw in France the rising force of opposition against the restored monarchy of the Bourbons, and as a result of this movement the establishment of Louis Philippe's juste milieu regime in Paris, witnessed a corresponding change of political atmosphere in Germany. It brought about an ebb in the feeling that national self-assertion in resisting an ambitious and powerful neighbor ought to remain the dominant factor in the country's political consciousness. Educated Germans became aware of the fact that French institutions allowed the people to influence the course of politics, while they themselves, despite their important contribution to the victorious war of liberation, were emphatically denied this expression of political liberty. Political life in western Europe seemed to offer a program for the fulfillment of German aspirations. Treitschke's German History—with its detailed and lively narration the most influential interpretation of the period—linked this movement with the first appearance on the political scene of a group of writers characterized by their Jewish origin. 1 The historian and herald of the Bismarck empire saw Jewry as a force which considerably strengthened the cosmopolitan element of the movement and so contributed to what he considered to be an unnatural episode and a diversion from the providential course of nineteenth-century development. When, after eighty eventful years, we review the situation in order to reassess it in the context of both Jewish and German history, we thereby show our agreement with Treitschke about the relevance of the two decades between 1825 and 1845 for the understanding of ι. Heinrich von Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert, (Leipzig, 1913), I I I , 7oiff. 141

7th ed.

142

Hans Liebeschütz

the problems which dominate the age of emancipation. T h e

German

radicalism of this period gave men of Jewish origin the opportunity to shape a political philosophy that reflected more or less consciously the peculiar character of their own position. It is our task to sketch the different views which determined their thought, and finally to raise the question to what degree these attitudes of the earlier period remained effective during the second half of the century while emancipation approached its climax. T h e social background of the German movement is of special importance for our problem. T h e men who formulated a strong criticism of the existing state of affairs in order to rouse public opinion and gather power for a complete change were not occupied in the business of public administration, and did not possess the authority which goes with the exercise of public functions. Their interest in politics did not arise from direct contact with it in everyday work but rather in separation from this sphere. T h e y were men whom temperament and social background had made nonconformists in the conservative world of the Restoration period. 2 Most of them had to earn their living as men of letters and journalists by using the literary skill and liberal education which they mastered as an inheritance from the great poets and writers of the classical period. Those young Jews who had chosen the study of philosophy, history, and literature were almost forced to take this road which had been mapped out by their contemporaries of Christian origin. A s long as they did not accept baptism they were excluded from any office in public service. T h e only opening which Hardenberg's statute of 1812 had given to Jews settled in the Prussian provinces of his day was closed in December 1822, when Frederick William III, under the influence of a Junker party at court, decreed that no Jewish candidate be admitted to a teaching post at either the universities or schools. In a letter of April 1823 to his Hamburg friend J. Wohlwill, Heine quotes this event as a personal blow, which accounts for the extreme bitterness displayed in his criticism of Christian civilization. 3 O n the other hand, the men who during these decades stood at the helm of the internal life of the Jewish communities still remained untouched by the current which brought young Jews in contact with modern learning. In these circumstances the new class of Jewish graduates despaired of a satisfactory career in the service of their own people. Even 2. W . H. Riehl, Die bürgerliche Gesellschaft (Stuttgart, 1858), pp. 328-331 ; K . Löwith, Die Hegeische Linke (Stuttgart, 1962), pp. i2f. 3. F. Hirth (ed.), H. Heine, Briefe, I (Mainz, 1950), 63.

Jewish Political

Attitudes

143

a man like Leopold Zunz considered for a moment conversion in order to obtain a basis for his life's work as a scholar. 4 But for internal and external reasons professional success achieved through conversion remained the exception rather than the rule. Possibly at that time a certain amount of religious conviction or, at least, a definite belief in the social, in contrast to the purely personal, necessity of this step was required to render it really plausible to the environment. T h e consequence of this situation was the rise of Jewish journalism as a definite feature of German life. T h e transformation of Hegel's school, during the decade following the death of the master in 1831, contributed another factor to the rise of radical political thought. In the later stages of his career the philosopher had maintained that the spiritual process of the world had reached completion in his time because, through his philosophy, the mind had become able to understand itself as the creative force. This identification of " b e i n g " and "reasonableness" became a principle of German political conservatism. After Hegel's departure from the intellectual scene, his most active pupils found in this interpretation not so much a permanent truth as the expression of the thinker's attitude at the moment when an epoch has exhausted its motive force and approaches its end. They therefore felt justified in using Hegel's instrument, the dialectical method, in order to grasp the character of the future period in which Reason would assert its power by producing a radical change. This belief in the future as the source of meaning and purpose in the present was deeply embedded in the Biblical and ecclesiastical traditions of Western civilization ; as is well known, in his youth Hegel was very much aware of this link. 5 For the Jewish intelligentsia which came under the influence of this left-wing movement, the modern doctrine meant a renewal of the ancient messianic belief in final salvation, but cast in a more concrete and more emphatically universal form. Another aspect of this situation is even more pronounced. T h e men of the "Hegelian L e f t " had burnt their boats by publishing their radical views and by stimulating discussion and a keen interest among the educated reading public. T h e Ruges, Feuerbachs, and Bruno Bauers were forced to give up their academic careers. From a practical point of view their lives had become a failure. Their existence depended upon the earnings of their pens. T h e state considered them as outsiders, and their own outlook on the world was necessarily influenced by this situation. This means that there 4. N. N. Glatzer (ed.), Leopold and Adelheid Zunz, An Account in Letters (London, 1958), pp. 6, il, 13, 35, 138. 5. K. Löwith, Von Hegel zu Nietzsche (Stuttgart, 1958), pp. 136fr., 185-191.

144

Hans Liebeschütz

existed in Germany a group of some intellectual importance whose position was similar to that of the young Jews who, at this stage of the emancipatory movement, were thrown into the situation of an academic proletariat. T h a t was no guarantee of good companionship. But all these currents and tendencies together created an atmosphere likely to appeal to a Jewish writer and to stimulate in him ideas which chimed in well with his own personal experience. I

L u d w i g Börne came from the well-to-do Baruch family, whose members were established as court financiers to the Archbishop of Cologne. His father had settled in Frankfurt, and he himself had during the Napoleonic period been admitted to an office in the police administration of the city on account of his legal training. He lost his post as a result of the antiSemitic reaction after the war of liberation. T h e anti-Jewish riots of 1819, which he witnessed, impressed him deeply, but by this time he had already turned Protestant and had acquired his German name in order to be unhampered in the vocation of publicist. 6 His experience of the fate of the Jews after 1813 remained a determining factor in his thinking, but he had no doubt that the Jewish problem would find its solution in a comprehensive change of society. T h e change of outlook which took place in German public opinion during the twenties—the swing from ideas of salvation, combining Christianity with Germanic concepts, to the support of a program of democratic liberalism—found in him a vigorous and singleminded herald. T o this task he subordinated everything, especially his literary interests, by which he had first established himself as a dramatic critic. His well-known antagonism to Goethe, whose Diaries he condemned for their alleged lack of human sympathy, was derived from this attitude. 7 Börne pondered on the causes of the continuation of the medieval attitude toward Jewry. A s he saw it, Judaism inspired Christians with a feeling of awe because it appeared to them like the ghost of a mother, slain by her children, who pursued the living with her rebukes and threats. Moreover, the prevailing doctrine did not allow any room for Jews in Heaven; therefore no place on earth ought to be granted to them either. 6. G . Ras, Börne und Heine als politische Schriftsteller (Groningen, 1925). Recent bibliography appears in the article " B ö r n e , " Neue Deutsche Biographie, II, 404ÎÏ. 7. L u d w i g Börne, Gesammelte Schriften (Hamburg-Frankfurt, 1862), I X , 1 5 5 - 1 7 7 . Börne's review of Goethe's "Briefwechsel mit einem K i n d e , " Gesammelte Schriften, V I , 209-232, emphasizes the same idea.

Jewish Political

Attitudes

145

Such discrimination based on dogma should no longer have been effective in those modern times, seeing that Jews had become eligible for admission to a place in Heaven. But the desire to drive them from the surface of the earth still persisted. During the last decades before the French Revolution German lawyers competent in public law elaborated plans for the improvement of the civic status of Jewry. The French Revolution put their humane and reasonable principles into practice. What then was the case of the contemporary tendency to put the clock back and restore Jewry to its old miserable condition ? In answer to this question Börne cited the fact that the improvement of German Jewry's legal status was the result of legislation connected directly or indirectly with Napoleonic rule. That meant that-it was stigmatized by the concept of tyranny which in the eyes of the gentile population was attached to all acts of the Napoleonic regime after its overthrow. Moreover, in Germany no patriotic rhetorics was able to achieve political unity; hence racial unity was sought as a substitute. This excluded the Jews, who did not originate in the forests of Tacitus and have no blue eyes; their traditional education, being complete in itself, did not fit in with the ideal of German unity. Their dubious state led to their strange alliance with the nobility : the Jew provided the loans needed to uphold the social status of the aristocracy. T h e nobleman, in return, gave him his protection. In a society in which the Jew felt safe the last pillar of the feudal order would fall down. Jews would no longer buy their safety from the old warrior class. T h e latter, being deprived of Jewish financial help, would automatically become subject to public control as far as its livelihood was concerned. T h e participation of the lower classes in the anti-Jewish riots exposed the methods by which the ruling class attempted to demonstrate that democratic liberty was impossible. T h e workingman was set up as the Jew's prison guard so that he might himself be kept in custody. Perhaps there was one locked door the less for him than for the Jew. This was the only difference. Both classes were captive. 8 Börne justified his vocation as a political prophet by reference to the fact that he did not belong to the ruling classes. Men like himself, he claimed, were nearer to nature than a man on the throne. Hence a modest position in society might furnish a more intimate link with historical forces. A man like him might sense the coming storm while it was still too remote for the rulers and the nobility who were in control of power. They were imprisoned in their own egotism and unable to understand what was happening outside until the new world actually broke into their self-seeking realm. 8. Börne, " F ü r die Juden," Gesammelte

Schriften,

II, 4 6 - 5 5 , esp. pp. 5if.

146

Hans Liebeschütz

After the revolution of July 1830 had established a constitutional regime, Börne took his permanent residence in the French capital and, between 1832 and 1834, published the Letters from Paris in order to preach his message of political salvation to his fellow countrymen at home. His emphasis is on the backwardness of German life as seen from the true modernity of France. In ten years' time, he says, travelers would arrive from the west for sight-seeing. In their pockets they would have guidebooks carrying the title "Political Antiquities." T h e y would tour the towns to observe censorship, the overbearing attitude of the noblemen, the citizens' humbleness, the legal depression of the Jews, and the poverty of the peasants. T h e y would distribute " t i p s , " and at home they would publish descriptions, ornamented by engravings, of German miseries. 9 When Börne saw the progress made in France in the building of railways, he understood Friedrich List's enthusiasm for this technological advance, and was tempted to make a daring prophecy. T h e new means of transport would make it possible to move complete armies from one end of the country to the border on the opposite side within twenty-four hours. Wars would become exercises in surprise maneuvers, like a game of chess. T h a t meant that they would be no longer feasible. 1 0 He was right in pointing out the importance of modern communications for warfare. But the course of history has given a deeply ironical answer to his optimistic belief in political rationalism. T h e construction of railway systems led to Moltke's development of Napoleonic strategy, to Königgrätz and Sedan, and indirectly to the Schlieffen plan and the European catastrophe of 1914. Börne's reports on Paris, glorifying France as the leader of Europe's politics and civilization, aroused criticism in Germany. In defense, Börne tried to explain the nature of his patriotism. He loved Germany more deeply than France, just because of the unhappy state of her affairs, but feelings of loyalty must not prevent justice toward a foreign nation. France's permanent safety depended on the freedom of Germany. O n the other hand, Germany stood between her western neighbor and the Cossacks. T h e fate of Europe depended on the unity of the two nations. Middlemen were necessary as interpreters between the countries. Such men must have literary knowledge ; while political history was a biography of egotism, a nation's literature enshrined her contribution to humanity. 1 1 9. Letter of October 8, 1831, Gesammelte Schriften, I X , 149. 10. Letter of November 9, 1830, Gesammelte Schriften, V i l i , 32. 11. Introduction to Börne's French periodical Balance, Gesammelte 288, 290, 300.

Schriften,

VII,

Jewish Political Attitudes

147

T h e strongest attack against Börne came from Wolfgang Menzel, who as a literary critic in the twenties had supported Jung Deutschland, the post-romantic school of writers with whom the reading public usually associated both Börne and Heine. In the autumn of 1835 he published in his periodical, the Stuttgarter Literaturblatt, articles in which he stigmatized this literary group as a product of alien influence. His mind had reverted to the romantic ideas of Germanic Christianity which he had cultivated after 1 8 1 3 . In the month of December of the same year the authorities of the German Federation in Frankfurt made illegal the distribution of books written by the authors he had criticized. Börne counterattacked and issued the pamphlet Menzel, der Franzosenfresser. He vigorously denied his antagonist's assertion that his, Börne's, writings mainly championed Jewish interest: Menzel had made him a second Hannibal, who as a boy had taken an oath to spill the blood of Jerusalem's enemies in revenge for ancient suffering. Börne emphasized that he strongly and bitterly felt the persecution of Jewry, but he refused to accept as final an interpretation which saw these experiences only in the context of the conflict between Jews and gentiles. They were rather to be understood as an expression of arrogance, the universal human failing which always appeared when aristocratic stratification offered the opportunity. Seen from the European point of view, Germany as a whole was a ghetto. This was especially true of Börne's old home town, Frankfurt, where Senate and burgomaster no less than the rich merchants had to bow to the commands of Austria and Prussia, who were the true rulers. 1 2 Börne's second line of defense covers his championship of France as the citadel of liberty. He had never dreamed of inviting the French to impose freedom on Germany by force. No nation could become free through foreign conquest. On the contrary, every nation setting out for such enterprise at the expense of her neighbor had lost her own liberty. But Germany could, Börne felt, learn from France how to live in freedom by shaping her own institutions in accordance with the classical example established by her western neighbor. Such a procedure would not mean the imposition of an alien pattern of life, because both the French and the English freedoms were based on political customs which Germanic tribes once had brought to western Europe. 1 3 12. Ras, Börne und Heine, pp. 84f. ; Börne, Gesammelte Schriften, V I , 296, 3 1 6 f f . , 338f., 359· Menzel had referred to an endorsement on Börne's passport by a malicious official (see below, Page 149). Paris letter of N o v e m b e r 25, 1 8 3 1 , Gesammelte Schriften, X , g. 1 3 . Gesammelte Schriften, V I , 393, 399.

148

Hans Liebeschütz

At this point Börne availed himself of a theory then current among scholars in the field of legal history. It traced contemporary institutions back to the society described by Caesar and Tacitus. But he did not quote any learned authority for this repartee except Menzel himself. In his heated polemics against the Francophile falsification of German politics Menzel, his antagonist, had forgotten what he himself had written in his learned book, or else he expected his readers not to take notice of the scholarship he had displayed in earlier years. 1 4 We shall attempt to round off the picture of Börne's position by summarizing the criticism which a German scholar of liberal views, a representative of the educated middle class, wrote in 1835 against the cosmopolitan doctrine which had reached him from Paris. Georg Gottfried Gervinus was at that time professor of history in Göttingen, and his interests were divided equally between the literary and political developments of his nation. He was not liable to be swayed by the conventions was one prevailing in his environment. In 1837 the famous group of seven professors who protested vigorously against the nullification of the Hanoverian constitution by King Ernst August and lost their professorships in consequence. After the fifties Gervinus shocked many old friends and colleagues by his defection from the principles of liberal constitutionalism to democratic ideals, and by the fading of his sympathies for a Prussian solution of the German problem. 1 5 These features of his character qualified him as a genuine witness for the difference between the view of the emigrant in Paris and the opinions of the moderate liberals at home during the thirties: Börne's Letters from Paris praise cosmopolitanism as the destroyer of national differentiation; patriotism is described as a bait by which shrewd leaders deceive the simple folk and make them do what their superiors like. Börne's criticism of German ways of life was supported by a very narrow knowledge of German matters; his experience did not go beyond the borders of his native Frankfurt and some contact with a few deputies of the Diet of Baden. All events of real importance are passed over in his voluminous reports on contemporary affairs. Not a word is said on constitutional development in England, where the transformation of the House of Commons stood in the center of political discussion. Börne intended to reform the state, like a Luther in the secular field, yet he 14. Gesammelte Schriften, V I , 394. 15. His attitude is explained and defended in an anonymous pamphlet, Gervinus und seine politische Uberzeugung (1853). It was written by the historian H. Baumgarten, who in the eighties became a vigorous critic of Treitschke. He is now mainly known as uncle and political mentor of Max Weber.

Jewish Political

Attitudes

149

brought nothing to this formidable task except a tolerable wit suitable for the criticism of theatrical performances. His final aim was the destruction of egotism, but the written word served him only to arouse envy and hostility against the law on which all cohesion of human society depends. Börne saw his own task as the completion of what had its start in the religious history of mankind : cosmopolitanism proceeds from Christianity, and the work of the Church grew out of the preaching of Israel's prophets, who proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom of G o d . But Börne's appeal to hatred, to fire and sword for the sake of the establishment of the new order, may have come to him from the Islamic world. T h e story reported in the Paris letters about an official who wrote into Börne's passport the words " J u i f de Francfort," and by doing so aroused in the young man the will to retaliate, summarizes for the German liberal the driving force behind his antagonist's political writings. 1 6 T h i s conclusion from Börne's own text was easy to draw, and Gervinus was not the only one to do so; we have seen how Börne reacted to this manner of interpreting his life's vocation. II T h e negative attitude displayed by the world of the settled German middle class did not remain the only type of antagonism aroused by Börne's publicistic activity. It is well known that in 1840, three years after his fellow writer's death, Heinrich Heine published a pamphlet in which he critically described both the man and his ideas, thus starting a lively controversy in all circles interested in the liberal development of German affairs. T h e author and his subject were both Jews who had undergone the ceremony of baptism without losing their feeling for the strength of the ancient allegiance. Both were men of letters living as émigrés for the sake of being free to deliver their message to the world. From the point of view of our problem, the controversy raised by the living man against his dead colleague meant much more than a sensational scandal, although Treitschke later tried to stigmatize it as being only that. 1 7 T h e debate certainly shows that the halfway stage of emancipation, in which German criticism was the dominant force shaping Jewish thought on contemporary politics, allowed 16. " Ü b e r Börne's Briefe aus Paris" (1835), reprinted in Gervinus, Historische Schriften, V I I (1838), 385-411· 17. Heinrich Heine, Leben Ludwig Börnes, Sämtliche Werke, ed. E. Elster, vol. V I I (1890). On the biographical background see F. Hirth, Bausteine zu einer Biographie (Mainz, 1950), pp. 25-43; Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte, I V (1907), 433. For Börne's criticism of Heine see Gesammelte Schriften, V , 136—141 ; V I I , 248-279.

Hans Liebeschütz for a considerable difference of opinion. Heine's description of Börne's thought and behavior is really a double portrait. T h e author draws an image of himself as he wishes to be seen by the reading public, against the background of his opponent's views and actions. His Börne is a man with a one-track mind. Heine reports how he succeeded in arousing Börne's anger by telling him that after his (Heine's) arrival in Paris he did not undertake a pilgrimage to places famous by their link with protagonists and events of the French Revolution; that, instead, he went to see the classical collection of German medieval illustrations in a manuscript of the Bibliothèque Royale. He emphasizes the striking contrast between the violence of Börne's political diatribes and the essentially pedantic character of his elaborate style, which reflects the essence of the man in his somewhat Philistine solidity. We see Heine aligned with Gervinus in the observation that Börne's passion is not backed by any depth of political knowledge. 18 T h e core of the book on Börne is an account of the different attitudes which the two men adopted toward the attempts that were made to solve Europe's problems by means of revolutionary movements. Heine is at pains to demonstrate how his own cautious and conservative views developed out of his experiences in 1830. T h e whole second section is dedicated to the holiday spent in that year on the island of Heligoland, where he followed events with enthusiastic expectation after a fisherman had brought the news: " T h e poor people have won in Paris." When Heine came to Paris in the following year, he was disillusioned. T h e working classes had won on the barricades, but the final result was the rise of the bourgeoisie, while the rank and file of the people were left as they had been before. Heine quotes a statement from a rather pedantic-looking East Prussian lawyer in Heligoland, who commented on the first news of the victorious revolution with the words: " A s long as the right of inheritance is not overthrown, nothing will be changed." 1 9 Although Heine learned in Paris how true that statement was, he remained averse during the next decade to the creed of progress by revolution. The main purpose of the pamphlet against Börne, the bellicose democrat, appears to be a defense of his own political attitude. His account of the two aspects of the situation, for the purpose of explaining his skepticism toward the prospects of a German revolution, is based on almost contradictory impressions. 18. Sämtliche Werke, VII, 104, 106. 19. Ibid., pp. 60, 66.

Jewish Political Attitudes On the one hand, he emphasizes his disbelief in the capacity of the German people to proceed from conspiracy to action. He illustrates this impression by a story about the political festival of Hambach in 1832, which Börne attended. A committee was formed to decide the question whether the crowd assembled was competent to start a revolution in the name of the nation; the majority voted in the negative. 20 On the other hand, Heine could point to a minority of men in Germany who were the real activists of the movement. Among them he found cosmopolitanism as an attitude adopted merely under the influence of the political current which had prevailed in the world since 1830, and perhaps even as a disguise allowing those older impulses of Germanic nationalism that had dominated the student fraternities after 1 8 1 3 to remain alive. Among these groups Heine traced an outspoken interest in the racial origin of a writer, notwithstanding the fact that in some cases the most vigorous champions of Teutonic values did not bear the presumed features on their faces ; this happened frequently with men from the Prussian north, descended, no doubt, from Slavonic ancestry. This particular minority group, with its capacity for fanaticism, made Heine view a revolution in Germany as a fatal danger. 2 1 Moreover, during this period Heine remained antagonistic also toward any radical change in France, as his contemporary reports on social and political conditions demonstrate. He illustrated this lack of interest in the transformation of society toward complete equality, by a drastic comparison with Börne. His antagonist would, metaphorically speaking, cleanse his hand by fire after shaking the hand of a reigning monarch, while Heine realistically felt the need to wash his hand after greeting common people. But there were deeper and more serious motives: Heine felt that a passion for an egalitarian society was bound to result in a reduction of mankind to a lower level and in the suppression of beauty and creative power. Again Börne offers the evidence: his character, good workmanship, concern with ethics, and patriotism permit a comparison with Lessing. But of the two only the eighteenth-century writer had a genuine understanding of art and philosophy; this difference divides the two. 2 2 Heine regarded a belief in democracy as the panacea of the world's ills as an ascetic attitude, which he traced back to its religious root in the Jewish and Christian traditions. Transferred to contemporary secular problems, he felt, it meant the suppression of the sensual side of human nature, which is the source of greatness in individuals like Goethe. Heine saw this aspect of life symbolized 20. Ibid., p. 89.

21. Ibid., pp. 95f., iogff.

22. Ibid., pp. 8if., 107.

152

Hans

Liebeschütz

in the gods of the ancient world, whose characters had been falsified by their interpretation as demons. In continuing the Judeo-Christian tradition, "Nazarenes" like Börne denied this source of human greatness, because it did not fit into a democratic scheme in which every norm must be suitable for generalization. 23 We see that Heine disagreed with Börne's belief in democratic progress, although it appeared to be the simplest expression of a principle on which Jewry was entering Europe from its position as an outsider. This political confession was intended to affirm Heine's individual position as an artist and as a man who had decided on the Epicurean way of life. But we must not forget that even at this stage, when he frequently stressed his remoteness from the faith of his ancestors, such an attitude had its limits. Heine showed an unusual awareness of the danger which unrestricted confidence in the goodness of the common people spelled for a minority group. Moreover, there is even in this skeptical declaration of his most conservative period a certain almost nostalgic overtone. He quotes a Polish rabbi's story about the Messiah being bound in Heaven by a golden chain in order to prevent his too early appearance on earth. 24 Heine declares his adherence to the Jewish belief in the coming of a final salvation, provided it is understood as a hope for mankind, and not only for a restricted group. But he separates this belief in the future from the political activities of the present ; by this separation he sets himself apart from the thought of the radicals, both gentile and Jewish. All this is only one aspect of Heine's political attitude. He was and remained an outsider, a German in Paris who had left his homeland because he had been underprivileged as a Jew, and a militant fighter against unjust power. The skeptical conservatism which he defended in his pamphlet on Börne demonstrates his intention to restrain the impact of his situation upon his thought, but he was unable to overpower it. In a letter to Cotta, whose Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung remained for a long time an important link between Heine and German public opinion, the poet clearly formulates his position. He disassociates himself from a new organization for the freedom of the press because of its adherence to republicanism, but he adds that the monarchs themselves are to blame for the precarious position in which their defenders are involved. The rulers did not listen to the voice 23. Ibid., pp. 23Î., 123, I44f. 24. Ibid., pp. I25f. The context of this passage is the future of Germany and the myth of Barbarossa, the sleeping savior, to whom Heine prefers the Jewish Messiah. He ends with the words: " O verzage nicht, schöner Messias, der du nicht blos Israel erlösen willst, wie das abergläubische Juden sich einbilden, sondern die ganze leidende Menschheit."

Jewish Political Attitudes

153

of the liberals when the latter were fighting against feudal and clerical influence. Therefore the kings and their friends have now to face ferocious Jacobinism. 2 5 T h i s reservation in favor of freedom from privilege and censorship shows the limits of his political skepticism. His stand on this line is his justification for continuing his existence as an émigré. Seen from his point of view, France remains the country of progress. Germany, with her dynastic states, with a regime still based on the survival of feudalism, seems to him a land of stagnation. Heine in Paris felt it as his supreme calling to bring the two countries together in order to form the core of a better Europe and a stronghold against the prevalence of both Russia and England. T h e Anglo-Saxon world was for him a breeding ground of ruthless profiteering ; in this respect his view shows a strange relationship to that of Treitschke. 2 6 A s a means toward ending the inveterate conflict between the two great Continental nations of central and western Europe he visualizes a transformation of German social and political life on the French model; for him France had been in the lead in this field since 1789. Germany's special contribution to the cosmopolitan civilization of the future was expected from literature and philosophy. Heine sees the greatest creative power of the nation revealed in the development that leads from Luther to the German Idealism of Goethe's period. 2 7 His own attitude toward the representatives of the established order in Germany who appeared to be blocking this process was, after all, not so very different from Börne's pathos ; both shared the experience of having been harshly excluded from responsibilities which they had felt capable to take. Heine felt especially challenged by the contradictory trends in the social structure of Prussia, his homeland since 1815, where Protestantism and educational ideas derived from the Enlightenment and Idealism were blended with tenacious self-assertion and military tradition on the part of the dynasty and the Junker class. His resentment rose fiercely during the periods in which the German Federation or the Prussian government tightened their stranglehold on literature, as happened in 1835 against 25. Letter no. 338, March 1, 1832, to Cotta, Hirth, H. Heine, Briefe, II, 15. 26. Hans Kohn, Heinriche Heine, the Man and the Myth, T h e L e o Baeck Memorial Lecture, 2 (New York, 1959), and R. Weltsch, Introduction, Yearbook, L e o Baeck Institute, 4:xxii (London, 1959), have discussed this attitude. T h e influence of the Napoleonic tradition does not account for the paradoxical agreement between the Jewish émigré and the Prussian historian. T h e outlook of both men was, however, shaped to a certain degree by ideas and sentiments derived from German Idealism, which was antagonistic to English empiricism and practical common sense. 27. His essay, " Z u r Geschichte der Religion und Philosophie in Deutschland," centered on this idea.

154

Hans Liebeschütz

Jung Deutschland and in December 1842 against his own publisher, Campe, whose books were for some time prohibited from entering the Prussian market. W h e n in 1843 a group representing the philosophical wing of German radicalism, including Karl Marx, gathered in Paris, Heine felt that he belonged to this group. He maintained this attitude for several years. He had not forgotten his own criticism of the incompetent Jacobinism of his contemporaries, but he contrasted as an intellectual and moral force this communist group of the forties with their predecessors who, it seemed to him, had had no contact with the genuine realities of political life. T h e topical poetry of these years, of which the interpretation of the Silesian weavers' revolt and his satirical description of Germany,

Ein

Wintermärchen, are the most striking examples, were read by Marx with great interest and sympathy. T h e y were obviously designed with this prospect in mind. 2 8 There were in addition experiences more personal than censorship which had their impact on Heine's political world view in the middle of the forties. In December 1844 his uncle, Salomon Heine, died in Hamburg without having safeguarded in his will the annuity he had paid to his nephew. T h e ensuing quarrel between the poet and his cousin Carl, the new chief of the Hamburg banking house, aggravated Heine's feelings against the existing order of economic life, and formed for the time being a further link between him and the group around Karl Marx. But while his thoughts were still completely absorbed by this affair, Heine remained conscious of the peculiarity of his own position. About twelve months after his uncle's death he received a copy of a letter written by Prince Pückler-Muskau, who was an admirer of Heine's literary work, to remind the Hamburg banker of his moral duties toward the most famous member of his family. Heine, very pleased by help of this kind, became unduly optimistic about the success of this aristocratic intervention at a moment when, as he remarked, Europe's haute finance was also under pressure " f r o m quite a different quarter." But he found his own position between these two fronts definitely unpleasant and ambiguous. He appreciated as an act of chivalry this effort on his behalf by a prince with whom he was not personally acquainted. But he was embarrassed that in this affair Romanticism personified had come to the rescue of its stern antagonist. Moreover, his 28. Hirth, " H e i n e und M a r x , " Bausteine, pp. 1 1 7 - 1 3 1 ; S. S. Prawer, Heine, the Tragic Satirist . . . (Cambridge, 1961), pp. 97-103. Letters no. 738 (Hirth, H. Heine, Briefe, II, 463), a poem dedicated to Christian Andersen (May 4, 1843), and no. 830 (II, 554), to K o l b , the editor of the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung (November 12, 1844), deal with this new political association.

Jewish Political

Attitudes

155

new ally was not only an aristocrat and man of letters but at the same time the owner of a large estate in Prussian Silesia. 29 When we consider the relevance of Heine's political opinions for an understanding of the relationship between German Jewry and its environment, we shall certainly not overlook the highly individual circumstances and personal moods which dominated the poet's judgment in this field. But after all due deductions, there remain some important features in his attitude which are clearly symptomatic for the development that took place during the second half of the nineteenth century. Here we can point to only one aspect which has preserved its topical importance down to our own days. Heine's claim to be a patriot had a genuine basis in his intimate link with Germany's language and her spiritual and intellectual tradition. But he was in no way at home in German politics, to which he never applied the same careful consideration of concrete problems as he did when dealing with the affairs of Guizot's France. One may explain this difference as a result of his permanent residence in Paris and of his personal temperament, which was congenial to the French capital. But when we look back on his discriminatory sympathies in the light of one hundred and twenty years of experience, we can scarcely avoid reading into this attitude an insight of more lasting significance. Ill T h e left-wing current of political thought remained a force in German politics during the third and fourth decades of the century because the prevailing stagnation had created the hope that a complete change might bring the solution of urgent questions. T h e leveling off of the past was understood as the prerequisite for a rationally planned future, while the internal development of the Hegel school produced an intellectual impulse to think out the task and the means. It is not really surprising that in this context of radical thought Judaism also was seen as a relic of the past which had to be sacrificed for the sake of a better future. From Heine too came some famous statements, in both poetry and prose, which tend in this direction. In his case, however, such judgments represented only one particular aspect under which he viewed his situation in the world, and they merely served to satisfy the emotional reaction of the moment. T h e poet in him was much too sensitive to the power of the Biblical word and the appeal of an ancient and rich history to allow a definite negation of 29. Letter no. 881, March io, 1846, to Lassalle, Hirth, H. Heine, Briefe, III, 48.

Hans Liebeschütz Judaism. But there occurred in 1843 the famous discussion within the circle of Hegel's disciples, when both antagonists, Bruno Bauer, the theological critic, and Karl Marx, were agreed that Judaism must be eliminated as the basis for the continued separate existence of Jewry. The starting point of the debate was connected with developments of theological thought. The program for understanding the Christian religion as the product of a definite stage in the historical sequence of ideas was an important factor in the formation of the left wing in the Hegelian school. The controversy about D. F. Strauss's The Life of Jesus played a considerable part in this process. Bauer undertook a still more radical attempt to dissolve the reality of the Gospel reports. He interpreted them as literary products reflecting the consciousness of the Christian community which had grown out of the social crisis and the religious syncretism of the age. Bauer was deprived of his lectureship at Bonn University in 1842; while he continued his studies unabated, his hatred of the Church and her apologists became more intense.30 This attitude forms the background of Bauer's pamphlet of 1843, Die Judenfrage, in which he denied the possibility of emancipating a Jewry which itself refused to be liberated from its ancient particularism. In his view, a new and better society could arise only from the negation of all traditional religion. Jews could live as free and equal partners only in a purely secular society. A Christian could grant them privileges only in the medieval sense of the word: that is, the right to live in their own particular ways as Jews, a status which, by its very nature, of necessity confirmed, not removed, the barriers between Jews and gentiles. With its cohesiveness based on the belief in Divine election, Jewry represented for Bauer a type of antagonism between man and man which has vigorously survived in the Church as well. Hence Jewish criticism of the claims of Christianity would not alter the position so long as Jewry did not advance to self-criticism. Christianity had come into being as an expression of lack of belief in the political order represented by the Roman empire. It was an attempt to overcome the social crisis by the doctrine of a miraculous world beyond reality. The new faith broke through tribal and national borders and established a community claiming the whole of mankind. But, taking over from Judaism the idea of exclusiveness, it spread its absolute claim for recognition throughout the world, erecting new barriers between man and man. During the same epoch Judaism had to face the problems arising 30. Albert Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede . . . (Tübingen, 1906), pp. 1 3 7 - 1 5 9 .

Jewish Political

Attitudes

157

from the fact that it had outgrown its past, which had been rooted in the soil of Palestine. T h e Talmud sought a solution without proclaiming any break; fragments of traditions which had lost their connection with life were put together to form a comprehensive body of law. Consequently, Jewry placed itself, and remained, outside the stream of human development. T h e price for returning to it was dissolution. Spinoza could become a modern thinker because he had individually emancipated himself from Judaism. 3 1 In his criticism of Bauer 32 Marx denied that the Jewish question could be properly discussed in a framework restricted to the relation of state and religion. T h e secular state, which is liberated from control by institutional religion, leaves the private life of its citizens, including their religious activities, still unchanged. Some states of the North American Republic, anticipating Bauer's idea, had separated their political institutions from any contact with theological notions. Nevertheless, a flourishing religious life in different denominations had become one of the characteristic features of these communities. In this state of affairs Marx did not see the manifestation in the human mind of a religious tendency which no withdrawal of public support could eliminate. In his view, religion cannot be the cause of any social phenomenon of relevance. T h e American growth of sectarian activities to him exemplified only the limitation of Bauer's design of a secular state. Real emancipation from religion could not be brought about at this level because it refrains from acting on the private sector of life. 33 Marx found an exact parallel in the working of public law. A franchise that applies without property qualification negates, within a sphere defined by the constitution, differences in property and income, without influencing the economic sector. Therefore every man in the state leads a double life. As a citizen—that is, as a member of the political community—he is expected to act according to rules which apply equally to everybody. As a human being who has to earn a livelihood, he must follow the egotistic impulses concerned with his private interest. It is the task of the philosopher acting as a politician to change things from their roots: that is, he must abolish the dualism. After such a transformation no room will be left for any religion. 34 Christianity, with its emphasis on the value of the individual 3 1 . Bruno Bauer, Die Judenfrage (Brunswick, 1843), pp. 1 1 , 47, 26ÎÏ., 9. 32. Deutsch-französische Jahrbücher (1843-44), reprinted in S. Landshut and J . P. Mayer, Karl Marx, der historische Materialismus, Die Frühschriften, I (Leipzig, 1932), 227-262. 33. Mayer, Karl Marx, pp. 244-248. 34. Ibid., pp. 252-255.

iss

Hans Liebeschütz

soul and that soul's spirituality beyond this world, has alienated man's moral impulses from preoccupation with the material things on which his life depends. In this way religion has produced the middle class of the modern world, completing the atomization of mankind. In the process Christianity has returned to its origin, Judaism, which always was the religious expression of unbridled self-assertion. Judaism is not the product of Bible and Talmud, but was created again and again by a historical evolution toward the perfection of egotistic interest as a social force. Only a radical transformation will eliminate both the banker and the petty jobber, and so end the existence of Judaism and of Jewry as a separate social unit. 3 5 Following those arguments, the group to which Marx was linked by his ancestry became for him the representative of those tendencies in modern society which his historical materialism was designed to abolish. Fundamentally, this conception of Judaism is derived from the patristic interpretation of the Old Testament as a stage of revelation at which the Divine Law is promulgated for the sake of the people's terrestrial well-being. In Marx this concept assumed an extreme harshness by abstraction from all spiritual meaning associated with the history of salvation, and by its combination with the figure of the nineteenth-century financier. T h e patristic account of Judaism, in contrast with the New Testament, exercised a broad influence in the modern period, traceable both in Kant and in Mendelssohn. T h e closest parallel and, perhaps, the key to the understanding of Marx, is Spinoza's Tractatus theologico-politicus. Here is worked out the theory of the superseded stage of revelation in order to establish the author's own right to be free from the Jewish law and the right of the secular state to reject any intervention based on Old Testament precedent. 36 Spinoza's first motive seems not to have existed for Marx—neither he nor his family had any ties with the Jewish religious tradition—but Marx's emphatic caricature of Judaism clearly shows that he was conscious of his own social connection with Jewry. His philosophy seemed suitable to eliminate this link. It left nothing in Judaism but the motive force of a social and economic system which had to be overthrown and from which he could feel free. T h e new society would know no difference between Jew and gentile. In Marx's view religious ideas influenced only the surface of human affairs.. He could therefore remain unaware of 35. Ibid., pp. 259-263. 36. See the present writer's article, " Die politische Interpretation des Alten Testaments Thomas von Aquino und Spinoza," Das Abendland und die Antike, I X (Hamburg, i960), 39-62.

Jewish Political Attitudes

159

the fact that the teleological outlook on history which characterized his philosophy was of Biblical origin. He could blissfully ignore this fact because the idea came to him not from any Jewish source but from the Hegelian school, and he was convinced that only his materialistic, and therefore nonreligious, interpretation turned it into a motive force for progress. 37 IV One of the circle of radical theorists within which Heine felt a sense of kinship during the forties was Moses Hess ( 1 8 1 2 - 1 8 7 3 ) . He has now become a much discussed figure as a pioneer who, having been closely connected with Marx before 1848, assimilated about i860 the national current in contemporary politics and designed a Zionist program without abandoning his radical socialism. Although he cuts a lonely figure in the social and intellectual history of German Jewry of his time, he nevertheless represents an interesting case of how ideas derived from the environment combined with an appraisal of the Jewish situation and tradition to form a political attitude. In his youth Moses Hess was still connected with the old Jewish world through his paternal grandfather, in whose house in Bonn he grew up. His father lived in Cologne, where he was absorbed in the economic advance from the ownership of a grocer's shop to the establishment of a sugar refinery. T h e son found his way to German philosophy. For some years he was a student at Bonn University, but he never obtained an academic degree or a similar qualification. He did not tread the path, which his father's success had paved, to becoming a settled member of the middle class. Amid the various changes of the contemporary social scene Moses Hess remained a political adventurer and free-lance writer; he followed all through his life the pattern which the radicals of the Hegelian school had formed about 1840. 3 8 We shall first consider his earlier period, when his thought was bent upon formulating a philosophy of history. This would, he hoped, open the door to the future by demonstrating the reality of a better social order as a logical outcome of the contemporary situation. 37. N. Rotenstreich, " T h e Bruno Bauer Controversy," Yearbook, Leo Baeck Institute, 4 : 3 - 3 6 (1959), gives a comprehensive survey of Jewish and gentile reactions and includes Bauer's and Marx's attitudes in 1843. 38. E. Silberner, " D e r junge Moses Hess im Lichte unerschlossener Quellen," International Review of Social History, 3 : 4 3 - 7 0 (1958); "Moses Hess," Historia Judaica, 3 : 3 - 2 8 (1951).

Hans Liebeschütz

ι6ο

T h e formulation of his problem arose from the impact of German Idealism on Hess when he was in his twenties. It pushed his sense of Jewish allegiance into the back of his mind but did not bury it completely. He accepted Hegel's version of the theory that Judaism had found its fulfillment in Christianity and, therefore, had terminated its part in history. But entries in his diary and notes from about 1835 on make it evident that his mind was then seriously occupied with the question how Jews could without loss of dignity assimilate their way of life and thought into the dominant religion. He was convinced that the ancient barriers had been undermined and had no longer any foundation. He had discussed the problem of pantheism with Leopold Zunz. He tried to demonstrate that Divine activity in the world was not a matter of decision and conscious control but proceeded with necessity. Zunz could not admit this thesis, although, Hess thought, he was unable to argue his case cogently. 3 9 T h e influence of Spinoza is distinctly felt in such remarks. Hess's dependence on this pioneer of modern thought is expressed in the title of his first book, published in 1837: Die heilige Geschichte der Menschheit. Jünger Spinozas.40

Von einem

Hess characterized this book as a first attempt to shape

a chaos of facts into order, to see universal history as a whole, and to discover the laws which determine its course. T h e interpretation of history as pantheistic revelation was meant to serve as a basis for the proclamation of a messianic end in the future. T h e coming social order would not know the contrast between the religious message of brotherhood and the ruthless self-assertion by which success in the existing order of society was conditioned. T h e elimination of all legal claims to inherited property, the negation of all privileges enjoyed by individuals or groups would make this radical change of moral climate possible. Only in this way would society reflect the metaphysical unity of substance that was at the root of all natural phenomena. T h e theories of the early French socialists had made a lasting impact on Hess's thought during his stay in Paris some years earlier, and they inspired his attempt to see history as the link between past and future. T h e theological framework which is underlined by the book's dedication " t o all 39. See the extracts from the diaries published by Silberner, International Review of Social History, 3 : 6 5 ^ (1958), and by H. Lademacher, " D i e politischen und sozialistischen T h e m e n bei Moses Hess," Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 42:200 (i960). 40. Moses Hess, Philosophische und sozialistische Schriften, eine Auswahl, 1837-1850 (Berlin, 1961), ed. with introduction by A . Cornu and W . Mönke. In commenting on Hess's first two books I am quoting the pages of this edition, giving those of the first edition in brackets.

Jewish Political Attitudes

161

God-fearing governments" was authorized for Hess by Spinoza's Tractatus theologico-politicus,

T h e seventeenth-century philosopher's argument that

Biblical theocracy was not of unlimited validity had been offered as a commentary on Divine revelation. In Spinoza's case this was a necessary disguise to make acceptable both to the government and to public opinion his criticism of the Old Testament in defense of Jan de Witt's liberal regime. A s for Hess, he could adopt such terminology because in a world still dominated by Hegel's philosophy one could take its pantheistic connotation for granted. T h e figure of Spinoza, the first modern Jew, enabled Hess to link the idea of a society organized by reason with the loyalties rooted in the memory of his childhood under the care of his grandfather. T h i s circumstance made it possible for him to accept the assumption of idealistic philosophy about the replacement of Judaism by Christian universalism. T h e Tractatus theologico-politicus authorized such a scheme of development by making Jesus the first to overcome by his message the narrow limits of one nation. 4 1 Hess was not aware of the extent to which Spinoza had adopted viewpoints and judgment from the ecclesiastical tradition. His system of ages and periods, however, is independent of Spinoza. It is a strange product of a man who, a few years later, was called by his friends a "communist rabbi." Hess divides history into three ages, covering the time from Adam to the post-Napoleonic era. T h e first age, ending with Jesus and the Roman Empire, is allocated to G o d the Father. T h e second belongs to G o d the Son, and corresponds to the Middle Ages. T h e age of the Holy Spirit begins with Spinoza and extends to the present. 42 T h e future would be shaped by the capacity of the human mind to employ for the organization of society the depth of understanding reached by Spinoza. During the whole modern period up to date Spinoza's insight had been buried under the turmoil of external affairs which resulted from the decline of Christianity from the sixteenth century onward.

The

original source of this trinitarian scheme is obvious. A t about 1200, the abbot Joachim of Fiore had devised a system which was meant to reveal the future of Christendom from the correspondence between the Old and N e w Testaments. T h i s parallelism formed the basic assumption for the typological interpretation of the Bible. Title and chronology in Joachim's scheme correspond to the divisions in Hess's treatise, except that Joachim expected the age of the Holy Spirit to commence in his own century. T h e medieval writer applied the parallelism of the two Testaments to the 41. Tractatus theologico-politicus, chap. v. 42. Heilige Geschichte, I, 38f., 3iff. [156-161].

IÓ2

Hans Liebeschütz

structures of the first two ages, which correspond to one another. T h i s method offered a basis for calculating the beginning of the third age, in which all contradictions besetting the ecclesiastical life of the High Middle Ages would be overcome by the power of religious meditation. 43 T h e idea that inevitably a new age repeats the structure and fundamental events of the preceding one attracted the interest of the nineteenth-century publicist to this medieval summary of history. Adam, Jesus, and Spinoza, the " s o n s of Jewish parents," are treated by Hess as parallel figures. Each repeats the work of his predecessor while lifting it to a higher degree of perfection. 4 4 W e have just noted how Hess anchored in Spinoza the spirit of the future world order but had to assume that it lay buried and incapable of reshaping the world before its time had come. A n identical device had been used by Joachim to overcome chronological difficulties: the spirit of monasticism really belongs to the third age, but it already had had its great representative in St. Benedict seven hundred years before the age of the Holy Spirit, of which he is a harbinger. What we know about Hess's education excludes the possibility that he had come into direct contact with Joachim's Latin writings. Lessing's remark in §§ 86-90 of his essay, " D i e Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts," about Joachim's division of history into three periods, the last representing the future, certainly stimulated Hess, whose mind worked in a similar direction. But Hess recreates details of Joachim's teaching which he could scarcely have deduced from the information offered by the learned librarian of Wolfenbüttel. Possibly, the romantics' interest in the history of mythology and religion during the later stages of German idealistic speculation created a further link. 4 5 It thus appears that Hess's philosophy of future history, which intended 43. Grundmann, Studien über Joachim von Floris (Leipzig, 1927), pp. 5 7 - 6 1 ; see also the short essay by H. Bett, Joachim of Fiore (London, 1931). Joachim's Concordia veteris et novis Testamenti and his Expositio super Apocalipsim, the main expositions of his theory of history, are not yet presented in modern critical editions. Grundmann offers the relevant texts. T h o m a s Aquinas' defense against this doctrine remains interesting in our context. Cf. Summa theologiae, II, ι , quaes. 106, art. 4. 44. Heilige Geschichte, I, Zwischenrede, §5, pp. 43f. [213-217], on Adam, as the first stage. I, §38, p. 31 [155-156] ; §47f., pp. 30f. [181-185], on Adam, Jesus, and Spinoza. 45. See Grundmann, Studien, pp. 65-70. In Hess, Schriften, p. 460, n. 7, the editors quote a manuscript record of 1840 in which Hess reports that he had no direct knowledge of Hegel while writing his first book. T h i s explains why the scheme of the medieval abbot was convenient to him. A controversial tradition asserting Jewish origin for Joachim cannot well have reached Hess. But the question where Hess found his information still remains. T h e romantic circle of Schelling, which fostered interest in the history of mythology and religion, most probably led Hess to the Middle Ages. A not very accurate German paraphrase of a short passage from the works of Hildegard of Bingen is correctly assigned by Hess to the twelfth-century visionary.

Jewish Political Attitudes

163

to prove the future transformation of society, was not directly inspired by Jewish messianic ideas. T h e prophets and the social legislation of the Bible have no important place in his scheme of salvation. T h e teleological aspect under which Western civilization viewed history undoubtedly had its original source in the Bible, but the Biblical idea had been reshaped by ecclesiastical thought and experience. In its final form it was secularized by Hegel, who was a strong force in the intellectual environment of Hess. This background made the christological scheme acceptable to him. T h e messianic drive behind his early writings had roots in his situation as a Jew and in his emotional reaction to that situation, but not in definite traditions and ideas from this quarter. We shall continue our account of Hess's development by a short characterization of his second book, Die europäische Triarchie, published in 1841. Here he tried to get closer to the concrete facts of the political situation, to find a way by which the ideas adumbrated by the course of history as potentialities could become real in the future. His investigation was now mainly concentrated on Europe, the only continent where real development took place. Asia, he felt, was stagnant by nature. T h e historical importance of the Jews was not so much due to their origin as to the fact that Providence led them into Europe. Germany, France, and England were the powers on which the fate of the world depended: Germany had created spiritual liberty in the Reformation; France, in the great revolution, had brought about modern political institutions and the idea of an egalitarian society. T h e crisis of the moment would be decided in England, where the tension that existed between the rule of money and pauperism would explode into revolution. This course would not only destroy medieval remnants in the Anglican Church and the privileges of the aristocracy but would nearly solve the social question. England would serve as a model to the other countries by creating the new society of the industrial age, as France and Germany had played their part earlier in this evolution. 46 These three progressive powers ought to stand together in firm alliance to keep Russia out of the heart of Europe. Russia might have its mission in the East. 47 We see how Hess's interest in foreign affairs grew under the impact of contemporary experiences. Moreover, his theme of 1841 seems to be almost akin to Ranke's essay on the great powers, written for the educated layman in 1833, but in our context the difference between the two writers is 4 6 . Triarchie, introduction; Hess, Schriften, p. 9 2 [ 1 0 1 ] . Hess summarized the plan of his work in a letter to B. Auerbach (March 15, 1 8 4 0 ) . See E. Silberner and W. Blumenberg, Hess, Briefwechsel (The Hague, 1 9 5 9 ) , p. 6 0 . 4 7 . Triarchie, pp. I 0 2 f f . [ 1 7 7 - 1 8 5 ] .

164

Hans Liebeschütz

more relevant than the similarity. Ranke was interested in conflict and the balance between the great powers as such; there he saw the elementary background of Western civilization in modern times. He did not visualize any break with this past for the future. In contrast, the radical thinker of Jewish origin was eager to trace the coming for European society of a new order in which the barriers of egotism, inseparable from the existing structure of life, would have fallen. He looked on foreign politics only from the point of view of whether it impeded or advanced such development. Political activity in the direction of his ideals meant for Hess a genuine unfolding of European religious tradition. It was to be the third stage after Judaism and Christianity. If the churches refused to join this movement, they would share the fate of Jewry, which was left behind when Jesus brought about the great change to universalism. Since Jesus' time, life had gone out of Judaism as a corporate religion, although the Jews themselves still had, he felt, the function of representing the element of mobility in the Western world. 4 8 There are clear signs in this treatise that the author had not forgotten Judaism and Jewishness as significant features of his own existence. While he wrote it, he recorded the deep impression which in 1840 the ritual murder charge and the riots of Damascus had made on him, while some months later Nikolaus Becker's rude refusal to accept from him a new tune to Becker's song about the defense of the German Rhine increased his bitterness. But he concluded his note with the remark that the urgency of Europe's social salvation overshadowed this experience of a Jew. 4 9 He had not yet found a positive place for Judaism in the modern world. T h e Triarchie

contains a passage in which the author praises the French

Revolution as the origin of civil marriage, by which a voluntary and therefore genuine fusion between Jews and gentiles could take place. 50 V Moses Hess has been awarded a distinctive place in Jewish history because in 1862 he formulated the idea of Zionism in order to give the continued existence of Jewry a positive meaning. T h i s change of attitude 48. Ibid., p. 131 [111-112]. 49. Hess inserted this entry, dated 1840, in his book Rom und Jerusalem: Die letzte Nationalitätenfrage (Leipzig, 1862), pp. 23fr. 50. Triarchie, pp. I43f. [138-140]. T h i s second book shows m o r e direct contact with his contemporaries. A s his ally in the establishment of a philosophy of action he quotes, PP· 7 9 [5]. 89 [25], the Polish count and pupil of Hegel, A . von Cieszkowski, Prolegomena zu einer Historiosophie (1838). Cf. W . K ü h n e , Cieszkowski, ein Schüler Hegels und des deutschen Geistes (Leipzig, 1938).

Jewish Political Attitudes

165

came to him at a time when, with the progress of emancipation, the impulse to adapt Jewish ways to the German environment had gathered strength. From the point of view of our theme any comment on Rom und. Jerusalem: Die letzte Nationalitätenfrage is in the nature of an epilogue. The book was conditioned by circumstances which shaped the second half of the nineteenth century. After the fifties radical plans for mental or social change were no longer in the center of interest. What was felt as the most urgent problem of the day, the establishment of national states in Italy and Germany and the adaptation of the European concert to this change, belonged obviously to politics in the conventional meaning of the word, without involving a striking transformation of society. The war of 1859, by which Italy was established and the power of the Habsburg dynasty was restricted, aroused Hess's intense sympathy and opened for him a new vista. Conspicuous events in foreign policy had always impressed him; the European Triarchy had been the result of the conflict between France on one side and the temporary reappearance of the Holy Alliance on the other in 1840. The events of 1859 gave him the idea that in future a combination of Italy and the Western powers would support any further movement to clear away feudal remnants from the Middle Ages which had been preserved as instruments for the domination of one race over the other. In this context he uses a biological concept, but without glorifying purity of blood. On the contrary, he stresses the fact that the progressive nations of the West, especially the French, are the product of racial mixture continuing ever since the period of the Crusades, while the Germans, less involved in this process, kept their ancient dreams of Teutonic superiority and remained politically backward. 51 The age which Hess sees foreshadowed by the result of the Italian war would give independence regardless of numbers to every nation of cultural importance. The dissolution of papal administration in central Italy is interpreted as a sign that liberty would come to the Jews. Hess considers in this context the ecclesiastical state as the source from which the medieval persecution of Jewry sprang. 52 The fall of Rome—Hess antedates the incorporation of the city into the national state by almost one decade—means the resurrection of the Jewish people, expressed by the word "Jerusalem." He mentions Spinoza to give this national renaissance a philosophical context. The seventeenth-century philosopher had proclaimed the Jewish idea of immortality as the belief in the messianic future in which mankind would 51. Hess, Briefwechsel, no. 223 (July 3, 1859), pp. 368f.; Rom und Jerusalem, p. 25. 52. Rom und Jerusalem, preface, p. v.

Hans Liebeschütz achieve a harmonious unity, while he rejected the "atomistic" belief in individual and separate existence after death. 53 The prospect of national rebirth, said Hess, restored a modern meaning to the comprehensive body of law and ritual custom because it had preserved the nation in exile. When the Jewish people should have settled on their own soil, the spirit would return to them for new creation. Jews had always been democrats and socialists. The return to statehood would enable them to create a model of social order and to fulfill and give reality to the visions of their Prophets. 54 Such passages by no means indicate an attempt to disguise a deviation from his old line of revolutionary politics. Now Hess's fight for radical socialism was given a more concrete target through his connection with Lassalle and the latter's movement. As a national Jew and as a left-wing agitator, Hess remains a rather isolated figure among German Jews of his time. His proclamation of a Jewish national idea found some favorable response, since it was regarded as a defense of the positive value of traditional Judaism against its transformation by the Reform movement. But the feeling of the overwhelming majority was well represented by the very antagonistic letters in which the novelist Berthold Auerbach summarized to the author his own impression of the book. Auerbach felt that with his novel platform for Jewish action his friend Hess was going to destroy all the results of Auerbach's life and work, the incorporation of Jews and Judaism into German life. 5 5 After the events of 1933 it is very easy to condemn such an attitude as blindness. But this would mean leaving out of consideration the experience of Hess's contemporaries. We have seen that Hess's new program was the result of his awareness of the dominant part which national problems were to play in future European politics. He felt strongly, and with good reason, that the simple acceptance of this current as a guiding idea for political action could easily dissolve his own position as socialist and revolutionary and bring him into conformity with the demands of German patriotism. Radicals of high intellectual standing went this way at the time. Hess returned to his reserve of Jewish sentiment, revising his judgment about the place of Judaism in the modern 53. Ibid., pp. 9, 25. In agreement with this attitude, Hess (p. 50) denies the charge of national apostasy advanced against Spinoza. 54. Rom und Jerusalem, p. 10. Hess summarizes the ideas of this book in a report to the Hungarian rabbi Leopold Low, who, while showing interest, had some reservations. See Hess, Briefwechsel, no. 252, p. 403. 55. Hess, Briefwechsel, no. 233 (April 8, 1861), pp. 375f. Auerbach had received the first draft of Hess's book.

Jewish Political

Attitudes

167

world. Such a decision was clearly expressive of the strength of his character, but it was also connected with the way of life to which he had committed himself and which conditioned his thinking. He had chosen to remain an outsider, without a genuine homeland, as the radical writers of the forties had been, while the great majority of German Jews seized the opportunities of the hour. T h e y settled down as members of the rising middle class in a world politically liberalized and economically expanding. A t this time and in this environment, where the achievement of national integration was the common aim of government and people, the recognition of a dual national loyalty could not be expected. All those who sincerely gave political help to the Jews in their struggle for full emancipation were in agreement about the great danger which any attempt to modernize Jewishness into a separate national consciousness would create for both Jews and gentiles. 56 A n individual could make a decision against this current ; it was Utopian to expect this attitude from the group as a whole. For a Jewish burgher of the sixties Hess's Zionist ideas were almost as remote from his plan of life as the possibility of becoming an agitator for political revolution. T h e political teacher of the period in which radicalism had become a marginal current was Gabriel Riesser, the champion of both Jewish emancipation and German unity. All this does not mean that the radical thought of the earlier period had lost all influence on Jewish political attitudes during the second half of the nineteenth century. T h e peculiar structure of Bismarck's empire, which is more clearly recognizable today than it was before the catastrophes of our time, by delaying the complete political assimilation of German Jewry preserved a lasting topicality for some ideas formulated by men of letters in the period of flourishing radicalism. But there was a considerable shift of emphasis. What M a x Wiener describes as the religion of the emancipation period became the field where radical thought was kept alive. 57 T h e transformation of Jewish messianism into belief in progress toward a peaceful and morally valuable human society had started after Mendelssohn, in the fresh interpretation of Judaism by the new school of preachers. T h e y were prompted by the intention to show in German sermons the agreement of the ancestral faith with modern thought. T h e 56. T h e agreement between G . von Mevissen in 1847 and T . Mommsen in 1888 on this point, while pleading strongly the Jewish case, is striking. See J. Hansen, Gustav von Mevissen, II (1905), 308-315; Mommsen, Reden und Aufsätze (Berlin, 1912), pp. 410-426. 57. M a x Wiener, Jüdische Religion im Zeitalter der Emanzipation (Berlin, 1933).

Hans Liebeschütz emphasis on Biblical religion instead of Talmudic teaching placed the Prophets and the social legislation closely related to their preaching in the center of Jewish doctrine. It is obvious that this trend in homiletic theology had links with the secular program through the radical men of letters. 58 Contacts of this type are illustrated in the intellectual development of Hermann Cohen, who became the most outstanding representative of messianism in German Jewry at the end of the period covered by this volume. Cohen, a leader of the Kantian revival and emphatically a rationalist, was nevertheless capable of filling this easily secularized idea with a fresh impulse of genuine Jewish piety and Jewish pathos. His first article on a Jewish subject, the anonymous essay on Heine (1867), is often considered as a product of youth, completely separate from Cohen's mature work; the tolerant attitude toward Spinoza and pantheism, an essential feature of this essay, is quoted as evidence. But as far as the relationship between social ethos and religion is concerned, this early work already shows clearly the philosopher's future ideas. Heine's views are here described in terms of his belief in a democratic and socialist future on the basis of Biblical messianism, and the author does not leave any doubt that he shares these ideas. 59 W h e n six years later Cohen met the socialist philosopher F. A . Lange, whom he joined some years afterward in the Marburg professorship, the difference of religious allegiance came up in their conversation. Cohen emphasized his conformity with the older man in the remarkable statement: " W h a t you call Christianity, I call prophetic Judaism." T h e common ground between them was an inheritance from the radical thought of the earlier generation. 60 58. T h e problem was raised by H. Cohen in his essay, " D e u t s c h t u m und Judentum," Jüdische Schriften, II (Berlin, 1924), pp. 2Óof., where he stresses the lack of interest, on the part of Mendelssohn and his circle, in the messianic idea, and sees Abraham Geiger as one of the first representatives of the universalistic interpretation. Cohen was impressed by Geiger's sermons when he was a student in Breslau. Recently A . Altmann has started to place the investigation on a broad basis. See his " Z u r Frühgeschichte der jüdischen Predigt in Deutschland, Leopold Z u n z als Prediger," Yearbook, Leo Baeck Institute, 6:3-59(1961). 59. Cohen's emphasis on the intimate relations between Judaism and Luther's Reformation, which because of its contrast to the prevalent trend in historical research seemed rather strange during the last decades of his life, resumes the interpretation of the sixteenth century offered by the radicals of the forties. Heine's idea that Luther, by his return to the Bible and Jewish deism, reduced the gnostic element in Christianity made a particularly strong impression on Cohen's mind. See Heine, Zur Geschichte der Religion und Philosophie in Deutschland, Gesammelte Werke, I V , 192. Cohen, Jüdische Schriften, II, 35ff. 60. H. Cohen's critical epilogue to F. Α . Lange, Geschichte des Materialismus, ist ed. (1914), p. 104 ; Jüdische Schriften, II, 197.

Jewish Political Attitudes

169

T h e thinkers of 1870 reduced, perhaps without a clear awareness of what they were doing, the tension between ideal and reality. T h e political and economic achievements of the last preceding decades, no matter how inadequate and merely preparatory they appeared to be, had made their impact. In a larger and more liberal world, conflict with authorities had turned into academic criticism. T h e attitude of the rank and file of synagogue membership followed the same tendency. With them the idea of a messianic future sometimes appears to shrink into a formula with emotional appeal at the annual festivals or at occasional rallies. But when we take into account the whole range of Jewish life, we see that the messianic idea was a factor contributing to the formation of Jewish political attitudes. T h e Jews were not less convinced of the importance of patriotism than were their gentile neighbors but they were more interested in the reconciliation of social classes and in a firm peace among nations than in the increase of the country's power and prestige for its own sake. T h e average Jew chose his daily paper and, if he was bookish, his other reading matter correspondingly, and his choice was not without influence on the development of press and literature. In this respect not only Heine but more indirectly also Börne remained factors in nineteenth-century

German

Jewish history.

APPENDIX

Karl Löwith, Weltgeschichte und Heilsgeschehen (Stuttgart, 1952), pp. 190-195, surveys the transformation of Joachim's doctrine. In this context, he points out that, during the forties, in one of his lectures on the philosophy of revelation, Schelling quoted Joachim's doctrine as a historical confirmation of the philosopher's view on the construction of the development of the Christian world. See Schelling, Sämtliche

Werke, section II,

vol. I V (Stuttgart-Augsburg, 1858), p. 298, η. ι . Schelling adds that this information had reached him only quite recently through the fifth volume of J. A . Neander's History of the Christian

Church and Religion.

The

corresponding passage in Neander's book contains features which are obviously relevant to Hess's text (in the English edition [Edinburgh, 1851], V I I , 29off.). Hildegard of Bingen and Joachim are treated together as thinkers who saw the future foreshadowed in the past; both seemed to look forward to distant periods, which might be the Reformation or still more remote upheavals. T h e Berlin church historian, who had left his Hamburg grammar school as David Mendel, to become a convert as a

Hans Liebeschütz student under the influence of the romantic movement, uttered in this context a warning: Joachim's doctrine might be easily understood in a pantheistic sense : that is, that at the end of the second stage Christianity would be superseded by a higher form of thought. T h i s is exactly the way in which Hess used Joachim's scheme. But Neander's fifth volume was published in 1842, five years after Hess's Heilige Geschichte had appeared. It was not uncommon, however, that students' lecture notes served to spread ideas pronounced by well-known professors. It is not impossible to assume that Hess used such material as a commentary on Lessing's short summary of Joachim's theory.

Samuel Hirsch and Hegel A Study of Hirsch's Religionsphilosophie der Juden (1842) BY E M I L L .

FACKENHEIM

Man ist nicht mehr Hegelianer: freilich ist das das Trostlose, dass man noch nichts Anderes ist.—Samuel Hirsch

I Hegel's philosophy of religion is virtually unique in the history of Western religious t h o u g h t . 1 Other philosophers may accept a religious claim to h u m a n contact with G o d ; b u t then they are apt to regard this contact as transcending philosophical comprehension, and to accept the claim on the sacred authority on which it is based. Alternatively, philosophers will reject all religious claims to contact with God. But then they will consider God, if considering H i m at all, as a reality requiring philosophy in order to become known, and otherwise u n k n o w n ; hence as a mere object of thought. And they will view religion as an activity which, whatever its uses, is a mere exercise in h u m a n solitariness. If Hegel differs sharply with both these positions it is because of two profound convictions which, jointly, establish the basic objective of his whole philosophy of religion: the belief in the reality of the D i v i n e - h u m a n relationship, as attested to by religious immediacy, and the belief that this relationship is capable of being philosophically understood. Because of these two convictions, Hegel's f u n d a m e n t a l aim is to comprehend, not God apart f r o m man, nor h u m a n religion apart f r o m God, b u t rather the D i v i n e - h u m a n relationship. It is Hegel's proud claim that his philosophy is able to u n d e r stand that relationship. But this claim rests on the h u m b l e admission that the D i v i n e - h u m a n relationship itself is real in religious immediacy long ι. The interpretation of Hegel reflected throughout the present study must wait for a future study specifically dedicated to Hegel, in order to have the detailed documentation it requires. In the absence of such documentation, little purpose is served by mere piecemeal references, which are therefore, for the most part, avoided.

171

172

Emil L. Fackenheim

before philosophy can attempt to comprehend it and that, if it did not already have reality, philosophy could certainly not give it reality. In view of the objective of Hegel's philosophy of religion, it is not surprising that Hegel's religious contemporaries—both Jews and Christians— should have regarded his thought as an epoch-making event. T h e surprising fact is that most of them should have come to see it, not as a powerful ally—rational support analogous to that furnished by thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas in an earlier age 2 —but rather as a deadly threat, and acceptance of Hegel's system as a whole as radically incompatible with Jewish or Christian religious life. And yet in the long run this reaction was inevitable. This was not because of the Hegelian endeavor to comprehend the religious God-man relationship. It was, rather, because of the particular comprehension of that relationship which Hegel in fact offered. According to Hegel, the Divine-human relationship, as experienced and lived in religion, is the truth. This truth is present, abstractly and incompletely, even in the most primitive and undeveloped religion. And it is present, concretely and completely, in what for this reason is the absolute religion—modern Protestant Christianity. Indeed, it is only because of this concrete and complete presence of truth in life that philosophy can comprehend it in thought. But given this complete presence of truth in life, philosophical comprehension can then itself be complete. This fundamental thesis raises, from the outset, a problem crucial for Hegel's entire enterprise. If truth is already wholly present in the absolute religion, then why is there still need for philosophical comprehension ? If on the contrary there still is such need, must not religious truth, after all, be incomplete, and the complete philosophy of religion—which presupposes the complete religion—impossible ? It may seem that, on the grounds of Hegel's own thesis, the complete philosophical comprehension of the absolute religion is either unnecessary or impossible. Hegel's reply is that religious immediacy is true in content but falls short of ultimate truth in form. Its form is representation, which, manifesting itself in feeling, cult, and linguistic self-articulation, permeates the totality of its life. Philosophical comprehension must give to the true religious content its ultimately true form. This it does by transfiguring 2. Karl Barth rightly asks: " W h y did Hegel not become for the Protestant world something similar to what T h o m a s A q u i n a s was for Roman C a t h o l i c i s m ? " ( F r o m Rousseau to Ritschl [London, 1 9 5 9 ] , p. 268). Barth offers a penetrating answer to his own question.

Samuel Hirsch and Hegel

173

the religious form of representation into the philosophical form of speculative thought. This transfiguration achieves many things. Primordially, however, it achieves one thing. It transforms what for religious immediacy is a relationship between man and a God other than man, into a single, dynamic, self-explicating reality from which all appearance of radical otherness has vanished. This transformation, to be sure, cannot simply be a product of autonomous philosophical thought. Nor can the element of otherness, vital in religion itself, vanish in philosophy of religion without a trace. If the first were the case, philosophy would be, not life comprehended, but a mere arbitrary and lifeless construction. 3 And if the second were true, the wealth of religious Divine-human relationships would collapse, in philosophical comprehension, into an empty unity. 4 T h e philosophical transformation is possible only because religion itself manifests, in varying degrees, an inner bond between man and God, and because philosophy, instead of simply rejecting the element of otherness which vitally remains even in the absolute religion, internalizes and absorbs it. A difference remains, however, between religious immediacy and its philosophical comprehension. For religion lives, even in its highest form, with the distinction between a God worshiped and human worship, Divine Grace and its human reception. It is this remaining distinction which philosophy internalizes, and it does so by re-enacting the religious reality in the form of thought. But in this re-enactment the religious relationship between man and God is transfigured into a single, self-developing Whole. This outline, however brief and even superficial, suffices to disclose a grave dilemma, posed by Hegel for his Jewish and Christian contemporaries. Either their religious life had to remain a meeting of man with God—a meeting in which God is other than man, and man other than God. But then that life remained fettered to an illusion which had now been disclosed, and the immediacy of religious existence could not survive this disclosure. The owl of Minerva had spread its wings, and the dusk in 3. T h e most persistent and most disastrous misunderstanding of post-Kantian German idealists is that they seek to give mere a priori constructions of reality. Their true aim is to comprehend philosophically what in experience is already real. For Hegel in particular, a reality beyond all experience, and merely postulated by philosophical thought, is a mere caput mortuum. 4. Hegel's sensitivity to this danger is illustrated by his famous criticism, in the preface of the Phenomenology, of Schelling's Absolute, which, because it failed to preserve difference as well as identity, resembles a " n i g h t in which all cows are b l a c k " ( T h e Phenomenology of Mind, trans. J . B. Baillie, 2nd ed. [London, 1 9 3 1 ] , p. 79).

174

Emil L. Fackenheim

which it had done so was the dusk of all religious life. 5 Or else the religious life of Christians and Jews alike could transfigure itself into a higher, speculative life, rising above the illusion of the otherness of G o d . 6 But then this new form of life was in radical conflict with the old, for the new G o d required man for His self-realization, being incompletely real without him. A n d the new man was a mere phase in the Divine self-realization. Man's freedom was no longer human freedom, free to turn to or against God. It was a mere moment of Divine freedom, and what had always been taken for a radical human choice between obedience to and rebellion against G o d were both, in the new religion, part of the process of Divine self-realization. 7 Confronted with this dilemma, then, could the Jewish or Christian believer simply reject the Hegelian comprehension of religion, by a straightforward and immediate reaffirmation of his relationship to the other G o d ? If he were vitally affected by the philosophical tradition culminating in Hegel, he could not, for he had then accepted from Kant the idea that an externally legislating G o d is incompatible with autonomous morality, 8 and from Schleiermacher the thesis that true religiosity finds G o d within, refusing to accept Him on Scriptural authority without. 9 Indeed, by the time Hegel appeared on the scene, this believer may well have been close 5. (See Philosophy of Right, preface.) T h i s famous remark is often quoted out of context and made to imply that philosophical comprehension marks the end of all life which it comprehends. But the context does not necessarily commit Hegel's remark to so sweeping an interpretation. Possibly philosophical comprehension marks the end only of phases of " o b j e c t i v e , " not of " a b s o l u t e " spirit: that is, of forms of life rendered finite by a historical setting, not of aesthetic and religious forms of life which transcend such settings. 6. Traces of this view, which permeates Hegel's mature works, are found as early as in his Glauben und Wissen (1802), which speaks of a "speculative G o o d F r i d a y " followed by a speculative resurrection, both of which are to be given "philosophical existence" (Werke, ed. H. Glockner, 2nd ed. [Stuttgart, 1941], I, 433). Still earlier writings, not published by Hegel himself, do not yet attribute a speculative life to philosophy. But they also deny that philosophy can comprehend religion. (Cf. Early Theological Writings, trans. K n o x and Kroner [Chicago, 1948], p. 313.) 7. On Hegel's account of the Biblical myth of the fall, see, e.g., his shorter Logic, no. 24, addition 3, Werke, ed. H. Glockner, 3rd ed. [Stuttgart, 1955], V I I I , 91fr. 8. While rejecting "theological morality," which regards the right as right because it is the will of G o d , Kant embraces "moral theology," which regards the right as the will of G o d because it is right and known to be so by autonomous reason. T h e question as to why, nevertheless, the will of G o d does not in " m o r a l t h e o l o g y " reduce itself to a redundancy is beyond the scope of the present study. 9. " N o t he has true religion who believes in a Holy Scripture, but he who does not require such a Scripture, and indeed could compose one in his own r i g h t " (F. D . E. Schleiermacher, Reden über die Religion, ed. M . Rade [Berlin, n.d.], p. 89). It ought to be added that this radical statement appears only in the first edition of the Addresses, and also that, while coming close to identifying the voice of G o d with the voice within, Schleiermacher never quite embraced that view, which is characteristic of romanticism. But Schleiermacher never committed himself completely to the romantic standpoint.

Samuel Hirsch and Hegel

175

enough to either a mystical reduction of the human to the Divine or—more likely—to a humanistic reduction of the Divine to the human, to be on the verge of simply rejecting the God of his tradition, who remained other than man. And if he was reluctant to go past this verge, it is to Hegel, above all, that he must have looked for guidance, for it was Hegel, more than any other idealistic thinker, who took seriously the otherness of God proclaimed by religious immediacy and who, when finally sublating it into thought, avoided the reduction, either of man to God or of God to man. Such, then, were the reasons why the philosophically minded among Hegel's Jewish and Christian contemporaries could not simply dismiss the Hegelian comprehension of their religion. And yet, because of the dilemma described above, they were also unable to accept it. II We have thus far dealt with Hegel's challenge to Judaism and Christianity, the two religions taken jointly. We must now turn to his specific additional challenge to Judaism alone. For there is such an additional challenge, and it is grave enough to explain why, whereas there were Christians who, after all, could seek to reconcile acceptance of Hegel's system with a continued Christian life, no analogous attempt was possible within Judaism. Loyalty to Judaism was compatible with acceptance of Hegelian fragments. It was not compatible with acceptance of the system as a whole. Superficially, this was because Hegel had an unexalted image of Judaism. T o be sure, the mature Hegel had abandoned his earlier prejudice—shared, among many others, by Kant—that, bound in blind obedience to barren, external laws, Judaism is a mere "positive" religion, without spirit and inward power. 10 Recognizing Judaism as indeed a religion of the spirit, he 10. F o r the most recent treatment of K a n t ' s attitude toward Judaism, see H . M . G r a u p e , " K a n t und das J u d e n t u m , " Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, 13:308—333 ( 1 9 6 1 ) . For Hegel's early image of Judaism, see his Early Theological Writings. It is at present fashionable to focus scholarly attention on these early pieces—despite the fact that Hegel himself did not publish them—the purpose of this attention being to discover genetic clues to the mature Hegel. But the " g e n e t i c " approach, always dubious in the case of philosophers, is especially so in the case of Hegel. M o r e dubious still—to anyone familiar with Hegel's publishing habits—is the attempt to interpret what Hegel published in terms of what he deliberately left unpublished. It is well known that among G e r m a n classical philosophers the notion of Judaism as a mere legalistic system is in no small measure traceable to the influence of Spinoza and Moses Mendelssohn. It would seem, however, that this prejudice—and, indeed, the whole treatment of Judaism by these philosophers—has deeper roots, in Christian tendencies in G e r m a n y to reject or play down the Old Testament basis of Christianity. T h i s whole subject still awaits adequate exploration.

Emil L. Fackenheim had made a serious effort to comprehend that spirit. And he had found it to consist in "sublimity"—the awe-filled, single-minded, and uncompromising Jewish dedication to the One God. But while crediting Judaism with an advance toward truth, Hegel nevertheless viewed sublimity as a mere aspect of total religious truth, and Judaism, because confined to that aspect, as left with a fragmented world. Geared to its God who is One, Judaism finds the world—which is manifold—barren and undivine. Its God is the " L o r d " of the world, who is " b e y o n d " that world. He is not present here and n o w . 1 1 That this account—one-sided at best—should have been irritating to believing Jewish contemporaries is obvious. But the more thoughtful among them could not regard it as the essence of the Hegelian challenge to their religion. One needed, after all, scant intimate knowledge of Judaism to expose its one-sidedness, and at least one writer—a Christian otherwise sympathetic to Hegelianism—made such an exposure as early as 1 8 4 3 . 1 2 Why not, then, correct Hegel's account of Judaism and still fit it into the Hegelian system ? But merely to fit Judaism into that system was to give a critique of it, and to describe Judaism in terms more adequate than Hegel's own would serve only to make the critique less severe. It is in this circumstance, and in the conditions responsible for it, that the true challenge of Hegel to Judaism is to be found. Before Hegel appeared on the philosophical scene, the nineteenthcentury Jew found himself challenged from two opposite quarters: first, 1 1 . F o r the best available treatment of this subject, see N . Rotenstreich, " H e g e l ' s Image of J u d a i s m , " Jewish Social Studies, 1 5 : 3 3 - 5 2 ( 1 9 5 3 ) . C f . also H . J . Schoeps, " D i e Ausserchristlichen Religionen bei H e g e l , " Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, 7 : 2 7 - 3 3 (1955). A n exhaustive treatment of Hegel's concept of J u d a i s m is both more worthwhile and more needed than that of any other G e r m a n philosopher. B u t it is also more difficult. It would have to consider Hegel's entire philosophy of religion, if indeed not his philosophy as a whole. 1 2 . K . C . Planck, " Ü b e r die religionsphilosophische Stellung des J u d e n t u m s , " Theologische Jahrbücher, I I (Tübingen, 1843), 43off. Planck writes: " D i e göttliche Heiligkeit tritt im J u d e n t u m nicht als jene abstrakte, negative Bestimmung auf, wie bei Hegel, sondern als positive, und eben darum hat auch das Volk, obgleich es der K n e c h t Jehovahs ist, eine grössere Berechtigung; die Theokratie bezweckt ebenso sehr das Glück des Volkes, wie die Verherrlichung Jehovahs. Hegel dagegen hat die göttliche Heiligkeit nur nach ihrer theoretischen, nicht nach ihrer praktischen Seite gefasst, so wie überall bei ihm dies praktische M o m e n t der Religion gegen das theoretische zurücktreten muss . . . Das Gesetz und das Bundesverhältnis, worin die Eigentümlichkeit des Judentums besteht, fällt also ganz weg" (pp. 4 3 3 - 4 3 4 , our italics). Planck further makes the important observation that the treatment of J u d a i s m may be regarded as a test of the whole " s p e c u lative principle" not only in the case of Hegel but also in that of K a n t and Schleiermacher : " Bei Allen finden wir jene einseitige T r e n n u n g des Judentums von dem Christentum, zufolge deren das letztere, obgleich es geschichtlich vermittelt sein soll, doch ebenso sehr wieder aus dem geschichtlichen Zusammenhang herausgerissen ist. . . " (p. 429).

Samuel Hirsch and Hegel

177

by the Christian testimony on behalf of the risen Christ; second, by the "religion of reason" of deistic or Kantian Enlightenment. Both appraised his religion ab extra·, the one, in the light of a standard which it did not recognize, the other, in terms of standards too abstract to do it justice. In contrast with both, Hegel tried to understand sympathetically the unique nature of Judaism, and indeed even to incorporate it into his system of total truth. Yet, ironically, it is for this precise reason that his challenge to Judaism was far graver than that of the other two. As for the ancient Christian challenge, the Jew could do no more than counter the Christian testimony with his own. Nor did he need to do more, for the result was a stalemate which intelligent men of good will had to tolerate. As for the newer "rationalistic" challenge, this exposed, to be sure, the scandal of Jewish particularity. But Jewish particularity was no more— and possibly less—scandalous than the particularity of the incarnate God. A "religion of reason," if abstractable from Christianity, was abstractable also from Judaism. And still today there are Jews who stake all on the belief that the latter abstraction causes less difficulty than the former. T h e Hegelian challenge could not be met as cavalierly as this earlier rationalistic challenge. For unlike deistic or Kantian reason, Hegelian reason is saturated with difference, not neutral to it; it achieves universality, not by abstraction from the particular, but by moving through it, allowing to each a partial, and to none more than a partial, place within the whole. This is why, as we have seen, Hegel can at least attempt to enter into Judaism as such. But it is also why, as we see now, he regards it as in toto superseded. What ultimately supersedes it can only be a religion which, instead of being particular, is comprehensive of all particulars: according to Hegel, Protestant Christianity. Against this challenge, one could not assert an abstract religion of reason abstractable from Judaism. And while one could assert against it a more adequate concept of Judaism than Hegel's own this was, by itself, of little moment. At least so long as Judaism had a place short of the highest in the dialectical development of religion—albeit one higher than Hegel himself had given it—it was still superseded. 1 3 Could one, then, regard Hegel's system as but a new form of the ancient Christian challenge to Judaism, to be countered by the ancient Jewish testimony ? At least the system itself claimed that one could not. T o be sure, 1 3 . T h i s is illustrated by Planck's essay, referred to in Note 1 2 . While Planck gives J u d a i s m a higher place in the dialectic than Hegel does, he still allows it to be superseded by Christianity.

i78

Emil L. Fackenheim

it admitted that religions confront each other with conflicting and mutually irrefutable testimonies. But it claimed that philosophy of religion has transcended all stalemates of such claims and counterclaims, for it had immersed itself in the life of every religion and appraised that religion by its own standards. It had seen the wealth and coherence sought in one religion found in another, and it had arrived at replacing old dogmatic distinctions between true and false religions with what it claimed to be an undogmatic distinction between less true and more true religions. In its own self-understanding, therefore, the Hegelian challenge to Judaism is quite different from the ancient Christian challenge. T h e latter regards Judaism as false—in part if not as a whole—in the light of standards which Judaism can refuse to recognize. T h e former now regards Judaism as superseded, in the light of standards implicit in Judaism itself. It has now become very plain why the fundamental dilemma posed by the Hegelian comprehension of religion, while grave for both Jew and Christian, was far graver for the Jew than for the Christian. As regards one of its horns, to be sure, there was little if any difference. If Hegel's system was the end of all religious life, it was the end of Jewish no more and no less than of Christian life. T h e Jew could then but give a "decent burial" to his religion, reproducing in the form of scholarship a form of life which could no longer be lived. But this effort was then paralleled by similar Christian efforts on behalf of Christianity. It was the other horn of the Hegelian dilemma which found the Jew more exposed than the Christian. If religion could survive its Hegelian comprehension by self-transfiguration into the form of thought, then it was Protestant Christianity which could achieve this feat. As for Judaism, it had long been superseded in life, before Christianity, too, experienced its ultimate transfiguration into thought.

Ill Under the circumstances now somewhat lengthily described, more than antiquarian interest is aroused by a Jewish thinker who, writing in the heyday of Hegelianism, tried to face up forthrightly to the Hegelian challenge. There was, to be sure, no lack of Jewish Hegelians with at most marginal commitments to Judaism, or of practicing Jews only superficially affected by Hegelianism. But no writer other than Samuel Hirsch combined a deep commitment to Judaism with a most profound involvement with Hegelianism. And his monumental Religionsphilosophie der Juden

Samuel Hirsch and Hegel

179

may be viewed, at bottom, as an attempt to come to terms with this double involvement. 14 It is as such an attempt that the work will be examined in the present study. 1 5 Hirsch's book—which has received far less attention than it deserves—might be investigated for many reasons. Thus a study could be made of his use of Hegelian dialectic, which he wields with a skill and sensitivity not infrequently rivaling that of the master himself. It would be worthwhile, as well, to examine his massive use of traditional sources, and it might turn out that, while often arbitrary, Hirsch nevertheless deserves an honored place in the history of philosophic Bible and Midrash commentators. T h e present study, however, cannot afford the luxury of attending to such topics. For it must concentrate its efforts on the single issue of Hirsch's Jewish response to the Hegelian challenge. This response would hardly be worth examining if Hirsch were a mere piecemeal apologist. But while it is a matter of course that his intentions are not free of apologetic elements, he is by no means a mere apologist, and his reaction to Hegel is most certainly not piecemeal. He makes basic and radical moves against Hegel, and recognizes them for what they are. Further, these moves are internally connected. Finally, Hirsch's thought as a whole is consistent and philosophical enough to reflect—for better or worse—the consequences of his fundamental moves. These facts determine the structure of the present study. This will first seek to elicit the fundamental disagreements with which Hirsch confronts 14. Hirsch, who was born near Trier, Germany, in 1 8 1 5 , and died in Chicago in 1889, wrote a number of minor works in addition to his Religionsphilosophie der Juden oder das Prinzip der jüdischen Religionsanschauung und sein Verhältniss zum Heidenthum, Christenthum und zur absoluten Philosophie (Leipzig, 1842). The latter, however, remained his only systematic philosophical work, though intended to be only the first volume of a projected larger work. The Religionsphilosophie . . . will henceforth be referred to as RJ. Because the RJ is virtually unavailable in non-German libraries we shall, in our notes, quote far more amply from that work than is customary. Hirsch seeks to demonstrate at length (1) that modern philosophy has superseded all pre-modern philosophy, and (2) that Hegelian philosophy has superseded all pre-Hegelian modern philosophy (RJ, pp. 793 ff.). Taking these claims seriously, the interpreter cannot treat the influence upon Hirsch of such thinkers as Kant and Fichte on a par with that of Hegel (as is done, e.g., by J . Guttmann, Die Philosophie des Judentums [Munich, 1933], p. 3 3 1 , and by M . Wiener, Jüdische Religion im Zeitalter der Emanzipation [Berlin, 1933], p. 132). In the present study, we shall interpret Hirsch as being in primordial confrontation with Hegel, and as falling back, at strategic points in that primordial confrontation, on thinkers other than Hegel for support. 15. T o carry out our task we must, in our exposition, depart from Hirsch's own. And we must also refrain from summarizing those of Hirsch's ideas which do not directly concern our issue. Full summaries of the RJ are given by the works of Guttmann and Wiener referred to in Note 14, and by H. J . Schoeps, Geschichte der jüdischen Religionsphilosophie der Neuzeit, I (Berlin, 1935), 9 3 - 1 3 2 .

ι8ο

Emil L. Fackenheim

the Hegelian challenge, and the unity by virtue of which they add up to a whole. And it will then consider the effect of these fundamental disagreements, as manifest in the work in its entirety. IV It will hardly come as a surprise that Hirsch's first fundamental disagreement with Hegel is concerned with the concept of Judaism. Well armed with Biblical and rabbinic material, he does not find it difficult to contrast the Hegelian concept with the actualities of Jewish religious life. Hegel's Jewish God is " b e y o n d " ; the actual God of Judaism dwells in the midst of His people. Hegel's Jew lives in unhappy bondage to an alien law. T h e actual Jew finds in the Torah joy and salvation. Not wholly without reason can Hirsch on occasion complain that Hegel's view of Judaism is little more than an ancient Christian prejudice, cast into philosophical form. 1 6 Along with his concept of Judaism, Hirsch assails Hegel's concept of Greek religion. And the one assault reinforces the other. Hegel himself wavered in his view as to the relative merits of Jewish and Greek religion— a fact which his commentators have failed to stress or even to notice. 17 He was, however, inclined on the whole to compare the Greek gods, who were human and present, with the Jewish God, Whom he thought remote, 16. E.g., RJ, pp. 15, 28ff., 94ff., 460fr., 509, 564fr., 584fr. On the whole, Hirsch accuses the Hegelian school rather than Hegel himself of antiJewish prejudice. As for Hegel's own misunderstanding of Judaism, this Hirsch considers as mainly the result of philosophical errors on Hegel's part, above all of the attempt to deny a sharp distinction between pagan error and religious truth (see, e.g., RJ, pp. 814fr.). Hirsch also considers this misunderstanding as having to some extent been caused by Hegel's undue reliance on Philo for his interpretation of Judaism; see RJ, pp. 273 and 545 : " V o n dem Vorwurf Hegels gegen das Judentum, dass hier Gott ein Jenseits sei, iet gerade das Gegenteil wahr. Nur in dem Christentum der Kirche ist Gott so ein Jenseits. Hegel scheint seine ganze Philosophie des Judentums aus Philo geschöpft zu haben. Dieser von ägyptischem Heidentum angesteckt, weiss allerdings nur von so einem jenseitigem Gott, ganz anders aber die heilige Schrift." 17. Hegel contrasts the " s u b l i m e " Jewish religion, which "explicitly recognizes as inadequate" the natural "material" in which the Divine manifests itself, with the Greek "religion of beauty," which "reconciles significance with material." In this contrast, to be sure, he shows a lifelong preference for Greek reconciliation. But he also writes: " W e n n man . . . die Entäusserung der Natur bedauert, so muss man zugeben, dass die schöne Vereinigung der Natur und Gottes nur f ü r die Phantasie gilt, nicht f ü r die Vernunft. Denen, die noch so schlecht von der Entgötterung sprechen und jene Identität preisen, wird es doch gewiss schwer sein, an einen Ganges, eine Kuh, ein Meer, einen indischen oder griechischen Gott usf. zu glauben. . . " In this connection, it is a significant fact that, while in Hegel's Berlin lectures of 1824 and 1831 Jewish religion preceded Greek religion in dialectical sequence, the lectures of 1827 reversed this sequence, containing also the assertion that Greek beauty is inferior from a religious point of view to holiness, which first appears in Judaism (Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, ed. G. Lasson [Leipzig, 1925-30], vol. II, part II, pp. 7 1 , 68fT., 250fr., 57; the italics are ours).

Samuel Hirsch and Hegel

i8I

to the detriment of the latter. Hirsch admits the presence of the Greek gods. But he contends that this is a presence, not of the Divine, but merely of nature deified; and that this deification finds its dialectical nemesis when the Greek gods turn into Fate. He is then able to contrast this blind and impersonal Fate—than which no god is more remote—with the Jewish God Who, from the beginning, is seeing and personal. 18 From what has thus far been said of Hirsch's approach it may seem that he will take issue, not at all with Hegel's categories, but merely with the Hegelian understanding of Judaism in terms of them. Hirsch contends that it is pagan man who must look for a God " b e y o n d " : for the " p r e s e n t " nature which he worships must at length turn into an enemy. And he further contends that it is Jewish man for whom God is " p r e s e n t " : for this God is Lord of nature, and the man who worships Him is free to rule it. Does Hirsch, then, wholly accept the Hegelian categories of " p r e s e n t " and " r e m o t e " gods ? And does his whole argument rest on the empirical material in terms of which he seeks to correct Hegel's concept of Judaism ? While giving much space to empirical material Hirsch knows that his argument cannot wholly rest on it. For he does not give the kind of empirical account of Judaism which, offering a mere multiplicity of beliefs and rituals, indiscriminately mixes the essential with products of chance. As much as Hegel does, he seeks to penetrate behind such external multiplicities to an animating principle which unites them. And to the same extent as Hegel, he is in need of categories if he is to accomplish such a penetration. T h e very least Hirsch must do, over and above adducing empirical facts about Judaism, is to organize these facts in categories, even if these categories themselves should remain Hegel's own. But secondly, and far more importantly, even from the brief summary thus far given it is evident that Hirsch's categories cannot remain Hegel's own. For the "presence" ascribed by Hirsch to the Jewish God—Who, 18. See R J , pp. 517fr.: " W i r können das Heidentum in zwei Gruppen teilen. Die erste fühlt sich befriedigt in dieser Welt und strebt nicht über sie hinaus; sie kennt nur eine sinnliche, nicht eine geistige Welt. Zu dieser Gruppe gehören die Fetischdiener und die Chinesen, die Vorderasiaten, Griechen und Römer. Die andere Gruppe aber fühlt sich unglücklich in dieser Welt, sucht sie zu entbehren. Die sinnliche Welt erfüllt sie mit Trauer und Schmerz; sie erstrebt eine unsinnliche. Z u dieser gehören die Indier, Buddhadiener, Perser und Ägypter. . . [Aber die heilige Schrift] ist eben so weit entfernt von dem heidnischen Versenktsein in der Natur, als von der heidnischen Flucht aus derselben. Diese Natur ist gut und vollkommen, nach der Lehre der heiligen Schrift, denn Gott sah Alles, was er gemacht hatte, und es war sehr gut. . . Der Mensch braucht also nicht aus dieser Natur zu fliehen, um Gott zu finden, nicht erst nach dem Tode ist er bei Gott, sondern auf dieser Erde soll er vor Gott wandeln und vollkommen werden. . . " For more about paganism and Judaism, see below, Sections V and V I .

Emil L. Fackenheim being the one transcendent God, must enter into nature if He is to be present—cannot, obviously, be the presence ascribed by Hegel to the Greek gods, which are not transcendent. And as for the latter, their presence is for Hirsch not a presence of the Divine at all. That this difference will not be minor but fundamental becomes clear on closer inspection of Hegel's concept of "presence." For Hegel, " p r e sence" ultimately turns out to be comprehensiveness. And it is because Christianity comprehends, among much else, the partial truths both of the Greek finite but present gods, and of the Jewish infinite but remote God, that it is the absolute religion. If Hirsch accepted the Hegelian criterion of comprehensiveness he could not, by merely correcting Hegel's image of Judaism, hope to avoid the dialectical sublation of Judaism by Christianity. Nothing less would be required, in that case, than the demonstration that Judaism either replaces Christianity as the absolute religion or else at least shares absoluteness with it. 1 9 But can Judaism be regarded as the all-comprehensive religion ? We may pass over the objection that the more comprehensive must historically succeed the less comprehensive, since this is a principle not strictly adhered to by Hegel himself. 20 But we must ask whether Judaism can be regarded as a synthesis that includes paganism. Must it not rather be regarded as a radical protest against paganism ? 2 1 Doubt increases on this score as we note the characteristic which, in Hegel's view, enables Christianity to achieve all-comprehensiveness. This is its trinitarianism, which 19. As will be seen below (Sections V I and VII), there is a sense in which, for Hirsch, Judaism and Christianity share absoluteness. Judaism is the "intensive religiosity" which consists of living with the true God Who has entered into Israel's midst, while Christianity is the "extensive religiosity" which consists of the dynamic effort of bringing this God to the pagan world ( R J , pp. 440-839). "Absolute religiosity" will be achieved in the Messianic age, in which Christianity will have converted all paganism within and outside itself, and in which the Jew will obey the true God freely, no longer merely by compulsion ([RJ, pp. 840-884). But—as will be seen—Hirsch's "absoluteness" cannot be Hegel's, which is comprehensiveness. 20. The most obvious exception is Islam. This is treated by Hegel only as a modification of Judaism, and by Hirsch not at all. Possibly traces of Hegelian influence may still be found in the treatment of Islam in F. Rosenzweig's Stern der Erlösung (Frankfurt, 1921). 2 1 . Cf., e.g., RJ, p. 509: " W e r weiss nicht, dass die heilige Schrift immer und überall mit dem Heidentum in Opposition steht ? Doch die neueste Kritik weiss das wirklich nicht. Ihr ist der Jehovakult nur eine Modifikation des persischen Lichtkultus usw. Dieser Kritik muss daher denn auch immer wieder zugemutet werden, dass sie sich bescheide, von den so gering geschätzten Rabbinen noch lernen zu können." (The "most recent criticism" refers to the Hegelian school.) Possibly it is not farfetched to look for similarities between Hirsch's protest against the Biblical critics of his time and the protest of Yehezkel Kaufmann against those of our time (The Religion of Israel [Chicago, i960], passim).

Samuel Hirsch and Hegel

183

allows all—including pagan—otherness to live its own life while yet absorbing it in a larger whole. But against Hegel's Christian—or pseudoChristian—trinitarianism, Hirsch must insist on the radical transcendence of the one God of Israel. 22 In sum, then, in order to avoid the dialectical sublation of Judaism in Christianity Hirsch must assail not only Hegel's appraisal of Judaism, but also the categories in which it is made. And this involves him in nothing less than an assault on Hegel's system as a whole. 2 3 This assault is necessary, not only on behalf of Judaism against its Hegelian dissolution in Christianity, but also on behalf of all true religion against the threat posed to it by Hegel's philosophy. For Hirsch is well aware of the dilemma we have described above, and he knows that he must escape both from the horn which would be the death of all religion, and from what he takes to be the other horn, the speculative pantheism of a selfrealizing God. 2 4 But he also knows that he can escape both these horns, not by an empirical description of Judaism, however glowing, but only by strategic assaults on Hegel's system as a whole. Failing such assaults, an attempt to correct Hegel's one-sided image of Judaism would be, in the end, but lost labor. We observe Hirsch, then, proceeding from his first fundamental move against Hegel to a second, no less basic. This concerns the relation between philosophy of religion and the immediacy of religious life. Hirsch agrees that philosophy, rather than attaining truths otherwise undisclosed, merely comprehends truths already present in life, and that the highest such truth is found in the life of a true religion. He radically denies, however, that in comprehending religious truth, philosophy removes a remaining untruth from it, thus transcending the standpoint of 22. Hirsch's position vis-à-vis trinitarianism is complex but consistent. In the first place, he rejects Christian trinitarianism, as reflecting what he regards as the Pauline relapse into paganism. (See below, Section V I I . ) In the second place, he rejects, as pantheistic, Hegel's trinitarianism, which he sharply distinguishes f r o m that of the Church. (RJ, p. 780: " N a c h der kirchlichen L e h r e ist nur Gott der Dreieinige. Gott steht jenseits der Welt; die Welt als solche bildet kein M o m e n t in der Dreieinigkeit Gottes und ist f ü r sich auch nicht nach dem Gesetze der Dreieinigkeit gegliedert.") But, in the third place, there is a sense in which the true G o d — J e w i s h and Christian—must be trinitarian. H e is a living G o d : " b u t all that lives is trinitarian in the Hegelian s e n s e " (RJ, p. 8 1 7 ) . T h e One G o d of Hirsch, then, is not Hegel's abstract and lifeless unity. He is One because His life differs f r o m that of the world and because He is real apart f r o m the life of the world. See below, Note 48. 23. Hirsch is enough of a Hegelian to be thoroughly aware of this fact. T h u s having criticized Hegel's concept of Judaism he writes: " A b e r das ist das Göttliche an der Hegeischen Anforderung, die er an die Philosophie stellt, dass es nirgendwo im System einen Fehler geben kann, den man nicht durch das ganze System f ü h l e n müsste . . . " (RJ, p. 819). 24. C f . , e.g., RJ, pp. XXV ff., 45, 165, 545ff.

184

Emil L. Fackenheim

religion itself. No untruth remains in the true religion, and the standpoints of the true religion and of the true philosophy are therefore identical. Thus with a single blow Hirsch wards off the fundamental Hegelian dilemma, which threatens Judaism and Christianity alike. 25 The all-important question, however, is precisely how this blow is to be struck. Conceivably Hirsch might have insisted that philosophy must remain at what to Hegel is the religious standpoint, for which God remains other than man, for the simple reason that God is other than man. Hirsch takes the most fateful of all his steps when, not even considering this possibility, he opts for an alternative. The true religion already is at the standpoint reached, according to Hegel, only by the true philosophy. If religious immediacy experienced itself as related to a God other than man, it would, to be sure, stand in need of correction. But the believer in the true religion does not regard himself as standing in such a relation. For the true religious—not merely for the philosophical—standpoint, "there can be no question of a relation to God." 2 6 The utterly un-Hegelian nature of this affirmation cannot be overemphasized. Hegel's philosophical comprehension affirms the religious Divine-human relationship but overcomes Divine otherness—and thus religion itself—by transmuting the external into an internal relationship. Hirsch, seeking to deny the transmutation of religion by philosophy, is able to do so only by denying, in religion, the Divine-human relationship. At least in the true religion man knows himself related, not to God but only to himself. He experiences his own potential freedom and is gripped by an 25. Cf., e.g., RJ, pp. 385fr., 603, 786fr., and especially xv ff. Cf. also p. 34: " D a s Philosophieren ist eben so eine Tätigkeit des Menschen, wie alle anderen Tätigkeiten des Geistes, gehört also mit zur Religion und steht nicht neben oder über ihr. Zu religiösen Erkenntnissen kommt der Mensch zunächst, wie zu anderen Erkenntnissen, ζ. B. zur Sprachbildung durch Anschauung. . . Die Philosophie begreift jene Anschauungen verändert sie aber nicht, wenn sie richtig ist. Nur wenn sie falsch sind, halten sie vor der Philosophie nicht aus: falsch sind sie aber nur durch die Schuld des Menschen, wie sich zeigen wird." 26. RJ, p. 25. Hirsch goes on to say: " N u r endliche Dinge verhalten sich zu einander. Endliche Dinge, von denen das Eine hier, das Andere dort steht, haben in gewissem Sinne eine Beziehung auf einander, in anderem wiederum nicht. Deswegen verhalten sie sich zu einander, bleiben aber auch Jedes für sich selbständig. Das Eine ist die Grenze des Anderen. . . Der Mensch kann daher auch nicht in diesem Sinne in einem Verhältnis zu Gott stehen, denn wo der Mensch ist, da ist auch Gott. . . " When in the following we characterize Hirsch's denial of a Divine-human relationship as utterly un-Hegelian, we are not unaware of Hegel's doctrine of true Infinity, which asserts that the "true Infinite" must be inclusive of the finite, instead of being related to it in an external relation (see, e.g., his shorter Logic, nos. 91-95). There is, however, a world of difference between Hirsch, who denies the religious God-man relationship, and Hegel, who interprets it as an internal rather than an external relationship. We may add in passing that a good many Hegelians on both right and left have failed to understand this difference.

Samuel Hirsch and Hegel urge to actualize it. And God enters into this relationship between the potential and the actual self only as the Ground of potential selfhood which man, in actualizing it, acknowledges as a Divine gift. Hirsch does not hesitate to assert that this extraordinary account is in strict conformity with the facts of religious life. 27 It must be noted, however, that, by itself, this second move escapes from the Hegelian dilemma only in order to be exposed to another. Must all religions somehow be true ? If so, Hirsch is either left with a simple pluralism of religious truth which must, on his own view, be self-contradictory. (For if the philosophical is identical with the religious standpoint, each true religion must have its own philosophy, and the philosophy which makes the pluralistic assertion of the truth of all religions is then but the philosophy of one religion. Yet at the same time, it must claim to be the philosophy of all religions.) 28 Or else there are degrees of religious truth. In that case, however, Hirsch has not after all emancipated himself from the Hegelian position, for which comprehensiveness is the criterion of religious truth. But as we have seen, this position must be for him, as a Jew, unacceptable. This dilemma points to a need, on Hirsch's part, for another utterly un-Hegelian doctrine which would provide an escape from it. This is the distinction between absolutely true and absolutely false religions. But we have as yet found nothing in Hirsch's thought which would justify this distinction. It is, however, a mark of Hirsch's stature as a thinker that his second move against Hegel, just discussed, directly leads to a third, which provides the needed distinction. Indeed—as was asserted above—his three basic moves against Hegel form a unity on which his whole edifice rests. 27. RJ, pp. 2 9 - 3 0 : " Denn wenn die Religiosität auch nicht ein Verhalten des Menschen zu Gott, sondern nur sein, des Menschen, Verhalten zu sich selbst ausdrückt, so muss doch der Grund, die Wurzel dieses seines Zu-sich-selbst-Verhaltens Gott sein. . . Nur der Mensch ist fähig, das Leben für seine Freiheit hinzugeben. Diese Macht nun über Alles, diese Harmonie . . . zwischen der menschlichen Freiheit und dem All, dieses, dass es schlechterdings nichts gibt, was den Menschen zu irgend etwas zwingen könnte, hat er sich nicht selbst gegeben, noch hat er sie erworben. E r schaut also über sich ein Wesen, das ihm diese seine Freiheit geschenkt . . . hat. Dieses Wesen hat ihm diese Macht über Alles gegeben; es muss also selbst das Allmächtige, das schlechterdings Macht über Alles Habende sein. Dieses Wesen nennt er Gott." 28. This dilemma, characteristic of both romantic and pragmatic philosophies of religion, is illustrated in Schleiermacher's Addresses, which, having insisted on the irreducible plurality of true religions—if only they are alive—nevertheless ends up referring to Christianity as the "religion of religions." T h e dilemma is also present in present-day pluralistic philosophies, which, comparing religions to players in an orchestra, each of whom must perform his own individual task, unconsciously assume the role of conductor.

Emil L. Fackenheim W e have thus far attended to the fact of Hirsch's denial, in the true religion, of a relationship between man and God. W e must now attend more closely to the nature of this denial. Conceivably Hirsch might have asserted, in the true religion, a human-Divine identity, that is, a mystic union. What he in fact asserts is a relationship between the potential and the actual self, G o d being not a partner of this relationship but only the Ground of it. T h i s assertion is of far-reaching consequence for his concept of freedom. A n d it also supplies the needed distinction between true and false religions. In the Hegelian view, freedom, as experienced in religious immediacy, is human freedom, and its primordial choices, for or against G o d . 2 9 But for philosophical comprehension this human freedom is a partial manifestation of Divine freedom, and what seems to religious immediacy a radical human choice between obedience to and rebellion against G o d , is in ultimate truth two phases in the process of Divine self-realization. T h u s Hegel not only arrives at religiously unorthodox concepts of sin and freedom. He can also view all religions as partial manifestations of freedom, and the absolute religion—which is the absolutely free religion—· as totally comprehensive of them. For while in fatalistic religions man may seem to himself the absolutely unfree object of a wholly alien Fate, his apparently absolute unfreedom is in truth but a relative unfreedom; it is less unfree, for example, than forms of existence in which man, wholly devoid of a sense of the Divine, regards himself as master of his human destiny. T h u s what seems absolute human unfreedom vis-à-vis G o d is in truth partial Divine freedom, in man. Against this complex of Hegelian doctrine, Hirsch takes the radical stand that freedom is human freedom, not only for religious immediacy but also for philosophical comprehension, and hence, absolutely. Consequently, he asserts that what to religious immediacy seems an absolute choice between obedience to or rebellion against God, is in ultimate truth such a choice. A n d he attacks Hegel's concept of sin—the necessary negative phase in the self-realization of G o d — a s his most ominous error. Sin is a choice which can be made; but it need not and ought not to be made. " I n heaven and on earth, there is but one thing which is contingent. . . Only 29. In the light of the exposition given in Section I, this assertion requires qualification. T o the extent to which religious immediacy retains the distinction between worshiping man and worshiped G o d , it experiences freedom as human freedom, and its primordial choices as for or against G o d . But to the extent to which religious immediacy experiences an inner bond between worshiping man and worshiped God, it no longer experiences freedom as simply human.

Samuel Hirsch and Hegel

187

that is contingent whose very notion is to be either this or that. Only actual sin is contingent." 3 0 But this one exception to the necessitarianism of Hegel's system is a crucial attack on the system as a whole. A s a result of this attack Hirsch achieves, at one stroke, the needed distinction between absolutely true and absolutely false religions. For it need hardly be said that a true religion rests on a primordial choice for 30. RJ, p. 449. Because Hirsch considers the issue of sin as the decisive issue between Hegel and himself, it is advisable to quote at least one crucial passage in full: " D i e s e r Punkt von der Möglichkeit des Bösen, welche als Möglichkeit notwendig ist, um dem Menschen das Moment seiner formalen Freiheit zu erhalten, welche aber auch nur Möglichkeit bleiben und niemals Wirklichkeit werden soll, jedoch Wirklichkeit werden kann, ist der Angelpunkt, der Scheideweg, wo wir uns von der neuesten Philosophie durchaus trennen; ist, wie wir noch sehen werden, der Grundgedanke des Judentums, das Schiboleth, woran Judentum im Gegensatz zum Heidentum und im Unterschiede vom Christentum einzig und allein zu erkennen ist. " N a c h Hegel . . . ist Sünde nur der notwendige Durchgang zum Guten. Nicht die bloss mögliche Sünde, sondern die wirkliche Sünde ist notwendig, um zum Guten zu kommen. Im Anfange soll nämlich der Naturzustand sein. Diesen stellt man sich vor als den seligen Zustand, wo der Mensch eins mit . . . der Natur, weder vom Guten noch vom Bösen etwas weiss. Er soll hier ein glückliches Traumleben führen. In diesen kindlichen Naturzustand muss aber der Widerspruch hineinkommen ; denn der Mensch soll nicht in dieser Unbefangenheit bleiben. So kommt der Zwiespalt in die menschliche Brust und diesen Zwiespalt, der doch notwendig ist, schaut der Mensch nachher als Folge seiner Schuld, seiner Sünde an. So glaubt der Mensch immer schon gesündigt zu haben, wenn er zum Bewusstsein des Guten und Bösen kommt, oder wenn er sich in diesem Zwiespalt des Naturzustandes findet. Dieses ist die Hegeische Theorie. Das Böse unterscheidet sich demnach nur insofern vom Guten, dass das Böse das notwendige Mittel ist, um gut zu werden. . . " E s ist leicht einzusehen, wie die Philosophie auf diese Theorie kommen musste. Die Philosophie will nämlich Alles begreifen. Begreifen heisst aber etwas in seiner Notwendigkeit einsehen. So will sie auch die Notwendigkeit der Sünde einsehen. Sie macht es sich nun leicht, indem sie etwas Sünde nennt, was gar nicht Sünde ist; das aber, was wirklich Sünde ist, völlig ignoriert. . . " D i e Folge dieser Hegeischen Theorie ist der Pantheismus. Es ist überall nur das eine göttliche Leben, welches sich von sich unterscheidet, in der Natur; welches zum Bewusstsein dieses Unterschiedes kommt, im menschlichen Geiste und welches diesen Unterschied dann aufhebt, ebenfalls im menschlichen Geiste. Nach meiner Überzeugung ist Hegel nur zu überwinden, wenn dieser Punkt genau ins Auge gefasst wird. . . " E s bildet, wie gesagt, die Grundlehre des Judentums, dass die Sünde, nicht bloss als Durchgangspunkt, sondern immerfort, während des ganzen Lebens, möglich ist; dass sie in dieser blossen Möglichkeit von Gott gewollt ist, weil der Mensch sich die Frömmigkeit auf eine freie Weise aneignen soll; dass sie aber in ihrer Wirklichkeit immer zufällig ist, weil der Mensch niemals zu sündigen b r a u c h t " (RJ, pp. 43-46). See also, for Hirsch's rejection of Hegel's interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3, RJ, pp. 74ff. Hirsch finds the ultimate source of Hegel's error concerning sin—and indeed possibly of all his errors—in the Logic, which, he asserts, confuses finiteness and evil, thus failing to understand the true nature of evil (RJ, p. 826). Committing this confusion, and hence seeking to save evil as partially good instead of rejecting it as totally evil, Hegelianism unwittingly becomes a form of paganism. " D e r Hegelianismus ist . . . das sublimierteste Heidentum: dort soll auch die Sünde, der notwendige Widerspruch des endlichen Geistes sein, der alsdann, wie im Heidentum das Naturübel, zu sühnen und aufzuheben i s t " (RJ, p. 98).

Emil L. Fackenheim God, and a false religion, on a primordial choice against Him. What needs adding are merely the categories in which these choices are to be understood. These are the categories, if not of Hegel, of contemporary philosophy. 3 1 T o choose for God is to accept him as the Lord of nature, and this choice results in the human freedom to rule over nature. T h u s the true religion is a religion of freedom. T o choose against God is to deify nature, and this choice results in human self-subjection to nature. T h u s the false religion is a religion of unfreedom. But this unfreedom is not, as seems the case to those enslaved by it, an absolute condition externally imposed. It is the product of their own false but free choice. The true religion, then, is true not by virtue of comprehending all partially true religions. It is true as the radical alternative to absolutely false religions. And the way is found from the latter to the former, not by the dialectical transformation of their partial into a more comprehensive truth, but only by a radical act of conversion or repentance. V

Hirsch's three fundamental moves against Hegel have now been described in their internal unity. Our remaining task is to consider the consequences of these moves. These, as we have said, are manifest, for better or worse, throughout his work. We shall begin with Hirsch's account of the false religion, or paganism. No other part of his work is as dependent on Hegel for its material— almost wholly derived from the Philosophie der Religion—or for its method, which is thoroughly dialectical. And yet Hirsch's treatment of paganism is wholly independent, and must be so unless his whole case is to fall apart. 3 2 3 1 . T h e y are reminiscent of the categories in which K a n t (in the first part of his Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft) seeks to understand the choice between good and evil, but also of Schelling, to whose doctrine of evil, understood as fall from G o d (first stated in his Philosophie und Religion of 1804), Hirsch explicitly refers, RJ, pp. i o y f f . , 1 1 0 : " D a s ist richtig, dass alle Barbarei nur als ein Abfall des Menschen von Gott zu begreifen ist." A s for the full development of that doctrine in Schelling's last phase, Hirsch did not know it (RJ, p. 8 1 3 ) . N o r could he have known it. Schelling's Philosophie der Mythologie und Offenbarung was published only posthumously, in 1 8 5 7 - 5 8 . 32. T h e fact that, though applying Hegelian dialectic to material mostly borrowed from Hegel, Hirsch's account of paganism can arrive at very different conclusions dramatically highlights a central difficulty in Hegel's whole approach to religious—and not only religious—fact. Hirsch's account—and indeed his work as a whole—ought therefore to have occasioned some soul-searching among contemporary Christian Hegelians. T h e y preferred, however, to ignore him. A s Schoeps wryly remarks: " D i e theologische Hegelorthodoxie . . . hat Schweigen f ü r der Weisheit besseren T e i l gehalten." (See the essay referred to in Note 1 1 . )

189

Samuel Hirsch and Hegel

Hegel's dialectic, moving positively, shows non-Christian religions to be stages of a process culminating in Christianity. Hirsch's dialectic of paganism is negative, and it culminates, not in the true but rather in the self-refutation of the false religion. This is because, in his view, paganism rests on an original anti-Divine choice, the consequences of which dialectic explicates. T h e original choice implies the belief that nature is Lord, and subjection to it—that is, sin—man's inexorable fate. But this belief is not a partial truth but rather a total lie. And from this lie there is a dialectical development only to further lies, and at most to a recognition of the vanity of all lies. But the step from this recognition to the truth is not a further dialectical development but rather a radical leap. 33 Nature worshiped is not God, not even a fragmentary god. Nature gods are mere human projections, and nature itself is undivine. This is why paganism is a lie. Pagan man, moreover, cannot indefinitely remain with this lie. For in worshiping nature gods he is in a state of internal contradiction, and hence is dialectically driven beyond such worship. In nature worship slumbers the knowledge that this subjection is .^//-subjection, and hence that the nature gods projected are exceeded in worth and reality by the man who does the projecting. Deification of nature thus at length gives way to the deification of man. But this too is mere deification; unknown to himself, " t h e Greek perceived in his gods nothing but the experiences of his own heart." 34 And for this reason Greek religion too carries the seeds of its own disintegration. Because the spirits here worshiped are subject to nature, not, like the true God, sovereign over nature, mortality emerges as the limit of the Greek gods, who are therefore ultimately superseded by Fate. But " a fulfillment and hence transcendence of Fate is impossible on pagan soil." 35 Paganism finds its ultimate limit when it recognizes its gods as the projections which they are. This occurs in Roman religion, which, withdrawing its god projections, reduces its deities to mere tools of human use. T h u s utility itself is deified. But this final pagan deification too finds its nemesis, which constitutes the absolute crisis of paganism in all its forms. " W h a t is the use of u s e ? " With this climactic question paganism is cast into radical despair, ready for what will turn out to be the Christian answer.

33. RJ, pp. n o f f . , and the whole section on paganism, pp. 1 0 5 - 4 3 9 , 34· RJ, P· 277· 35. Ibid., pp. 322ff.

passim.

Emil L. Fackenheim But it cannot itself produce this answer. Its highest possibility is to be ready to receive it—from elsewhere. 36 Showing the courage of consistency, Hirsch does not shrink from describing Greek philosophy, too, as confined to the limitations of the pagan world. 3 7 The Platonic Idea, to be sure, intends the Divine. But because for paganism God is not the Lord of nature, the great pagan philosopher can seek the true God only beyond nature. Hence his Idea, though concrete and alive, fails to encompass the individual, which remains outside, without structure and value. Nor can Aristotle, though recognizing this fault, provide the remedy. His "manifold totalities," to be sure, are intended to animate the individual, but they fail wholly to do so, remaining manifold and fragmentary. And this is why, just as pagan religion culminates in the immediate experience of vanity, pagan philosophy culminates in the rational expression of that experience. This is skepticism. 38 Hirsch concludes, "Philosophy invents no new truth. It only comprehends a spiritual world already present. Hence the decline of the ancient world carried in train the decline of ancient philosophy. It could bring to consciousness the vanity of paganism, but not truth. How then is one to come to truth ? " 39 VI This question finds its answer, first in Judaism and, secondly, and by way of mediation through Judaism, in Christianity. Judaism does not 36. Ibid., pp. 382ff.: " D i e Frage kann nicht ausbleiben: Was nützt denn der Nutzen? Und auf diese Frage hat die römische Welt keine Antwort und daher ist sie mit all ihrem Nützlichen unglücklich. " M i t dieser Frage hat sich aber auch das Heidentum überhaupt vollendet. Das Heidentum war davon ausgegangen, dass der Mensch der Natürlichkeit und Sinnlichkeit die Herrschaft gönnte. Alles, was der Sinnlichkeit Einbruch tat, die Stimme des Gewissens nicht ausgenommen, wurde als etwas Feindliches betrachtet und zu überwinden versucht. In Rom ist dieses Ziel erreicht; der Egoismus ist zur vollständigen Herrschaft gekommen; ein Jeder wird da rechtlich in seinem Nutzen und in dem, was dazu dient, denselben zu fördern, geschützt. Nun erkennt der Mensch, dass das, was er erreicht hat, eben nur der Widerspruch und sein Unglück ist. Wozu der Nutzen ? Das ist die Frage, die dieses ganze Gebäude umstürzt. . . In Rom wird . . . das Nichts des menschlichen Geistes gewusst. Dieses ist die bodenlose Leerheit, das Unglück als solches, der Ekel vor sich selbst. . . Das gesuchte Glück hat sich zum totalen Unglück verkehrt. Die falsche Voraussetzung des Heidentums, dass der Mensch seiner Natürlichkeit zu folgen habe, hat sich als das Nichtige erwiesen. Resultatlos schliesst die alte Welt. . . Sie weiss nun, dass weder die Natur noch der menschliche Geist Gott sei. . . Alles ist ihr zur Lüge geworden, das ist ihre grausenhafte Erfahrung. Eine neue Religion, ein neues Völkerleben ist dem Menschen zu finden und zu erfinden total unmöglich. Das Heidentum ist mit dem Beginn des römischen Kaiserreichs untergegangen und das reine Nichts ist dem verzweifelten Menschengeschlecht übrig geblieben." 37. RJ, pp. 385fr.

38. Ibid., pp. 4i8ff., 420ff., 436fr.

39. Ibid., p. 439.

Samuel Hirsch and Hegel require a historically prior paganism and is, when preceded by paganism, a revolt against it. For far from being a dialectical development of pagan religion it is its radical alternative. Paganism springs from a primordial self-subjection to nature. Judaism springs from a primordial choice for the true God, who is Lord over nature. T h e God of Judaism is not nature. But neither is He a spirit who, beyond nature, is powerless to rule it. He is the Creator and Lord of nature, and hence present rather than beyond. And the Jew who worships Him imitates Him by being nature's master rather than its slave. This decisive truth, first abstractly present in Abraham, is the sole content even of the revelation at Sinai. 40 But as the reader turns from Hirsch's paganism to his Judaism he is struck by a strange irony. T h e account of paganism is subtle, rich, well integrated, and moving with purpose and clarity. T h e account of Judaism moves, if at all, unclearly and with hesitation. And while it is filled with rich detail, culled from traditional Jewish sources and ingeniously interpreted, the detail often fits poorly into the over-all structure, and the interpretation is apt to be forced and shot through with methodological unclarity. And yet the account of paganism is, after all, merely peripheral, while the account of Judaism must be, and is intended to be, the heart of the whole work ! One need not look far for an explanation of this strange state of affairs. Given Hirsch's concepts of freedom and sin, there can be a Hegelian-style dialectic of unfreedom and sin. But there can be no such dialectic of 40. Hirsch comments on the Ten Commandments as follows: " . . . es heissen diese Worte [i.e., the first two Commandments] nichts anderes als Gott ist der Herr über alles Natürliche und der Mensch soll in dieser Herrschaft Gott ähnlich werden. Der Mensch soll sich nicht von der Natur abhängig, sondern ihr gegenüber frei wissen und die Natur als zu seinem Dienste bestimmt ansehen. Diese beiden ersten Worte enthalten daher den ganzen Inhalt der Religion, sowohl nach ihrer allgemeinen Seite, insofern alle Menschen den Ruf vernehmen sollen: Gott und nicht die Natur ist Herr, der Mensch soll ähnlich als Herr und nicht als Sklave der Natur leben, als auch nach der besonderen Seite, dass dieser Gott Jisrael zuerst befreit hat dass Jisrael daher auch vor allen Völkern der Freiheit leben soll. Die übrigen acht Worte sind eben nur die in Umrissen gegebene Explikation dieses Inhalts, seine Anwendung auf das Leben. . . Denn der Gedanke, Gott ist Herr, der Mensch ist frei . . . soll nicht bloss gewusst und anerkannt werden, sondern er soll das ganze Leben durchdringen. . . " (RJ, p. 612). Cf. also Die Messiaslehre der Juden (Leipzig, 1843), pp. i i 4 f f . : " G e r a d e um dieses Heidentum zu vernichten, ist der Herr am Sinai erschienen. . . Die Wege des Herrn sind die Wunder, die Gott getan, und diese wollen uns belehren, dass nicht, wie der alte und neue Heide, um sündigen zu können, angibt, die Natur Gott ist, sondern dass Gott der Herr ist über die Natur. . . Aber die Wunder allein haben nicht diese Macht, uns diese Belehrung zu gewähren, so lange nicht der Wächter erweckt ist, uns die Wunder zu deuten. . . Und damit wir wissen, dass die Propheten nichts Falsches ausgesagt haben von dem Ewigen unserem Gott . . . dazu bedurfte es einer Erscheinung, welche sowohl ein Wunder als die Auslegung eines Wunders war; dazu ist Gott am Sinai erschienen."

192

Emil L. Fackenheim

freedom and virtue. Even of paganism, to be sure, Hirsch—unlike Hegel— can give only a conditional dialectic. 41 For, in the first place, the primordial pagan self-subjection to nature is an absolute act, not a phase in a dialectical movement. And, in the second place, even given this act, nothing can compel a pagan to remain tied to its consequences. " F o r anyone who merely wishes to know evil, not to enjoy it, paradise is always open." 4 2 T h e above dialectic of paganism, then, holds only those pagans in bondage who fail to make a radical choice for paradise. But of Judaism Hirsch cannot give a dialectic at all. In contrast with the negative pagan dialectic, this would have to be positive, showing how the free acts at earlier stages of Judaism lead to the still freer acts at later stages. But unlike Hegel, Hirsch cannot give such a dialectic. Since man's freedom is human, not a partial manifestation of Divine freedom, Hirsch must refuse to qualify the absoluteness of any individual's freedom for either virtue or sin. " A single vigorous resolution—and a man has broken with sin, dead to its lure." 4 3 A single lapse, too, and a man has fallen. Lesser representatives of liberal Judaism were ready to accept the belief in necessary human progress, willing to pay the double price of qualifying the freedom for good of earlier generations and, of later generations, the freedom for evil. For Hirsch—who is not a lesser representative of liberal Judaism—the price is too high. Why should this loss of dialectic be of serious consequence ? It endangers, in the first place, a philosophy of Judaism. For Hirsch, philosophy adds to the true religion only reflective self-understanding, which comprehends what religion immediately lives, as a necessary sequence. How then, if the true religion does not possess such a sequence, can it have a philosophy ? But the loss of dialectic does not endanger a philosophical understanding of Judaism only. Far more seriously, it endangers any sort of continuous life of Judaism itself. For on the strength of the perennial possibility of the choice between freedom and slavery, Hirsch has rejected the positive dialectic of necessary progress, and he is neither inconsistent nor chauvinistic enough to maintain that, left to themselves, Jews are less inclined than other men to choose slavery. If, then, in the sphere of paganism, revolutionary acts of freedom are too weak to interfere with the negative dialectic of unfreedom, how can they be strong enough in the Jewish sphere to create a vital and positive tradition of freedom ? Must not Judaism reduce itself to sporadic acts of an Abraham, a Moses, or an 41. Cf., e.g., RJ, p. 386.

42. RJ, pp. 113, 148.

43. Ibid., p. 7z.

Samuel Hirsch and Hegel

m

Isaiah, different from similar acts in the pagan sphere only in degree, if indeed at all ? Hirsch is, in fact, confronted at this point with a grave dilemma. Either human freedom is such that, nurtured by antecedent acts of freedom, it can create a vital tradition, relatively immune to unfreedom and sin. But then such traditions should have sprung up within paganism as well as Judaism, and the dialectic of paganism breaks down. Or else, because human freedom has no such power, the pagan dialectic runs its course, relatively unaffected by sporadic revolts against it. But then Judaism too should have become involved in the pagan dialectic, and the teaching of Abraham and Moses, only intermittently coming to life, should be no tradition at all. It is at this critical juncture that a wholly new element makes its appearance in Hirsch's thought. This is the actual, literal intervention of God in Jewish—and human—-history. It will be remembered that God has thus far appeared in Hirsch's thought only in two capacities—as the Source of human freedom, and as the Lord of nature Whom free man imitates. If God acts at all in either of these two capacities, He does not, at any rate, act upon man. But such action now makes its unequivocal appearance. " God is free . . . and wills to make us free."44 He works miracles which are actual miracles, and sends revelations which are actual revelations, reducible to neither philosophy nor poetry nor the voice of conscience, because they are not human creations but actual incursions of God. 4 5 Indeed, in the history of Israel God has not ceased acting even after prophecy has come to an end. For it is His providence alone which has kept Israel. Had it not been for Divine intervention, Israel would long have abandoned the path of freedom for self-chosen pagan servitude. And as for the purpose of this 44. Ibid., p. 455. 45. As might be expected, Hirsch's thought is not free from the tendency to blur or soften the distinction between revelation and natural insight. Yet though admitting the "rationalistic coloring" of his account of revelation he radically rejects its reduction to natural insight. "Man stellt sich von Anfang an eine unmögliche Aufgabe, will man das Wie der Prophetie—hier für jedes Reden Gottes mit dem Menschen genommen—erklären. . . Der Mensch weiss. . ., dass er dieses Alles nicht aus seinem Innern schöpft, sondern dass er es von aussen her vernimmt. . . Es muss . . . das Wort Gottes ihm wirklich von aussenher geworden sein, und doch nicht auf die Weise, wie andere Worte für ihn vernehmbar sind . . ." {RJ, pp. 478-482). Hirsch even repudiates all Biblical criticism CR7, pp. S90ff.). Hirsch explicitly asserts that both the life of the Jewish people and the life of mankind are "exposed to the immediate influence of God," and that the purpose of this exposure is in both cases to make man free {RJ, p. 863). The central philosophical problem arising from these assertions—how God can force man to make himself free without destroying man's freedom in so doing—is already the basic theme of Kant's philosophy of history; see my article "Kant's Concept of History," Kantstudien 48:381-398 (1956/7).

194

Emil L. Fackenheim

Divine intervention, it is solely to keep Israel on the path of freedom, forcing it to be the first people to live by a faith by which, in the Messianic age, all men will live. 46 Divine providence, then, at least as thus far described, manifests itself in two ways in the history of man. Leaving paganism to its own inner dialectic, it allows it to refute itself. A n d intervening actively in the history of Israel, it keeps and promotes the Jewish religion of freedom. But the one ultimate purpose of both these aspects of providence is to bring all men to the living God. It is by recourse to Divine intervention, then, that Hirsch saves the continuous life of Judaism. A n d it is by this recourse, too, that he saves his own project of a philosophy of Judaism. Divine intervention in history — w h i c h consists of acts of sovereign freedom—is not, to be sure, subject to a dialectical necessity which philosophy might discover. But it does follow a teleological pattern which philosophy can discover after it has taken shape. Hirsch's philosophy of Judaism is, in substance, the discovery of that pattern. 47 From the manner in which we have introduced Hirsch's intervening God, it may seem that He is a mere deus ex machina, invoked in order to save the system from collapse. W e hasten to stress that this is far from the case. T h e careful reader of Hirsch's work can entertain no doubt that he is serious about God. Indeed—although the development of our argument compelled us till now to ignore this fact—the assault on Hegel's philosophical comprehension of religion is double-pronged from the outset. T h e one prong—thus far alone considered—protects human freedom from 46. RJ, p. 880: "[Jisraels] Geschichte muss es belehren, dass, wenn est nicht freiwillig seinen jisraelitischen Beruf erfüllen will, Gott es dazu zwingt." 47. In the preface of the RJ, Hirsch defines his philosophical over-all objective as follows: " H e u t e . . .gilt es, gerade die Eigentümlichkeit, die positive Weltanschauung der jüdischen Religion und die Formen, die sie sich gegeben . . . sich . . . zu vergegenwärtigen, nämlich ihre Zeremonien und Gebräuche, in ihrer absoluten Notwendigkeit zu begreifen und wieder im Herzen zur lebendigen T a t zu erheben, aufzubauen, statt einzureissen, zu erhalten, statt preiszugeben, das wahre Judentum auch unserer Seits zu bewähren. Dahin ist es aber noch nicht gekommen, dass man sich hiervon überzeugt hält; erst die wissenschaftliche Nötigung kann zu dieser Einsicht h i n f ü h r e n " ( R J , pp. ix-x). T h i s program is directed, on the one hand, against Mendelssohn's abstract in the name of Hegel's concrete rationalism, and, on the other hand, against Hegel's sublation of religion by philosophy in the name of Hirsch's own preservation. As for the program itself, this claims to be only in part achieved by the RJ. Matters such as ritual were to be dealt with in future works which Hirsch never wrote. (See above, Note 14.) What the RJ actually claims to have demonstrated is that human freedom—which even without Divine intervention can be actualized—is assured actualization by that intervention. T h e last sentence of the text of the RJ is the following: " S o m i t hat sich die Religionsphilosophie, oder die Idee der Freiheit erfüllt; sie hat nachgewiesen, wie sich die Freiheit, trotz der möglichen Sünde in der Welt verwirklicht" (RJ, p. 882).

Samuel Hirsch and Hegel

195

reduction to an aspect of Divine freedom. T h e other prong—thus far ignored—protects the sovereign autonomy of the Divine life from the need of man for self-realization. 48 Nowhere does Hirsch resemble a left-wing Hegelian humanist who, having reduced God to a mere product of human freedom, shrinks from the consequences of this reduction for Judaism. 4 9 And yet Hirsch's intervening God is a wholly alien intrusion into his thought, not because he denies God but because he denies the possibility of a Divine-human relationship. For what, one must ask, are the miracles, revelations, and providential acts of his intervening God but part of such a relationship ? Moving against Hegel, Hirsch has denied a Divinehuman relationship. He is compelled to reintroduce such a relationship when attempting to develop a philosophy of Judaism, on the basis of the original denial. On this contradiction, as will be seen, his entire enterprise suffers shipwreck. As for Hirsch himself, he is curiously oblivious to this fatal contradiction. If aware of a difficulty at all, he considers it, at any rate, resolved by Lessing's doctrine of revelation, to which he has recourse. For both Lessing and Hirsch, revelation is education. It is an action upon man from without, but contains only a content already potentially within. It is an external influence, but its sole purpose is to emancipate man from the need for this influence, and hence from revelation itself. Revelation discloses 48. C f . , e.g., RJ, pp. 45, 165, and in particular 5 4 7 : " E s gibt . . . eine Wirklichkeit, oder kann eine geben, die nicht notwendig, sondern absolut zufällig ist, die durchaus nicht sein sollte und ihr Nicht-Sein-Sollen auch in ihrem resultatlosen und kläglichen E n d e manifestiert: es gibt also eine Wirklichkeit, oder kann eine geben, die nicht von Gott, von I h m weder gewirkt noch gewollt ist, sondern die mit Notwendigkeit, von Gott, nur als eine rein mögliche gesetzt ist. Die Wirklichkeit, welche sich diese Möglichkeit geben will, vernichtet sich selbst, so dass sie rein weggeschafft ist, ohne Resultat zu hinterlassen; sie berührt also das göttliche L e b e n nicht: Gottes Leben ist also ein anderes, als das Leben des menschlichen Geistes, der sich immer die falsche Wirklichkeit statt der wahren geben kann; Gott ist nur so lange dem menschlichen Geiste immanent, als dieser tugendhaft ist ; wählt er aber die Sünde, so ist Gott ihm ein Jenseits ; er ist von Gott abgefallen. Gott ist ewig und notwendig; aber weil das Zufällige, die Sünde, in dieser Welt sich eine Wirklichkeit geben kann, so ist Gottes Leben nicht das Leben dieser Welt, . . " (Hirsch's italics). 49. It would appear that Schoeps errs (in the work referred to in Note 1 5 ) in closely associating Hirsch with thinkers such as Feuerbach. Because his otherwise excellent account views Hirsch in the light of contemporary " postliberal " theology it is too inclined to regard Hirsch as an " a n t h r o p o l o g i z e r " of religion, underestimating his own opposition to the anthropologizing left-wing Hegelians. C f . , e.g., RJ, p. 624: " G e g e n diesen Feind [i.e., the left-wing Hegelians] hat das J u d e n t u m durchaus gemeinschaftliche Sache mit dem Christentum zu machen; denn beide sind von ihm bedrohet. Ist Gott nichts weiter als die Idee der Menschheit, die sich ewig verwirklicht; kann die Religion sich im einzelnen Menschen auch nur eine endliche, unvollkommene, d.h., nach dieser Philosophie, eine sündhafte Wirklichkeit geben, so hört J u d e n - und Christentum zu gleicher Zeit auf, Wahrheit zu sein."

iç6

Emil L. Fackenheim

only what man by himself might find; it but assures that what may be found is in fact found. 50 But resort to this doctrine cannot resolve Hirsch's difficulties. Not only does it relate the pre-emancipated Israel to the Divine Educator, which on Hirsch's central thesis is impossible; it also frees the emancipated Israel from that relationship only on conditions which to Hirsch are unacceptable. For either the emancipated Israel will live a self-sufficient human life. (But then God is a religious redundancy, and no belief could be more alien to Hirsch, for whom the presence of God is precisely what marks Judaism off from paganism.) Or else the emancipated Israel will live not in relation to, but in God. (And this is in fact held by Hirsch, who maintains that sin, which is other than God, reduces itself to nothingness, while virtue, which remains real, lives in God, not side by side with Him.) 51 But then there is, once more, a dilemma, for either virtue has its true life in a God eternally complete, but then it suffers loss of its human reality. Or else it retains this reality even in God, but then God is incompletely real without it. Facing up to this dilemma—and echoing rabbinic tradition—Hirsch remarks that "humanly speaking, God is incomplete without man." 5 2 But while the rabbis could find genuine refuge in this "humanly speaking" Hirsch cannot. Believing man to be related to God, the rabbis could consistently confine human understanding to the human side of that 50. Cf. RJ, e.g., pp. 455, 599ff., and 607: " D e r Inhalt der Prophetie besteht . . . in Wahrheiten, die allerdings jetzt, nachdem dieselbe so lange schon in der Welt gewirkt, angefangen, uns geläufig zu werden, so dass wir philosophisch die Notwendigkeit dieser Wahrheiten, von der Freiheit aller Menschen, von der Gerechtigkeit und Redlichkeit, die sowohl unter den Völkern, wie unter den einzelnen Menschen herrschen soll u.s.w. einzusehen vermögen und an die einstige Verwirklichung dieser Wahrheiten glauben können . . . die aber ohne göttliche Eingebung vor dreitausend Jahren nicht einmal geahnt werden konnten." This passage differs not inconsiderably from Die Messiaslehre der Juden, p. 136: " D i e Offenbarung . . . ist nicht eine göttliche Belehrung über Wahrheiten, deren die Vernunft ohne eine solche Belehrung nicht fähig gewesen wäre: sondern die Offenbarung ist die göttliche Erziehung zu den Wahrheiten, die die Vernunft niemals hätte vergessen sollen. . . " (our italics). For Lessing's doctrine, see his " T h e Education of the Human Race," Lessing's Theological Writings, ed. H. Chadwick (London, 1956), pp. 82-98. Possibly Hirsch is influenced also by Kant's ideas on moral education. Recognizing that it is lack of moral autonomy which makes moral education ab extra necessary, and that this education can be moral only if it leads to autonomy, Kant conceives of moral education as the kind of external influence whose aim is to emancipate the pupil from the need for such influence. 51. Cf. the passage quoted above in Note 48, and also RJ, pp. 48fr., 614. 52. RJ, p. 50. Cf. rabbinic passages such as these: " W h e n the Israelites do God's will, they add to the power of God on high. When the Israelites do not do God's will, they, as it were, weaken the great power of God on high" (Lam. R. 1 : 3 3 ) . ' " Y e are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and I am G o d ' (Isa. xliii 12). That is, when ye are my witnesses, I am God, and when ye are not my witnesses, I am, as it were, not G o d " (Midr. Ps. on Ps. 1 2 3 : 1 ) .

Samuel Hirsch and Hegel

197

relationship. Denying the God-man relationship, and doing so from a standpoint laying claim to ultimate truth, Hirsch must go beyond the "humanly speaking" to a doctrine claiming final truth. But if that truth is Divine incompleteness Hirsch is, after all, driven back at this late date into Hegelianism, and if it is not, he is driven into a mysticism destructive of human action. Hirsch's whole Jewish response to Hegel, then, might be summed up as follows. As a Jewish Hegelian correcting Hegel's image of Judaism, Hirsch asserts that the Jewish God is a present God. As a Jew forced to oppose Hegel, he asserts, on the one hand, a transcendent God not dependent for reality on human action, and, on the other hand, a human freedom which, being human, is free both to turn to and against God. But since he opposes Hegel by denying a God-man relationship in authentic Judaism, he cannot reconcile the present God with the reality of human freedom. Contrary to his own most serious intentions, the life of God and the life of man fall apart. VII The difficulties which beset Hirsch's account of Judaism are also, in substance, the difficulties besetting his account of Christianity. This may therefore be more briefly considered. Denying that Jesus thought of himself as Messiah, let alone the son of God, Hirsch considers him a Jew who meant to be, and was, faithful to Judaism. He even credits Jesus with one "great thought," which, it seems, though thoroughly in the spirit of Judaism, was not yet clearly grasped by Jesus' Jewish contemporaries—that "what all Israel is to be collectively, each Israelite must be, individually"—and having grasped this thought, Jesus exemplified it in his own life. In Hirsch's view, Jesus himself fell prey to but a single error, and even this had a beneficial effect on his followers—the belief in the imminence of the messianic kingdom. For, Jesus having died in a world as yet unredeemed, this belief gave rise to the idea of the resurrected Christ, and in bringing close to Christians the example of the perfect man, this idea inspired them to imitate his perfection. T h u s far is Hirsch prepared to go toward asserting identity of spirit between Judaism and what he calls "its dearest child, a beautiful fruit in which the Jew rejoices ! " 5 3 Why then does he nevertheless insist sharply 53. Rjf, pp. 64Óff., especially pp. 648, 668, 688ff., 622. T o Hirsch's recognition of JewishChristian kinship corresponds his unequivocal repudiation of all Christian claims to a message which is new for the Jew—other than the Pauline error. The Christian message

Emil L. Fackenheim

198

on the need for distinctness of the two religions, not only in the present pre-Messianic era but even in the Messianic age itself ? 5 4 At least Hirsch's insistence on pre-messianic separateness is not without firm reasons. First, Christianity did not preserve the pure Judaism of Jesus and his immediate disciples. Second, Christianity has a mission other than that of Judaism in the economy of history. Taken separately, neither of these reasons is new, or interwoven with Hirsch's thought in special intimacy. T h e y assume both these qualities by virtue of being united into a dialectical whole. A s might have been expected, Hirsch views St. Paul as the originator of the break of Christianity with the spirit of Judaism. Going far enough to find even the fourth gospel compatible with Judaism, Hirsch goes on to say, " I t needed but a single step—which we shall find taken by St. P a u l — to erect an eternal barrier between Judaism and Christianity; and this barrier will not break down until the Church decides to retrace this step."55 T h e step which was of such consequence consisted of the belief that " a l l men share in Adam's sin, and nobody can free himself of it by his own power," of the consequent belief that the Torah, far from being an aid in the conquest of sin, merely discloses that sin is unconquerable, and of the final consequent belief in the vicarious atonement of a Jesus no longer merely human, but the incarnate son of God. T o these three Pauline beliefs, which he recognizes to be aspects of but one belief, Hirsch gives is n e w only f o r the pagan. C f . , e.g., RJ, p. 728 and especially p. 702: " D o c h bei d e n J u d e n k o n n t e der E r f o l g [der V e r k ü n d u n g e n der A p o s t e l ] n i r g e n d s so u n g e h e u e r ausfallen, als sie erwartet hatten. V e r k ü n d e t e n sie bloss v o n d e m L e b e n ihres M e i s t e r s u n d dass j e d e r so leben m ü s s e , w i e Jesus gelebt h a b e , u m G o t t gefällig z u w e r d e n , so w a r dieses d e n J u d e n etwas . . . sich selbst V e r s t e h e n d e s : diese hatten das A l l e s s c h o n so deutlich v o n M o s c h e h u n d den P r o p h e t e n gelehrt [sie/], dass sie das N e u e daran n i c h t finden k o n n t e n . V e r k ü n d e t e n aber die n e u e n L e h r e r m e h r — w a s sie A n f a n g s g e w i s s n i c h t t a t e n — dass n u r die T a u f e auf d e n N a m e n Jesu selig m a c h e , dass diese eine m a g i s c h e K r a f t besitze, die Seele, wäre sie a u c h n o c h so v e r d e r b t , v o n den S ü n d e n rein z u m a c h e n , u n d dass n u r die T a u f e f ä h i g m a c h e , an d e m z u e r w a r t e n d e n M e s s i a s r e i c h e T e i l zu n e h m e n , so w a r dieses f ü r die J u d e n eine solche Subtilität, bei d e r sie nichts z u d e n k e n w u s s t e n u n d die z u fassen sie d a h e r sich u n f ä h i g f ü h l t e n . " In a f o o t n o t e H i r s c h a d d s : " E s ist dieses das e w i g e M i s s v e r s t ä n d n i s des C h r i s t e n t u m s , dass es g l a u b t , es h a b e den J u d e n etwas N e u e s z u lehren, w ä h r e n d seine M i s s i o n n u r an die H e i d e n gerichtet sein soll. . . " 54. H i r s c h e v e n insists on the messianic Jewish return to P a l e s t i n e ; see the v e r y title of the nineteenth c h a p t e r of his Messiaslehre der Juden, " Israels Nationalität u n d R ü c k k e h r n a c h P a l e s t i n a . " H e stresses, h o w e v e r , that the f u t u r e Jewish nationalism w i l l not be political b u t spiritual only. T h i s is in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a p o l e m i c against those w h o w o u l d grant to J e w s f u l l political e m a n c i p a t i o n only on condition that they g i v e u p Jewish " n a t i o n a l i s m " i n every f o r m . 55. RJ.,

p. 706.

Samuel Hirsch and Hegel

199

the ancient Jewish reply that the Jew who lives by the Torah is bound, not merely to disagree, but even to fail to understand. 5 6 What is not ancient, however, is the philosophical form into which this reply is cast. For Hirsch, the Pauline step must be a partial relapse into paganism. For if unfreedom is the pagan condition, consequent upon selfsubjection to nature, then the belief in original sin, and the beliefs which flow from it, cannot but manifest an involvement with that condition. This is not to say, however, that the Pauline lapse is a simple error which need not and should not have occurred. For while responsible for it, St. Paul is responsible also for initiating the "extensive" mission of Christianity which, in contrast with the "intensive" Jewish mission of remaining true to the God of Israel living in Israel's own midst, is to bring this God to the pagan world. But the one Pauline responsibility is dialectically interwoven with the other. So far as Judaism is concerned, the Pauline account of the human condition is simply false. However, it describes with complete accuracy the pagan condition at the beginning of the Christian era. Hirsch writes, " T h e state of the pagans was corrupt and rent in two, and they were aware of this fact. They could not, out of their own power, rise above that condition. They were left only with despair and the yearning for the better. Pauline Christianity thus expressed the complete pagan worldconsciousness, which could find help only in a new principle not implicit in it, and hence offered from outside as a miraculous gift. And this was why Pauline Christianity could achieve sole power in the world." 5 7 T h e upshot is, then, that while St. Paul erred, it was only in mistaking a specific human condition for a universal, and a relatively true account for an absolute. Hirsch is now able to assign to Christianity its exact role in the economy of history. Paganism is the dialectic of self-inflicted serfdom, tending toward its own disintegration. Judaism is the life of self-chosen freedom, kept 56. RJ, pp. 750, 722-767. Hirsch maintains that the Christian belief in Jesus as the son of God is Judaically unobjectionable in its pre-Pauline form, which—he thinks—asserts that every human being is potentially, and, if "educated," actually, the son of God. But in the sense given to it by St. Paul, "verliert der Ausdruck Sohn Gottes alle ethische Bedeutung; er bezeichnet nicht mehr das vom ethischen Verhalten des Vaters zum Sohne abstrahierte Verhältnis zwischen Gott und Mensch, sondern muss in einen metaphysiscnphysischen Sinn umgewandelt werden. Gott ist der Vater Jesu vermöge der Wesensgleichheit, die zwischen beiden stattfindet, und er ist in diesem Sinne nur der Vater Jesu. Kein anderer Mensch kann sich dieser Wesensgleichheit mit Gott rühmen, folglich wenn Gott auch noch der Vater der anderen Menschen genannt wird so ist dieses uneigentlich gemeint" {RJ, pp. 767-768). 57·

R

J . P· 776·

zoo

Emil L. Fackenheim,

alive—and away from involvement with pagan unfreedom—only by direct Divine intervention. Christianity is, on the one hand, a life of self-chosen freedom, which, on the other hand, can seek to bring this freedom to paganism only by itself becoming involved in the pagan dialectic. Hence, unlike Judaism, it retains an element of unfreedom although, unlike paganism, it possesses within itself the power to overcome this element— both in the pagan world without and in its own internal structure. And when external circumstances are ripe, it rises above the pagan—that is, Pauline—element within. This occurs as Catholicism turns into Protestantism. In Hirsch's view, the conversion of pagans is the sole prerogative of Catholicism, which can accomplish this task only by remaining Pauline. T h e task of Protestantism is not to convert pagans, but to "realize freedom in the secular relations" of states already Christian. But this it can do only by emancipating itself from its Catholic-Pauline origins. Hirsch does not fail to note that this image of Protestantism is extraordinary. Nevertheless, he insists on its correctness. T h e persistence of Pauline elements within Protestantism is due merely to failure of nerve, and they are destined to disappear. " T h e Protestant Church wants to be Pauline. But this is impossible." 58 It can hardly be said that this account amounts to a serious Jewish confrontation with what is Christian in Christianity. What must be stressed, however, is that if Hirsch fails it is not because, living in a Christian environment which had long drawn a mere caricature of Judaism, he responds by drawing in turn a caricature of Christianity. Hirsch strains every nerve to reach a fair Jewish appreciation of Christianity. And if his account of it nevertheless comes to grief, it is over exactly the same problem that trips up his account of Judaism. As we have seen, the latter failed to show how, in the absence of a Divine-human relationship, God can live in the midst of Israel. T h e former account is now driven to conclude that, in the absence of such a relationship, the specifically Christian element in Christianity is at best a dialectically necessary lapse into paganism. But this conclusion on Hirsch's part must not obscure his sincerely held belief that the true God lives in the Christian as well as in the Jewish community. 59 And this belief is dramatically illustrated by a call in which the whole work culminates : the call for a post-Hegelian philosophy which, 58. Ibid., pp. 789, 786ff. 59. Cf., e.g., RJ, p. 72z: " D a s Heidentum war immer und überall Sklaverei, wie es denn auch ohne Sklaven nirgends bestehen konnte. Das Heidentum kam nie über das Dilemma hinaus, dass ihm Gott entweder ein abstraktes Jenseits, wie in Indien, dem Buddhaismus und Ägypten, blieb, oder dass Gott an aller Zerrissenheit dieser Welt Teil hatte und so zu

Samuel Hirsch and Hegel

201

jointly engaged in by Jews and Protestants, will demonstrate that the true God lives, in a world which Hegel has shown to be free. 6 0 VIII Our over-all conclusion is, then, that Hirsch's Jewish confrontation of Hegel ends in failure. It is a heroic failure because his central moves against Hegel are not haphazard but internally connected, because his entire thought allows itself to be permeated by the consequences of these moves, and because, if nevertheless it ends in incoherence, it is driven toward it by an internal inevitability. But because of this incoherence, Hirsch's effort is still a failure. T h e present-day Jewish thinker for whom Hegel is still a challenge must wonder whether Hirsch might not have avoided failure had he moved differently against Hegel. What if one asserted against Hegel, not that the true religion eliminates the otherness of God, overcome according to Hegel only in the true philosophy ? What if one asserted, instead, that philosophy too must accept the otherness of God, for the simple reason that God is other than the man with whom He yet enters into relationship and that, for this simple reason, philosophy, instead of rising to absoluteness, must remain human ? If Hirsch himself did not even consider this possibility, it was because he shared the conviction of his philosophical contemporaries, for whom a religion accepting a God radically other than man was of necessity a mere "positive" religion, blindly authoritarian, devoid of spirituality, and destructive of human freedom. But this is a conviction which has long been abandoned by present-day religious thinkers. And the possibility which Hirsch dismissed without examination is the possibility which, in any renewed encounter with Hegel—Jewish or Christian—must be explored. sagen gottlos war. Die Heiden waren daher früher wirklich getrennt von Gott und erst in Christo hörten sie von der göttlichen N a t u r des M e n s c h e n . " According to Hirsch, the original achievement of Jesus survives in the subsequent Pauline involvement in paganism. Otherwise Paulinism would be paganism pure and simple. T h e question arises for Hirsch as to what, once Protestantism will have emancipated itself from Paulinism, will be the remaining difference between it and Judaism. Hirsch replies: " W o r i n besteht nun der Unterschied zwischen Juden- und Christentum ? Einzig und allein darin, dass im Christentum Alles in der Person Jesu Christi conzentriert wird, der Jude aber glaubt, dass Jesus nur deshalb das geworden ist, was er war, weil er als Jude geboren war, und weil er die Torah und die Propheten begriffen hatte und das sein wollte, was er als Jude sein sollte; dass aber jeder Jude, gerade weil ihm dieselben Antezedentien vorangehen, die Jesus vorangingen:—Teilnahme an der jüdischen Geschichte vermöge seiner Geburt, Torah und Propheten—auch wenn Jesus nicht existiert hätte, doch dasselbe hätte werden sollen, was Jesus w a r " (RJ, pp. 744ff.). 60. Cf., e.g., RJ, pp. 443ff-, 794. 8 3 5 ί ΐ .

Indexes

Index of Authors A b b t , Thomas, 91 Abraham, Rabbi (son of the Vilna), 30 Abrahams, L . , 3η Addison, Joseph, 136 Adler, L . , 99η Aeschines, 77, 137 Agnon, Samuel Joseph, 138 A l b o , Joseph, 54, 56, 57 Alembert, Jean le Rond d', 133 Allerhand, Selig, 135η Almanzi, Joseph, 136

Gaon

Berdyczewski, Micah Joseph, 138 Berger, Gabriel, 123, 129 Bergson, Henri, 138 Berlin (Pick), Isaiah, 30 Bernays, Isaac (Hakam), 42, 77f. Berquin, Arnaud, 135 Bett, Η., 162η Bialik, Chaim Nachman, 118, 119 Blumenberg, W . , 163η Boethius, 136 Boman, Thorleif, I29f. Bondi, Mordecai, 30 Bondi, Simon, 30 Börne, L u d w i g , i6n, 17, 128, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151. 152, 153» 169 Breslau, Mendel, 126 Brunetière, Ferdinand, 124 Buber, Martin, 138 Burke, Edmund, 2 1 η Busch, I., 1 1 7 η Büsching, A . F., 12η Buxtorf, Johannes the Elder, 30 Byk, Jacob Samuel, 133

of

Altmann, Alexander, 72η, 74η, 77η, 99η, ιθ4η, i68n A m m o n , Christoph Friedrich, 66n Anacreon, 124, 136 Aquinas, Thomas, 162η, 172 Arama, Isaac, 80η Aristotle, 106, 129, ΐ 9 ° Arnold, Matthew, 124, 128 Asheri, 57 A u b , Joseph, 47η, 55, 56η Auerbach, Berthold, 163η, ι66 Auerbach, Isaac Levin, 73, 78 Auerbach, Jakob, 105 Avigdor of Slonim, 31 c Azariah dei Rossi, 28 Azulai, Hayyim Joseph David, 31 Bachrach, Simon, 123η Baron, Salo W . , 1, 15η, i6n Barr, James, 130η Barrett, William, 130 Barth, Karl, 172 Basnage, Jacques, 33 Bauer, Bruno, 19, 25, 76, 105, 143, 156, i57> iS9n Baumgarten, Η., 148η Bayle, Pierre, 133 Becker, Nikolaus, 164 Beer, Β., 30η Beer, Peter, 47η, 54η, 55η Benedict, 162 Benet, Mordecai, 53 Benjacob, Eisik, 135η Ben Ze'eb, Judah Loeb, 47η, 49, 50, 54, 56 Béranger, Jean Pierre de, 135

205

Caesar, Julius, 148 Calvin, Johannes, 90 Chajes, Zebi Hirsch, 29, 135 Child, Sir Josiah, 5, 6, 8, 9η, I2 Cicero, 67, 77, 112 Cieszkowski, A . von, 164η Cohen, Hermann, 168 Cohen, Shalom Ben Jacob, 119η, I22, 122η, 123, !26, 127η, 131 Cotta, Johann Friedrich, 152, 153η Creizenach, Michael, 20η, 47η, 54η, 55, S6n, 59, 60, 61 Crémieux, Adolphe, 123η Czaczkes, Baruch, 136 Dambacher, I., 13η Danzig, Moses, 1 1 9 η Darwin, Charles, 34 Delitzsch, Franz, n 8 n , 120, 120η, 127 D e m p f , Alois, 76η Deshoulières, Antoinette, 135 de Witt, Jan, 161

Index of Authors

2o6

D i e t z , H . F . , I2n D i n u r , B e n z i o n , 2n, 6n D o h m , C h r i s t i a n W i l h e l m v o n , 2, 3, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 98 D r ä s e k e , J o h a n n H e i n r i c h B e r n h a r d , 70, 73 D u b n o w , S i m o n , 1, 2n, 138 D u n a s h b e n L a b r a t , 27

G e i g e r , A b r a h a m , 27, 29, 32, 34, 36, 4of., 7 4 η , 76, 79, 85, 87, I03, I04, i o s , I 0 6 , 107, n o , i n , i 6 8 n G e l i e r t , C h r i s t i a n F ü r c h t e g o t t , 10 G e r v i n u s , G e o r g G o t t f r i e d , 148, 149, 150 G i n z b e r g , L o u i s , 28 G l a t z e r , N a h u m Ν . , 35η, 49η, 1 4 3 η Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 76η,

Eckstein, Α . , ι ΐ 2 η , Efrati, Joseph, 118, Ehrenberg, Philipp, Ehrenberg, Samuel

I20, 126, i 3 4 f . , 144, 1 5 1 , 153 Goldberg, Abraham, 119η Goldenberg, Samuel Leb, 137η Gombert, Α., 19η G o r d o n , J u d a h L e b , n 8 n , 122 G o t t l o b e r , A b r a h a m Bär, 125, 132 G r a e t z , H e i n r i c h , 27, 32, 33η, 34η, 35, 36, 4 1 - 4 4 , 88η, ι ι 8 η , 120, 122η, 124, 1 2 9 η Graupe, Η. M., ΐ 7 5 η G r é g o i r e , A b b é , 120η G r i e r s o n , H . J. C . , 1 2 5 η G r ü n b a u m , Elias, 82η Grundmann, 162η G u i z o t , F r a n ç o i s , 155 G ü n s b e r g , K a r l S i e g f r i e d , 73, 100 G u t t m a n n , Julius, 1 7 9 η

113η 126η, 132 88n M e y e r , 30, 35η, 44η,

48

E i c h e n b a u m , Jacob, 1 1 9 η E i c h s t ä d t , V . , 2n, n n , 1 7 η , 19 E i n h o r n , D a v i d , 109 Elbogen, Ismar, 1 1 9 η E l i a v , M o r d e c h a i , 24η, 4 7 η , 48η, Ó2n, 1 3 1 η E l i j a h , G a o n of V i l n a , 28f., 30, 31 Emmrich, Η., 14η E n g e l m a n n , C h r i s t i a n F r i e d r i c h , 89 Ersch, Johann Samuel, 70η E r t e r , Isaac, 123, 1 3 7 η , 138 E s c h e l b a c h e r , Josef, n o n E t t i n g e r , S . , 4η, 6η, 8η, 9 " E u c h e l , Isaac, 126 Fackenheim, Emil L . , 193η Fahn, Ruben, ι ι 8 η , 125η Fassel, H i r s c h Baer, 4 7 η , s i n ,

53η,

53η,

55,

SSn, 57, 59, 60, 61 F e u e r b a c h , L u d w i g , 143, 1 9 5 η Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, 7 1 η , 179η Fiedler, 1 7 η Flügge, C . W . , 92η F o r m s t e c h e r , S a l o m o n , 4 7 η , 53, 109 F r a n c o l m , Isaac A s c h e r , 4 7 η , 48, 54, s s , 61 F r a n k e l , D a v i d , 77, 97, 102η F r a n k e l , J. Α . , 82 F r a n k e l , Zacharias, 27, 32, 34, 44, 82,

H a g i z , M o s e s , 33 H a i G a o n , 28 H a l e v i , E l i y a h u H a l f o n , 120 Haltern, Joseph, 1 3 4 η Hameiri, Avigdor, 1 3 1 η H a n s e n , J., 1 6 7 η Hardenberg, Friedrich Leopold, Freiherr v o n . See N o v a l i s H a r d e n b e r g , K a r l A u g u s t v o n , 142 H a r m s , C l a u s , 6 7 η , 6g, 70, 70η, 72, 8 i , 88, 96, 100 H a u n s t e i n , 73 H a y y u j , 28 Heberle, R., 3η Heckscher, E. F., 5η

83, 86 F r a n k l , L u d w i g A u g u s t , 135 F r a n k l i n , B e n j a m i n , 136 F r e n s d o r f , S . , 79 F r e u d , S i g m u n d , 138 F r i e d l ä n d e r , D a v i d , 53 Friedländer, F., 22η F r i e d l ä n d e r , S a n w i l ( S e i n w e l ) , 126 Fuhrmans, Η., 76η F ü r s t , Julius, 73, 99 F ü r s t e n t h a l , Rafael, 127

H e g e l , G e o r g W i l h e l m F r i e d r i c h , 34, 76, 8on, 86, 87, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 1 1 2 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 5 , 143, 155, 156, 159, 162η, 163, 164η, I 7 I - 2 0 I H e i n e , H e i n r i c h , 17, 2 1 , 78, 102, 120, I3S, 142, 147, 149, 150, 1 5 1 , 152, 154, 155. 159, 168, 169 H e i n e m a n n , J., 1 3 4 η Henriques, Ursula, i8n H e r d e r , J o h a n n G o t t f r i e d , 6 7 η , 135 H e r x h e i m e r , S a l o m o n , 4 7 η , s i , 60 H e r z f e l d , L e v i , 34

61, 102, in, 161,

G a n s , E d u a r d , 37f. G a y , John, 136

H e s s , M o s e s , 128, 159, 160, 1 6 1 , 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170 H i l d e g a r d of B i n g e n , 162η, 169

127, 153,

Index of Authors Hinrich, Hermann Friedrich Wilhelm, 105η Hirsch, Samuel, 47η, 51, s2, 5^n, 6 ι , 109, 178-201 Hirth, F., Ι49 η > Γ 5 4 η Hobbes, Thomas, gn Holbach, Paul Heinrich Dietrich, Baron von, 133 Holdheim, Samuel, 87, n o , m , 112 Holtzmann, H. J., 106 Holzschuher, Friedrich Freiherr von, 18 Homberg, Herz, 47η, 51η, 53, 54, 57, 58 Horace, 136 Horodetzky, Samuel A b b a , 138 Hufnagel, G . F., 121 Humboldt, Alexander von, 114η Hurwitz, Isaiah, 8on Ibn Ezra, Abraham, 28, 119, 129 Ibn Gabirol, Solomon, 120 Ibn Gikatilla, Moses, 28 Ibn Janah, Jonah, 28 Ibn Verga (family), 28 Immanuel of Rome, 123 Isler, Μ . , 22η Israel, Levi, iof. Iztiaki. See Rashi Jagel, Abraham, 48η Jehudah Messer Leon, 68n Jellinek, Adolph, 8on, 84, 86, 87η, 114 Jerome, 134η Jerusalem, Johann Friedrich Wilhelm, 69 Joachim of Fiore, 161, 162, 169, 170 Joel, Manuel, 83, 87, 112, 113, 114 Joseph ben Shemtob, 68n Jost, Isaak Markus, 17, 27, 29, 36, 3gf., ηη Judah Halevi, 61, 120, 134 Judah ibn Kureish, 27 Kahler, L u d w i g August, 75 Kahn, Joseph, 79η, 109η Kalir, Eleazar, 126 Kant, Immanuel, 55, 58, 61, 67, 91, 92, 93, 96, 99, 106, n o , 158, 168, 173η, 174, 175, 176η, 177, i 7 9 n ) ι88η, 193η, 196η K a t z , Jacob, n n , 48η, s2, 58, 62η, 7 4 η Kaufmann, Yehezkel, 182η Kayserling, Meyer, 69η, 8 ι , 98η, 99η, ιοοη, ι ο ι η , ιο8η, 109η, Ι 2 ΐ η Kheraskov, Mikhail Matveevich, 136 Klausner, Joseph, i i 8 n , 120, 120η, 121, 122η, 134η Kleist, Heinrich von, 135 Kley, Eduard, 47η, s i , 55, 55η, 56η, 57, 6ο, 63, 63η, 64η, 73> 9^, 99ι 1 0 0

207

Klopstock, Friedrich Gottlieb, 122, 131» 135 Klüber, I. L . , 15η Kohn, Hans, 153η Krochmal, Nachman, 119η, 125, 138 K r u g , Wilhelm Traugott, 17, 18, 19 Kühne, W . , 164η Kutscher, Yehezkel, 123η Lademacher, H., i6on Ladendorf, Ο., 19η Lamartine, Alphonse de, 135 Lampronti, Isaac, 28 Landau, Ezekiel, 30 Landau, Moses, 30 Landshut, S., 157η Lange, Friedrich Albert, 168 de Lara, David ha-Kohen, 29 Lassalle, Ferdinand, 155η Lavater, Johann Caspar, 74η Lazarus, Moritz, 109 Lebensohn, Abraham D o v Bär, 118, 119η, 122 Lebensohn, Micah Joseph, n 8 n , 119η, 136 Leese, Kurt, 76η Leeser, Isaac, 63η Lefin, Mendel, 137 Lentz, Carl G e o r g Heinrich, 69η, 7on Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim, 10, 60, 135, 151, 162, 170, 195, 196η Letteris, Meir Halevi, 118, 119η, 123, 125η, I27n, 134 Levi, Avigdor, 129 Levin, Mendel, 136 Levinsohn, Isaac Bär, 132, 132η, i37f. Levita, Elijah, 29, 30 Lichtenberg, Georg Christoph, 74η Liebeschütz, Hans, 158η Lin, Joseph, 122η List, Friedrich, 146 Locke, John, 4, 5, 10, 12, 133 Löffler, 67η, 69 L o w , Leopold, i66n Löwisohn, Solomon, 118 Löwith, Karl, 34, 76η, 142η, 143η, i6g Lucían, 137 Luria, Solomon, 28 Luther, Martin, 89, 148, 153, i68n Luzzatto, Ephraim, 126η Luzzatto, Moses Hayyim, 68n, 120, 122 Luzzatto, Samuel David, 29, 32, 78η, 79, I l 8 , I27n, 128, 129, 136 Luzzatto, Simone, 8, 28 Mahler, Raphael, 131η, 137η Maimonides, Moses, 49, 56, 57, 59, 63, 125

2O8

Index of Authors

Mannheimer, Isak Noa, 7 1 , 72, 79, 80, 84, 86, 98, 100, 1 0 1 , 102, 108 Mapu, Abraham, 122 Marezoll, Gustav Ludwig Theodor, 69 Marheineke, Philipp Konrad, 81, 95, 97, 105, 106, ιο6η, 1 1 0 Marini, Giambattista, 136 Marini, Sabbato Vita, 136η Marx, Alexander, 3 1 η Marx, Karl, 34, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159 Mass, M., 106 Maybaum, Siegmund, 8in, 83f., 87, 1 1 5 Mayer, J . P., 1 5 7 η Meisels, Samuel, 134, 1 3 5 η Meklenburg, Jacob Zebi, 29 Mendelssohn, Moses, 14, 15, 16, 33, 36, 50, 52, 53. 54. 57. 58, 59. 62, 68, 74η, 91, 98, 99, io6n, 1 1 7 , 120, 125, 129η, 134, : 5 8 , 167, ι68η, 175η, 194η Mendes, David Franco, 127 Menzel, Wolfgang, 147, 148 Metastasio, Pietro Antonio, 136 Mevissen, G. von, 167η Michaelis, Johann David, 10, 12η Moltke, Helmuth von, 146 Mommsen, Theodor, 167η Montefiore, Moses, 1 2 3 η Mosheim, Johann Lorentz von, 66, 88, 88n, 89, 90, 96, 97, 98, i n , 1 1 5 Münk, Solomon, 44 Mussafia, Benjamin, 29 Nathan ben Yehiel of Rome, 29 Neander, J . Α., 169, 170 Nicolson, Sir Harold, 133 Niemeyer, August Hermann, 66n Novalis, 88n Ovid, 136 Palmer, Christian, 66η, 67η, 68η, 70η, 8 i , 8in, 82, 82η, 83, 90, 97, 97η, 1 1 2 , l i s Pappenheim, Solomon, 127η, 1 3 1 η Paulus, Η. E. G., 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24 Peretz, Judah Leb, 138 Perl, Joseph, 1 3 1 , 137, 138 Perry, T . W., 6n, 9η Petrarch, 124, 136 Petuchowski, Jakob J., 50η Philippson, G., 98 Philippson, Ludwig, 74η, 8o, 81, 82, 83, 108, io8n Philippson, Phoebus, 69η, 7on, 7 1 η , I02n Philo Judaeus, i8on Pick, Isaiah. See Berlin Pitt, William, Jr., 20

Planck, K . C., 176η, 177η Plato, 106, 129, 190 Plessner, Salomon, 47η, 48, 49, 53η, 55, 57f·. 63, 73. 74, 84 Pöggeler, Otto, 93η Pollack, Hayyim Joseph, 127η de Pomis, David, 29 Pope, Alexander, 133 Prawer, S. S., 154η Quintilian, 67, 1 1 2 Rabbinovicz, Raphael, 31 Racine, Jean Baptiste, 124, 134, 135 Ranke, Leopold von, 163, 164 Rapoport, Solomon Judah, 29, 30, 32, 44, 77f., 79, 83η, 84, 1 1 8 , 1 1 9 η , 125, : 34> 134η, i37n, 138 Ras, G., 144η, i47n Rashi, 129 Reggio, Isaac Samuel, 1 1 7 η , i i g n Reinhard, Franz Volkmar, 69, 72, 73, 77, 82 Riehl, W. Η., 142η Riesser, Gabriel, 17, 20η, z i , 22, 23, 24, 167 Rinott, Moshe, 22η Ritsehl, Georg Karl Benjamin, 73 Rogati, Silvio de, 136 Romanelli, Samuel, 125η, 136η Rosenfeld, Joachim, 1 2 3 η Rosenmann, Moses, 71η, 86η Rosenzweig, Franz, 27, 75η, 182η Rössler, Dietrich, 67η, 7on, 72η, 96η Rotenstreich, Nathan, 52, 58η, 64η, 159η, 176η Roth, Cecil, 17η, ι8η Rothberg, Marcus, 126 Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 133 Ruge, Arnold, 143 Sa c adia Gaon, 27, 59, 60 Saalschütz, Joseph Lewin, 32, 47η, 56η, 75, 76 Sachs, Michael, 74η, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88n, 102, 109, i i o f . Salomon, Gotthold, 69, 70, 7 1 , 73, 78, 9 1 η Samóse, David, 124, 126η, 1 3 1 , 1 3 1 η , 132, 1 3 3 , i33n Saurín, Jacques, 66η Schechter, Solomon, 30η Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph, 53, 162η, 169, I73n, i88n Schiller, Friedrich von, 120, 124, 135, 136 Schirmann, J., 136η

Index of Authors Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst, 67η, 7on, 72, 7 3 , 74, 8 i , 82, 88, 95, 106, 107, 1 1 0 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 4 , 1 1 5 , 1 7 4 , 176η, 185 Schlesinger, Bernhard, 1 3 1 , 1 3 7 Schlieffen, A l f r e d von, 146 Schlözer, August L u d w i g von, 1 4 η Schmid, Johann Wilhelm, 66n, 91 Schoeps, Hans Joachim, 1 7 6 η , 1 7 9 η , ι 8 8 η , 195η Scholem, G e r s h o m G . , 8 5 η Schorr, Joshua Heschel, 128 Schott, Heinrich August, 67 Schott, Leopold, 99 Schreiber, Ε . , 47η, 48η Schuler, Philipp Heinrich, 66η, 67η, 88n Schweitzer, Albert, 1 5 6 η Schweitzer, Alexander, 67η, 7on, 95, 96η Seeber, Α . , 6n Seward, 2 1 η Shaanan, Α . , 1 3 4 η Shohet, Azriel, 50η, 6zn Silberner, Ε . , 1 5 9 η , ι6οη, 1 6 3 η Silberschlag, Eisig, 1 3 6 η , 1 3 8 η Socrates, 1 2 9 Sophocles, 1 3 7 Spalding, J o h a n n Joachim, 67η, yi, 77, 90, 91, 121 Spener, Philip Jacob, 88 Spicehandler, Ezra, 1 2 8 η Spiegel, S . , 1 2 7 η Spieker, C. W . , 7 1 Spinoza, Baruch, 1 5 7 , 1 5 8 , 160, 1 6 1 , 162, 165, i66n, 168, 1 7 5 η Spranger, E d u a r d , 7 1 η Steele, Richard, 1 3 6 Stein, Leopold, 47η, 52, 53η, 54η, 55η, s 7 Steinheim, L u d w i g , 35, 62 Steinschneider, Moritz, 29, 44 Sterling, Ε . , 24η Stern, Mendel, 1 1 7 η , 1 3 5 η Strauss, D a v i d Friedrich, 1 5 6 Stybel, A b r a h a m Joseph, 1 3 4 Tacitus, 1 4 5 , 148 Tchernowitz, Chaim, 49 Teller, J o h a n n Friedrich, 67, 67η, 82, 90, ioo T h e r e m i n , L u d w i g Friedrich Franz, 82 T h o l u c k , Friedrich August Gottreu, 81 T h y m , Johann Friedrich Wilhelm, 66n, 67, 68n, 92, 93

zog

Tillotson, J o h n , 66n T o l a n d , J o h n , 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1 1 , 1 2 T o u r y , J a c o b , 24η, 62η Treitschke, Heinrich von, 18, 19, 25, 1 4 1 , 148η, 149, 1 5 3 Tzschirner, Heinrich Gottlieb, 66n, 68n, 69η Unger, Christian, 33 Varnhagen von Ense, K a r l August, n o n Veit, Moritz, 74η, 84, 86 Virgil, 1 3 6 Voltaire, François Marie, 1 4 , 1 3 3 Wachstein, Bernhard, 1 1 7 η , ι ι 8 η , Weber, M a x , 1 4 8 η Weber, O., i n Wehrklin, Wilhelm L u d w i g , 1 2 Weil, H . , i m Weil, Nathan, 3 1 Weisz, L e o , 7 4 η Weltsch, Robert, 1 5 3 η Werner, Johann, 94η

122η

Wessely, Naphtali Hartwig, 50, 1 1 8 , 1 2 0 , 1 2 1 , 1 2 2 , 1 2 3 η , I29n, 1 3 0 , 1 3 2 Wiener, M a x , 3 3 , 55, 58η, 6o, 167, 1 7 9 η Willheimer, Jonas, 1 3 1 η Winer, G e o r g Benedict, 66n Winter, Jakob, 1 2 1 η Wohlwill, J . , 1 4 2 W o l f , Johann Christoph, 3 1 , 33 W o l f , Joseph, 68, 69 Wolfsohn, Aaron, 1 2 7 Wünsche, K a r l August, 1 2 1 η Yaari, Abraham, 1 2 9 η Y e d a y a h ha-Penini, 1 3 4 Young, Edward, 136 Zedner, J o s e p h , 74η Zeitlin, William, 1 1 9 η , 1 2 9 η , 1 3 4 η Zinberg, 1 2 0 η Zindel, Enoch, 3 1 Zinzendorf, Nicolaus L u d w i g , G r a f von, 88 Zollikofer, G e o r g Joachim, 67η, 69, ηη Z u n z , Leopold, 1 7 , 27, 29, 30, 3 1 , 32, 3 4 - 3 9 , 4 1 , 43, 44, 47, 48, 49η, 65, 72, 7 3 , 82η, 84, 99, io2n, n o n , 1 1 9 , 1 1 9 η , 143, 16ο

Index of Subjects Abel, 123 Abraham, 123, 126, 132, 191, I92f. absoluteness, 34, 94f., 192, 201 Adam, 123, i 6 i f . , 198 America (United States), 117, 136, 157 ancient world, 37, 38, 190 Andacht. See devotion Andersen, Christian, 154η Anglican Church, 163 annuals, 133 anti-Semitism, 1, 3, 9η, i8, 27, 144, 147, i8on. See also prejudice apologetics, 36, 39, 179 Arabic, 27, 123 aristocracy, 145, 147, 155, 163 cArukh, 28, 29, 30 Asia, 163 assimilation, 126, 131, 167 Athens, 128 Aufklärung, 69, 74, 87, 88, 90, 93, 96, 99, III Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung, 152, 154η Austria, 137, 147 authority, 28, 58, 174, 201 autonomy, 115, 174, 195, 196η awakening, 97 Baden, 24, 148 baptism, 23, 77, 142, 149. See also conversion Barbarossa, Emperor Friedrich, 152η Bavaria, 18, 24 beauty, 37, i8on belief, s8f., 61, 63, 181 Berlin, 49, 50, 74η betterment. See Verbesserung Bible, 57f., 68, 70, 76, 78, 80, 81, 83, 85, 86, 97, 102, 114η, i i 6 , i2sff., 134, 139, 143»

155,

i5

8

.

I59
137; R e f o r m e d , 22, 34, 40, 47, 50, 7 6 , 103, 112, 166

Jung Deutschland,

147, 153

J u n k e r s , 142, 153

13 iff.

holiness, i 8 o n H o l y A l l i a n c e , 165 H o m e r , 129 h o m i l e t i c s , ösff., 168 h o m i l y , 44, 68, 8 i f f . h u m a n i s m , 12, 3 5 , 7 5 , 1 7 5

Humanität,

Karaites, 27, 50

Kerem Hemed, 117, 124 k n o w l e d g e , 6of., 93, n o f . , 113, 124, 130 Kohler, K a u f m a n , 109η

Kokebe

87η

Hungarian language,

123η

I d e a ( H e g e l i a n ) , 105, 113, 115, 190 I d e a l i s m , 5 6 η , 6 i , 75, 109, 153, i 6 o f f . , 173η, 175 identity, 186 illumination, i n

Yizhak,

117

Kolb, 154η K o l i n , 131

Konfession,

153η,

i m a g e o f t h e J e w , 9, 10, 1 4 , 1 1 4 , 1 4 4 i m m e d i a c y , r e l i g i o u s , I 7 i f f . , 175, 1 8 3 ^ , 186, 192

63

K ö n i g g r ä t z , 146 K ö n i g s b e r g , 126 K u l t u r v e r e i n , 37

Kultus,

94, 97, 103, 172

Kurhessen, 24 L a t i n , 30, i 3 5 f . law, 54, 148, 157, 1 6 3 ; J e w i s h religious, Soff., 54, 55η, 6o, 63η, n o , 115, 130,

Index of Subjects 157, 158, 166, 180; Biblical, 32f. ; divine, 54, 130; moral, 55η; Oral, 29, 5°. 55. 5 8 ; W r i t t e n , 29, 51, 58 lexicography, 29f. liberalism, 144, 148, 149, 153, 167, 169. See also J u d a i s m liberty. See f r e e d o m libraries, 3off. literature, 36ÎÏ., 43, 146, 153, 156, 169; criticism, 120, 144; Jewish and H e b r e w , 29, 32, 36ÍF., 43, 86, 114η, 117-139; rabbinic, 8of., 83, 8sf., 180, 196; m e n of letters, 142, 149, 155, i67f. See also halakah, p o e t r y liturgy, 31 f., 34, 44, 62, 81 L o u i s Philippe, K i n g of France, 141 love of n e i g h b o r , 73f. maggid, 103 M a r b u r g , 168 materialism, i s 8 f . meditation, 162 messianism, 34f., 42, 44, 50η, 57, 63η, 143, 152) I52n, 160, 163, 165, iÓ7ff., 182η, 194, I97ÍM i d d l e Ages, 11, 32, 37ff., 4off., 49, 93, 144, 150, 156, 161f., 163, 165 M i d r a s h , 3of., 44, 78f., 8iff., 102, 179 miracles, 58, 191η, 193, 195 mission, i g 8 f . Mitnaggedim, 126 mizwoth. See c o m m a n d m e n t s m o n a r c h y , 151, I52f. monasticism, 162 m o n o t h e i s m , 76 morality, 53, 58, 74, 70ff., 80, 82, 89fr., 95f., g8ff., 108, i i o f . , 130, 132, 174, 196η; M o r a l Law, 55η. See also s e r m o n Moses, 123, 125, 132, I92Í., 198η music, I02f., 114 mysticism, 85, 88, 175, 186, 197 mythology, 162 N a b o t , 126 N a n t e s , Edict of, 33 N a p o l e o n , E m p e r o r of F r a n c e , 2, 120η, I44> 145, 146, i 5 3 n , 161 nationalism, 167, 169; G e r m a n i c , 151; Jewish, 87η, 166 n a t u r a l i s m , 70 naturalization, 5ff., n f . , 2 1 ; N a t u r a l i z a tion Bill (1709), 7; Naturalization Bill, Jewish (1753), 9ff· n a t u r e , 6 i , 113, 133, i 8 o n , i 8 i f . , 187η, i88, i89ff., 199 necessity, 60, 94, 187, 192, 194, 195η, 200

213

N e w T e s t a m e n t , 74, 76, 87, 96, 97, 100, 158, 161 N o a h , 123 Old T e s t a m e n t , 73, 76, 158, 161, 175η. See also Bible O p p e n h e i m ( O p p e n h e i m e r ) , D a v i d , 31 oratory. See rhetoric otherness. See G o d Ozar Nehmad, 117 paganism, 35, 67, i 8 o n , 181, 182, 182η, 183, 187η, i88ff., 196, 198η, I99f. Palestine, 157, 198η p a n t h e i s m , 107, i6of., 168, 170, 183, 183η, 187η papacy, 165 Paradise, 123 Paris, 31, 141, 146, 148, 155, 166, 169 particularism, 156, 177 patriotism, 50η, 146, 148, 155, i 6 6 , 169 Paul, i98ff. P e n t a t e u c h , 29, 32f., 117 periodicals, i i 7 f . , 133, 138, 147 Philanthropin, 47 philosophy, 34, 44, 65, 75, 95, 105, 106, 130, 13z, 143, 153, 158, 159, 165, 169, I 7 i f ï . , 190, i92ff., 20of. See also history, religion pietism, 88ff., 92f., 96, 98η piety, 95f., 98, 115^, 168 Pirhe Zafon, 122η poetry, 114η, 117-139, 193 politics, 98f., 141-170 p r a g m a t i s m , 185η preachers, ósff., 167 p r e a c h i n g : Christian, ósff., 95; Jewish, 65-117, 168. See also schulgerecht style, sermon prejudice, religious, 4ff., 8, ioff., igff. press, 152, 169 progress, 35, 150, 153, 159, 163, 165, 167, 192 proletariat, academic, 144 p r o p h e t s , 57, 60, 149, 163, 166, 168, 191η, 193, tÇÔn, 198η, 201 P r o t e s t a n t i s m , 7, 56η, 153, 172, i77f., 200f. providence, 57, I93ÎÏ. Prussia, 2, 18, 88n, 142, i47f., 151, i 5 3 f . public service, 7f., 142 P i i c k l e r - M u s k a u , H e r m a n n , F ü r s t zu, 154 P u r i t a n s , 88n Pythagoras, 137η Q a b b a l a h , 49, 58, 74, 8on, 86 qol nibra61

214

Index of Subjects

rabbis, 62, 68, 77, 83, 104; rabbinic exegesis, 70, 85 ; rabbinic studies, 50. See also literature, tradition Ramberg, J. D., 74η Randegg, 99 rationalism, 9, 53, 59, 66n, 69, 79, 88, 90, 124, 131, 133, 133η, 146, 168, 177, 193η, i94n reason, 28, 54, 58f., 92, 96, 108, 115, 117. 133, 143, 161, 174η, 177 reconciliation, 95, 107, ιο8η, 109η, n o , i8on redemption, 57, 75f. Reform Judaism. See Judaism Reformation, 163, i68n, 169 relationship, Divine-human. See G o d Relief A c t (1782, 1793), 20 religion, 4ff., 8, 35, 38f., 44, 59, 75, 93, 100, i04ff., 114, 132, 156IT., 164, 168, 171fF., 182, 186, 191η, 194, 20I ; false, 178, i87f. ; history, 35, 149, 162; natural, 13; pagan, i8off., 189; philosophy, 35, 94f., 106, I 7 i f f . , 183, 185; positive, 22; romantic, 93, 107; religion of the spirit, 109; true, 59, 60, 178, i87f., 201. See also Christianity, doctrine, Judaism, law, prejudice, state, universalism repentance, 188 representation (philosophical), 105, I72f. Restoration, 142 resurrection, 57 retribution, 57 revelation, 29, 35, 41, 57, 59ff., 94, 108, n o , 113, 158, i6of., 169, 191, 193, 195, 196η revivalism, 69, 86, io8f. revolution, 35, i5of., 163, i66f. ; American, 1 1 7 ; French, if., 133, 145, 150, iÓ3f.; of 1830, 146, 150; of 1848, 2, 35 rhetoric, 66, 67, 67η, 68, 68n, 82, 83, 112 rights, 3 1 ; civil, 2ff., 15; human, 9f., 19, 21, 39. See also equality romanticism, 93, 96, 99, 102, 107, h i , 115» !33. ' 4 7 . 154. 162, 169, 174η, i 8 s n Rome, 37, 165, 190η; Roman Empire, 156, 161; Roman religion, 189 Russia, 135ff., 153, 163 salvation, 54, 90, 96, 143, 144, 146, 152, 158, 163, 164, 180 Sanhédrin, French, 52 Saxony, 17 scepticism, 59 schools, Jewish, 47ff., 131 schulgerecht style, 65-66, 7 1 - 7 2 , 74, 79, 8in, 83

Schutzbürger, 19 Scripture. See Bible secularism, 4, 44, 156, i57f., 163, 168 Sedan, 146 Seesen, 47 self, 94, i85f. ; self-realization, 174, 183, 186, 195 sentiment, 70, 79, 91, n o Sephardic Jews, 1 Septuagint, 32 sermon, 6 5 - 1 1 7 , 167; Christian, 68, 70, 89, 95; synthetic, 68, 8if. See also homily, preaching Silesia, I54f. simplicity (in preaching), 67 sin, 14, 186, 189, I9iff., 194η, I95n, 196, ig8f. Sinai, 61 f., 113, 191 slavery, i g i f f . , 199, 200η socialism, I59f., 166, 168 society, iff., 5, 8, i2f., 15, 21, 23, 28, 39, 98, 153, 156, 160, 163fr., 166, 167, 168. See also classes solace, 87 soul, 57, 91. See also elevation speculation, 174, 183 spirit, 35, 53, 55, 61, 79, 85f., 9of., 94^, 100, I04f., io8f., i i o f . , 113, 116, 166, 174η, I75f., 187η, 191, 20I ; Holy Spirit, i 6 i f . ; spirit of Judaism, 52, 79, 85f., 108, I97f. ; spirit in preaching, 69, 72 state, 4, 12, 15f., 23, 4if., 200; and Church, 4f., 7, 42, 157f. ; ecclesiastical, 165 status, ι , 3, η f., 15, 17 Stoa, 54 Stuttgarter Literaturblatt, 147 subjection, 189, i g i f . , 199 subjectivity, 96f., 115 sublimity, 176, i8on supernaturalism, 69f. superstition, 59 syncretism, religious, 156

Talmud, 28ff., 40, 42f., 48fr., 55η, 78f., 8iff., 102, 132, 156, 158, 168 T a r g u m , 28 Tarnopol, 131 Tatler, 136 teleology, 159, 163, 194 theology, 10, 12, 14, 43, 65, 90, 93, 156, 160, 174η; Jewish, I03f., I05f., 116, 168 toleration, 4f., 133; Edict of Toleration, 3, 49 Torah. See Bible Tories, 7, 9

Index of Subjects tradition, io, 14, 28, 34, 40, 44, 50, 52, 56, 59, 6zf., 7 1 , 74, 84ff., 104, i i o f . , 1 1 5 , 130, 143, i 5 i f . , i 5 S f f . , 1 6 1 , 163f., 166, 1 7 5 . ! 7 9 . 1 9 1 f f . , 196. See also Christianity t r a n s c e n d e n c y , i82f., 197 transfiguration, I72ff., 178, 188 translations, 1 1 7 , I33ff., 1 3 9 trinitarianism, 1 6 1 , i82f. t r u t h , 34, 53, 57, 60, 75, 94, 1 7 2 , 176, 183, 185, i88f., 197 typology, 161 u n c t i o n , 68 understanding, 88, 192, 196 United States. See America unity, German, 145, 167 universalism, 53, 75, 164, Christian, 1 6 1 utility, i89f.

Verbesserung, I3ff., 2 1 , 24, g8f., 145 Verein f ü r die Cultur und Wissenschaft der Juden, 37 Vienna, Congress of, 1, 15 f. virtue, 60, 97f., 192, 195η, 196 Weihe. See consecration Whigs, 7, 9 will, 89, i i 2 f . , 1 1 5 , 1 7 4 η Wissenschaft des Judentums, 32, 34, 1 1 9 η Wolfenbüttel, 47 worship, 63, 1 1 4 , 1 7 3 , ι86η, 189, 1 9 1 Württemberg, 1 7 yeshivah, 131 Yiddish, 137

i68n,

215

177; Zeitgeist, 64 Zionism, 27, 87η, 159, 164, 167