← catalogue

History of the Jews, Vol. 6 (of 6)

by Heinrich Graetz · English · Gutenberg #46752 · 1,548,298 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of History of the Jews, Vol. 6 (of 6)
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: History of the Jews, Vol. 6 (of 6)

Author: Heinrich Graetz

Contributor: Philipp Bloch


        
Release date: September 2, 2014 [eBook #46752]
                Most recently updated: October 24, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46752

Credits: E-text prepared by David Edwards, Charlie Howard, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org)


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF THE JEWS, VOL. 6 (OF 6) ***

Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
      file which includes the original illustrations.
      See 46752-h.htm or 46752-h.zip:
      (https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/46752/pg46752-images.html)
      or
      (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46752/46752-h.zip)


      Images of the original pages are available through
      Internet Archive. See
      https://archive.org/details/historyofjews06graeuoft


      Project Gutenberg has the other five volumes of this work.
      Volume I: see https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43056
      Volume II: see https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43057
      Volume III: see https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43337
      Volume IV: see https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43900
      Volume V: see https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45085


Transcriber's note:

      Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

      Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).

      Small-capital text is shown as all-capital.

      Transcriber-provided Hebrew transliterations are
      enclosed by curly braces next to the Hebrew text
      (example: בית שמואל אחרון {Hebrew: Beyt Shmuel Acharon}).
      Some devices might lack the necessary character sets, in
      which case question marks, squares, or other symbols will
      be displayed. In this case the reader should refer to
      the html version referred to above or to the original
      page images at Internet Archive.


      Other transcriber's notes will be found at the end of this
      eBook, following the Footnotes.




HISTORY OF THE JEWS

by

HEINRICH GRAETZ

VOL. VI

CONTAINING A MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR BY DR. PHILIP BLOCH
A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF JEWISH HISTORY
AN INDEX TO THE WHOLE WORK

[Illustration]







Philadelphia
The Jewish Publication Society of America
5717-1956

Copyright, 1898, by
The Jewish Publication Society of America

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be
reproduced in any form without permission in
writing from the publisher: except by a reviewer
who may quote brief passages in a review to be
printed in a magazine or newspaper.

Printed in the United States of America




PREFACE TO THE INDEX VOLUME.


With the Index Volume, the _Jewish Publication Society of America_
brings to a close the American edition of the “History of the Jews”
by Professor H. Graetz. A glance at the title-page and the table of
contents will show, that the celebrated historian cannot be held
directly responsible for anything this volume contains. The History
proper, as abridged under the direction of the author and translated
into English from the eleven volume German edition, is complete in five
volumes. In compiling this additional volume, the Publication Committee
was prompted by the desire to render the work readily available for
pedagogical purposes. To be of value to the general reader as well as
to the scholar, a work containing upwards of three thousand pages needs
to be equipped with indexes, tables, and helps of various kinds.

The importance of indexes can hardly be over-estimated. The English
jurist and writer who considered them so essential that he “proposed to
bring a Bill into Parliament to deprive an author who publishes a book
without an Index of the privilege of copyright” was not too emphatic.
In books of facts, such as histories, indexes are indispensable.
This has been fully recognized in the Society’s edition of Graetz’s
“History of the Jews.” Each of the five volumes, as it appeared, was
furnished with an adequate index. Yet there are two reasons justifying
and even requiring the compilation of a general index to the whole
work. The first is the reader’s convenience. All who use books to
any extent know the annoyance of taking volume after volume from the
shelf to find the desired information only in the last. In fact, the
separate indexes were compiled only because circumstances compelled the
publication of the single volumes at rather long intervals. The other
consideration is that Professor Graetz is the historiographer _par
excellence_ of the Jews. His work, at present the authority upon the
subject of Jewish history, bids fair to hold its pre-eminent position
for some time, perhaps decades. A comprehensive index to his work is,
therefore, at the same time an index to the facts of Jewish history
approximately as accepted by contemporary scholars--a sufficient reason
for its existence.

To make it a worthy guide to Jewish history in general, the index
necessarily had to be more than a mere compilation of the five separate
indexes. In the matter of the names of persons and places, accordingly,
the general index excels the others in the fullness and completeness
of the references. But its chief title to superiority over them lies
in its character as an Index of Subjects, illustrated by such captions
as _Blood Accusation_; _Conversions, forced_; _Coins_; _Emancipation
of the Jews_; _Bulls, Papal_; _Apostasy_ and _Apostates_; _Messiah_
and _Messianic_; _Bible_ under the headings _Law_, _Old Testament_,
_Pentateuch_, _Scriptures_, _Septuagint_, _Translations_, and
_Vulgate_; _Education_ under the headings, _Colleges_, _Rabbinical_
and _Talmudical_, _Law_, _Schools_, _Talmud_, and _Talmud Torah_.
These summaries will be suggestive, it is hoped, to the teacher of
Jewish history and to the student with sufficient devotion to the
subject to pursue it topically and pragmatically as well as in its
chronologic sequence. As an illustration of what use may be made of it,
the compiler has prefixed to the index a guide to the study of Jewish
history by means of the biographies of its great men, an apostolical
succession, as it were. Under the class-names there given, the names of
all persons of each class will be found grouped in the index. Again, if
it is desirable to trace out a topic, as, for instance, the development
of Hebrew grammar, or the cultivation of medicine among Jews, etc.,
the index is helpful by means of its lists of names of grammarians,
physicians, astronomers, historians, poets, etc., under these and
similar heads.

To facilitate its use, the student is urged to read the directions
preceding the index. Great difficulties attach to the systematic
arrangement of the names of persons connected with ancient and mediæval
history of all kinds. In Jewish history, even down to recent times,
these difficulties are largely increased by the comparatively late
introduction among Jews of family names in the accepted modern sense,
and by their introduction among Spanish Jews earlier than among the
others. The scheme adopted by Zedner, in his British Museum catalogue,
has been followed as far as the peculiarities of our author and his
subject, and its presentation in a modern language, permitted it. The
arrangement is not ideal, but every effort has been made to minimize
the difficulties.

In this preface, precedence has been given to the index, because, in
spite of the consensus of opinions among connoisseurs, the importance
of indexes and their usefulness are in some quarters still held to
stand in need of vindication. In the book, however, the first place
is occupied by a contribution whose value will be disputed by none,
namely, the Memoir of the author, the greatest historian of the Jews.
The Committee believes, not only that the public has a taste for
biographical studies, but that in this instance it will be pleased
with the choice of biographer, Dr. Philipp Bloch, rabbi of Posen,
a disciple of Graetz and for more than a quarter of a century his
intimate friend. Although not quite seven years have elapsed since
Graetz passed away, and many that were closely associated with him
are still among the living, it was not easy to find the man qualified
for the task of writing his biography. Graetz was not inclined to be
communicative about his early life or his emotional experiences. He had
met with disappointments that emphasized the reticence of his nature.
The venerable wife of the deceased historian was kind enough to put
all her husband’s literary remains at the disposal of the biographer,
who herewith acknowledges his deep obligation to her for the help
thus afforded his work. The greater part of material of this kind,
especially in the form of letters, Graetz burnt before his last change
of residence. But his interesting diary was spared. It was kept with
more or less regularity from 1832 to 1854, though for the latter part
of this period it is hardly more than a bald summary of events, and
the disappearance of loose leaves curtails the information that might
have been gathered from it. The biographer’s thanks are due also to the
Board of Curators of the Fränkel Bequests for kindly putting at his
service the documents in their archives bearing on Graetz’s connection
with the Breslau Jewish Theological Seminary, thus enabling him to
verify facts long in his possession. Dr. Bloch furthermore availed
himself of Dr. B. Rippner’s interesting brochure, “Zum siebzigsten
Geburtstage des Professors Dr. Heinrich Graetz,” and of Professor
Dr. David Kaufmann’s eloquent eulogy of his teacher, “H. Graetz, der
Historiograph des Judenthums.” The Committee believes, that in securing
the co-operation of Dr. Bloch it has been the instrument of eliciting
an important original contribution to Jewish biographical literature.

The Chronological Table is another feature of the volume to which
attention must be called. In the eighth volume of the German edition of
the “History,” Professor Graetz introduced a similar table, reciting
the succession of events from the Maccabæan struggle to the Expulsion
of the Jews from Spain and Portugal. The present analysis includes the
whole of Jewish history up to the year 1873 of this era. It assumes to
be nothing more than a summary of the “History of the Jews” by Graetz.
As no attempt has been made to indicate whether his conclusions are
endorsed by the scholars of our day, it becomes a duty to refer to the
vexed question of Biblical chronology. Since the time of Archbishop
Ussher (1580-1656)--not to mention the Talmudic _Seder Olam Rabba_--it
has been the subject of dispute, which is complicated by the various
eras, the Seleucidæan, the Roman, and the Era of the World, in use
among the Jews at different times. Even now the most diversified
opinions are held by scholars, and no system has met with general
acceptance. Graetz discusses the matter exhaustively in Note 19 of Vol.
I of the German original of his “History.” His researches led him to
oppose the results of the historians Niebuhr, Ewald, and Movers, and
of the Assyriologists Brandes, Smith, and Schrader. He inclines to the
views of Oppert, who applied the information derived from the Assyrian
inscriptions to the vindication of the Biblical chronology nearly
as determined by Ussher. Since Graetz wrote his note (1873), almost
amounting to a treatise, evidence for the one or the other opinion has
been strengthened or invalidated by the more minute and extended study
of the monuments, inscriptions, and other records of Egypt, Babylonia,
and Assyria. The reader interested in the subject is referred to the
works of such scholars as Duncker, Oppert, Kamphausen, and Eduard Meyer.

Finally, it is hoped, that the four maps accompanying the Index Volume
will meet with favor and frequent use. They have been inserted in
a pocket and not bound with the book, so that they may be removed
readily for reference in connection with any volume the student may
be reading. The two maps of Palestine and that of the Semitic World
are reproduced, with modifications, from Professor George Adam Smith’s
forthcoming Bible Atlas. The one of the Jewish-Mahometan World was made
for the Society by Mr. J. G. Bartholomew of the Edinburgh Geographical
Institute, the cartographer who drew the other three maps. The maps of
the Jewish-Mahometan World and the Semitic World are general reference
maps; the two of Palestine represent the political divisions of the
land, the one at the time of the Judges, the other at the time of Herod
the Great.

The Committee expresses the hope that this sixth volume, an epitome of
Jewish history, may “manifest its treasures,” “facilitate the knowledge
of those who seek it, and invite them to make application thereof.”

_March, 1898._




CONTENTS.


  MEMOIR OF HEINRICH GRAETZ                                  1


  TABLES OF JEWISH HISTORY.

    Chronological Table                                     89

    Table of the Kings of Judah and Israel                 127

    Table of the High Priests (from the Captivity to
        the Dispersion)                                    128

    Genealogical Table of the Hasmonæan Dynasty            130

    Genealogical Table of the Herodian Dynasty             134


  INDEX.

    Index to the whole work                                139




HISTORY OF THE JEWS.




MEMOIR OF HEINRICH GRAETZ.


I.

YOUTH.

The disruption and final partition of the Polish kingdom by its three
neighboring states occurred in 1795. With its dissolution a new era
began in the history of the numerous Jewish communities in that part
of the Polish territory which passed under Prussian and Austrian
sovereignty. The event that thus ushered them into the world of
Western civilization may justly be considered as marking for them the
transition from the middle ages to modern times. Prussia allowed no
interval to elapse between the act of taking possession of her newly
acquired domain and its organization. It was incorporated into the
state as the provinces of South Prussia and New East Prussia. But after
1815 the Prussian crown remained in possession only of the Grand Duchy,
or the Province, of Posen, the district that had constituted the kernel
of Great Poland. This piece of land was of extreme importance to the
Jews, being the home of the most numerous, the oldest, and the most
respectable congregations. It was situated at only a short distance
from the Prussian capital, to which it appeared to have been brought
still nearer by the organic connection established with the older parts
of the state. It was natural to expect that, in consequence of the
political union, the economic relations with Berlin, always close,
would become more intimate and more numerous, and would develop new
business advantages. On the other hand, the capital was viewed with
distrust as the home of the movement radiating from Mendelssohn and his
school, which aimed at something beyond the one-sided Talmud study then
prevalent, and strove to bring modern methods of education and modern
science within reach of the younger generation.

The rigorous system of organization by which the Polish districts were
placed upon a Prussian basis induced so radical a transformation of
all the relations of life that the Jews experienced great difficulty
in adjusting themselves to the new order of things. Opposition to the
state authorities and the economic conditions was futile; there was
nothing for it but to try to adapt oneself without ado. By way of
compensation, the efforts to keep religious practices and traditional
customs pure, untouched by alien and suspicious influences, in the
grooves worn by ancient habit, were all the more strenuous. Talmudic
literature was to continue to be the center and aim of all study and
science, and religious forms, or habits regarded as religious forms,
were not to lose an iota of their rigidity and predominance. The urgent
charge of the Prussian government to provide properly equipped schools
to instruct and educate the young in a manner in keeping with the
spirit of the times was evaded, now by subterfuges, now by promises.
But in the long run the influences of the age could not fail to make
themselves felt. Sparks from the hearth of the emancipation movement
were carried into the Province, and burst into flame in one of the
great congregations, that of the city of Posen, particularly proud and
jealous of the Talmudic renown and the hoary piety of its Ghetto.

The position of rabbi in Posen had become vacant, and in 1802 it
was proposed to fill it with Samuel ben Moses Pinchas from distant
Tarnopol, the brother of the deceased rabbi. He was the author of
בית שמואל אחרון {Hebrew: Beyt Shmuel Acharon}, and an arch-Talmudist of
the old stamp. Under the shelter of assumed names, a number of the
younger men ventured to send the government a protest against the choice
of an “uncouth _Polack_.” It was alleged that the mass of the people
favored him on account of

    “the Kabbalistic fable which constructs a genealogy for this
    Podolian that makes it appear that he belongs to the stock from
    which the Jewish Messiah is to spring, etc.”

The government took the petition into consideration, and so informed
the signers. On account of the fictitious names the answer went astray.
Instead of reaching the petitioners, it fell into the hands of the
directors of the congregation and into those of the deputy rabbis, the
_B’ne Yeshiba_.

    “They immediately assembled all so-called scholars and Talmud
    disciples after the manner of the ancient Synhedrin, and invited
    the parents, parents-in-law, and relatives of all persons suspected
    of harboring heterodox ideas. Then they summoned each of us singly,
    put him into the center of a terrifying circle of rough students,
    and upbraided him in the following words, accompanied by the most
    awful curses: ‘Thou devilish soul that hast vowed thyself unto
    Satan! Thy appearance gives evidence of thy antipathy to our
    statutes; thy shaved beard, thy apparel (thy Jewish garb is only
    a sham), everything proves thee, thou impious one, a betrayer of
    Jewish mysteries to Christians. Thou readest German books. Instead
    of holy Talmud folios, thou keepest maps, journals, and other
    heathenish writings concealed in thy attic. Therefore, confess thy
    sin, that thou art one of the authors of the accursed memorial!
    Do penance as we shall direct. Deliver up to us thy unclean books
    immediately. Subscribe without delay to this sacred election of our
    rabbi; else, etc., etc.’”[1]

The hotly contested election of the rigidly Talmudic yet none the less
gentle rabbi was carried, but no effort availed to check the spread
of the new spirit. Steadily though slowly modern views gained the
upper hand, and in 1816 a Jewish private school of somewhat advanced
standing was successfully established in Posen. Now and again men of
independent fortune mustered up courage to send their children to the
_Gymnasium_ or to the higher Christian schools, of which, to be sure,
not a large number existed at the time. In 1824 the state interfered,
and ordered the establishment of German elementary schools in all the
Jewish communities of the Province giving evidence of vitality. The
situation now assumed a peculiar aspect. General culture, acquaintance
with the classic literature of Germany, France, and England, came to be
esteemed an accomplishment and a personal charm; yet beyond the three
R’s the rising generation was not given the opportunity of acquiring a
general education. On the contrary, the desire was to limit study to
that of rabbinic and Hebrew writings. In the larger communities, like
Posen and Lissa, the centers of Talmud study, a conscious effort was
made to frighten off young people, especially Talmud disciples, from
the acquisition of secular culture. It should be mentioned, however,
that in many of the smaller communities the longing for education
was encouraged as much as possible. So it came about that the highly
endowed, ambitious spirits of that generation in the Province had
to struggle most bitterly and painfully to make headway. But their
hardships were counterbalanced by the advantages they derived from the
conflict. Their intellectual energy and self-reliance came forth from
the contest steeled. Impregnated as almost all of them were with the
spirit of the Talmud, they had pierced to its essence, and, filled with
enthusiasm for the rabbinical heroes, they had breathed in devotion to
the ideals of Judaism.

This was the soil upon which Heinrich Graetz grew up, and such were the
conditions and agencies moulding the development of a man destined to
create an historical work, at once monumental and popular; embracing
thousands of years, the most widely separated regions, and the most
diversified fields of human activity; retracing with all the resources
of learning and ingenuity the magic, faded, illegible characters of the
evolution of Judaism, and illuminating them with colors of fairy-like
brilliance;--an historical work, which, by reason of the warmth of its
narrative style, has come to be a book of edification, in the best
sense of the word, unto the author’s brethren-in-faith.

Heinrich Hirsch Graetz was born October 31 (Cheshwan 21), 1817, in
Xions (pronounced Kshons), a wretched little village of 775 inhabitants
in the eastern part of the Province of Posen. In a family of two
brothers and one sister he was the first-born. His father, Jacob
Graetz, was a man of tall stature, who, dying in 1876, reached an age
of over ninety years. His mother, Vogel, of the family of Hirsch of
Wollstein, was of average height and robust physique, with lustrous
gray eyes. She died in 1848 only fifty odd years old. To her the son
showed most resemblance, both spiritually and physically. A little
butcher-shop yielded them an honest but paltry livelihood. In the
hope of improving their material condition, the family removed to
Zerkow, a few miles off, some years after Heinrich’s birth. At the
time the village contained not more than 800 inhabitants, among them a
single person able to read, a real estate owner, to whom all letters
were carried to be deciphered on the open street in solemn public
assembly.[2] But the Jewish congregation consisted of one hundred
members, and a remarkable increase in the population of the little town
seemed to give fair promise of a prosperous future. It is worthy of
mention, besides, that the scenery of Zerkow, wreathed round with hill
and stream, forest and meadow, is not so flat and unattractive as that
of most parts of the Province.

Here the boy received his first impressions, and here he enjoyed his
first instruction in a school distinguishable from a genuine _Cheder_
only inasmuch as it began in a measure to accommodate itself to the
modest demands made by the government upon a Jewish primary school.
He was taught reading, writing, ciphering, and the translation of the
Bible. Great love of study and marked talent became apparent in him;
he was therefore introduced to a knowledge of Hebrew and the Talmud.
When he was confirmed at thirteen, the age at which the boys of that
period were in the habit of deciding definitely on their careers, his
parents did not for a moment question the propriety of continuing
their son’s intellectual training. It would have been most natural to
send him to Posen, where a popular Talmud school was flourishing under
the direction of the highly esteemed Chief Rabbi Akiba Eger. But his
parents’ means were too slender to suffice for his maintenance, and
shyness and pride prevented young Graetz from making his way after the
fashion of beggar students. There was but one course, to send him to
Wollstein, where his mother had sisters and other relatives. Though
by no means possessed of great wealth, they were willing to give him
assistance. The Wollstein sojourn proved eminently favorable to his
development. The town, situated in the western part of the Province,
was not destitute of natural charms, to which the boy’s impressionable
mind eagerly responded. The population, chiefly German, numbered
2258 persons, among them 841 Jews,[3] by no means an inconsiderable
congregation. Besides, it was in fairly comfortable circumstances. It
had always taken pride in maintaining a Talmud school, which, at the
time of Graetz’s advent, was distinguished for the liberal, enlightened
spirit pervading it and the active encouragement accorded its students
in their desire for culture. Rumor had it that the rabbi, Samuel Samwel
Munk, who had been called from Bojanowo to Wollstein at the beginning
of the century, knew how to read and write German, and was in the
habit of reading German books and even journals in the hours that are
“neither day nor night.” At all events, he did not put obstacles in
their way, when his disciples, spurring each other on in the impetuous
rivalry of youth for pre-eminence, sought to slake their thirst for
secular knowledge.

Graetz arrived in Wollstein at the end of the summer of 1831, fourteen
years old. At that youthful age, the _Bachur_ had ventured to
undertake, in a Hebrew far from perfect, it must be confessed, a work
on the calendar entitled, “חשבון העתים {Hebrew: Cheshbon Ha’itim},
Jewish and German Chronology.”[4] He was a zealous attendant upon the
rabbi’s Talmudic lectures, and derived great profit from them. His
teacher conceived a lively and kind interest in him, as well as a high
opinion of his ability, though he did not suspect his future eminence.
Rabbinic studies did not occupy his mind to the exclusion of other
pursuits. Inextinguishable thirst for knowledge had taken possession of
him, and all books that fell in his way were read with avidity. Most of
the available literature consisted of romances of chivalry, of the kind
in vogue at that time. Among them “Raspo of Felseneck,” now completely
forgotten, made a particularly deep impression upon him. Reproved by
one of his patrons, and provided with more suitable books by him, he
read with keen enjoyment Campe’s narrative and moral writings. At the
same time historical books began to attract him strongly. Though he had
to confess to himself, somewhat crestfallen, that he did not understand
the greater part of what he read in them, he studied Bredow’s short
compendium of universal history, Becker’s large work on the same
subject, and a biography of Napoleon. He soon realized the necessity
of acquiring Latin and French. Without teacher, without guidance,
without counsel other than that afforded by like-minded companions, he
devoted himself to Meidinger’s French grammar and later to Bröder’s
Latin grammar, until he had gotten all between their covers by heart.
He was overjoyed when he could begin to read the classic writers of
foreign countries in their own languages. In his zeal, he permitted
himself to be governed by chance. Whatever fortune played into his
hands, he grasped at with instantaneous ardor, and pursued with
sporadic industry. He picks up a translation of Euclid, for instance.
At once he devotes himself to it heart and soul, difficult though he
finds it to gain a clear notion of geometric concepts and methods.
An itinerant rabbi from Poland, offering his own commentary upon the
Book of Job for sale, comes to Wollstein, and meets with appreciation
and respect. Reason enough for the enthusiastic and ambitious Talmud
disciple to take interest in nothing but Bible exegesis and Hebrew
grammar for months thereafter. Keen, discriminating love of nature,
to whose attractions he remained susceptible until his last days,
develops in him. He spares no effort to acquaint himself with the flora
of his native province and with the mysteries of the starry heavens.
Success was a foregone conclusion with one whose equipment consisted
of miraculously quick comprehension, a retentive memory, and industry
oblivious of all but its object; coupled with an iron constitution and
indestructible working powers, not in the least impaired by lack of
food and sleep.

Despite his modest demands, he constantly had to battle against want
and distress. His nature was proud, self-reliant, and, it must be
admitted, unpractical. An exaggerated sense of honor forbade his
seeking help even when a petition would have been justified. He
preferred to conceal his troubles. For example, he ate dry bread
on many a Sabbath, a day on which it was considered a privilege to
entertain Talmud disciples. Regardless of wind and weather, he would
slip off into the country, a book in his pocket, in order not to reveal
his helpless condition. Finally, in spite of his secretiveness, some
friend or other discovered his plight, and found ways and means of
relieving his distress. Of sanguine temperament, he sought and found
consolation in books. Graetz managed to read and study an amazing
quantity in the four years and a half of his Wollstein sojourn. His
most determined efforts were applied to the acquisition of the French
language and literature, his favorite studies, at that time ranking
high in the scale of accomplishments. The more important works of
Fénelon, Voltaire, Rousseau, and others, and the dramas of Racine and
Victor Hugo he knew thoroughly. He had read Lessing, Mendelssohn,
Schiller, and other classic writers of Germany, and was attracted
particularly to Wieland, to whose works he devoted earnest attention.
It is curious that the diary which he then kept does not contain a
single reference to Goethe, as if by chance or for some reason he had
remained in ignorance of the great poet’s works. On the other hand,
he became acquainted towards the end of the Wollstein period with the
writings of Börne, Heine, and Saphir, which vivified the proneness
to irony and satire dormant in him. The Latin authors gave him most
trouble. Yet he mastered Cornelius Nepos, Curtius, and several books
of Ovid’s Metamorphoses and of Virgil’s Æneid. That he accomplished
extensive reading of rabbinic literature at the same time, and did
not neglect his Talmudic studies, is attested by the distinction with
which Rabbi Munk honored Graetz, much to his surprise. At New Year
5595 (October, 1834), he was invested with the title _Chaber_, a
degree conferred only upon most worthy and most rarely endowed Talmud
disciples of his youthful age.

But now fermentation set in, and white flakes began to rise to the
surface of the young wine. Wholly self-taught, he had devoted himself
to reading without plan or method, following blind chance or humoring
his whims. In this way he had laid up a store of knowledge, promiscuous
as well as rich. A chaotic mixture of irreconcilable, disparate ideas
and opinions surged through his head, and excited tumultuous commotion
in his world of thought and feeling. In November, 1835, the following
entry was written in his diary:

    “By the various contradictory ideas that perplexed my
    brain--heathen, Jewish, and Christian, Epicurean, Kabbalistic,
    Maimonidian, and Platonic--my faith was made so insecure that, when
    a notion concerning God, eternity, time, or the like, assailed me,
    I wished myself into the abyss of the nether world.”

Although his humor and his opinions were somewhat unsettled, he by
no means had drifted from his moorings. The existence of God and the
immortality of the soul were the fixed poles of his emotional world to
which he clung. Another entry a little further on in his diary says:

    “Like furies such thoughts tugged at my heart-strings, when, as
    often happened, they arose, suggested by my poverty as well as by
    certain classes of books. Only the clear, star-studded sky, upon
    which my eyes were wont to rest with delight on Saturday evenings
    after sundown, renewed the blessed comforting consciousness in me:
    Yes, there is a God beyond the starry canopy!”

On the other hand, he began to chafe against the daily religious
practices of Judaism, which he had always observed with scrupulous
conscientiousness, as he had been taught to do. Even then he did not
neglect them, but he was offended by the multiplicity of ceremonies and
still more by the petty, poor-spirited, unæsthetic manner in which the
people among whom he lived observed them. They no longer were religious
observances; they were habits. Attributing the responsibility for these
conditions to the Talmud, he bore it ill-will. His repugnance grew
whenever he contrasted its style and method with those of the great
works of literature with which he had recently become conversant.
Comparisons of this kind did not serve to enhance the credit of the
rabbinic collection with him. There was another cause for irritation.
Up to that time he had lived, or rather studied, heedless of practical
concerns. Now his parents and relatives were probably beginning to
urge upon him the necessity of considering the choice of a vocation
or of turning to professional studies. So just a demand he could not
disregard, especially in the sensitive state of mind in which he then
found himself. Often he brooded over the question, “What next?” and
elaborated the most bizarre plans only to reject them. A seemingly
slight incident occurred which quelled the commotion in his breast. His
craft, helplessly driving among perilous crags, was guided into smooth
waters by a little book appearing just then under the title, “אגרת צפון
{Hebrew: Igeret Tzafon}, Nineteen Letters on Judaism, published by Ben
Usiel.”[5]

The partisans of the reform movement, who proposed to remodel or set
aside religious customs and traditional observances of historical
Judaism as incompatible with modern life, had up to that time
maintained the upper hand in the literary discussion of religious
affairs. They were exerting constantly increasing attraction upon
the younger generation, and were growing bolder and more impetuous
in their propaganda for the obliteration, as far as possible, of
religious peculiarities. Bent upon the preservation of old faith and
custom unimpaired, their opponents had at first refused to make any
concession whatsoever to the modern demands, and had even failed to
provide themselves with new weapons of defense. When the movement
assumed threatening dimensions, the conservatives faced it unprepared
and impotent. Bewildered strangers in the great world, habituated
to the social forms of the Ghetto, enmeshed in the web of Talmudic
ideas, they were wholly unable to put up an efficient leader or
regenerator. Suddenly that which had long been painfully lacking seemed
to incorporate itself in a young theologian. In the above-mentioned
anonymous work, “Nineteen Letters,” Samson Raphael Hirsch, rabbi at
Oldenburg, championed the undiminished value of all religious usages
with skill, eloquence, and intrepidity. His manner held out the hope
that he would breathe a new spirit into the old forms. The boldness
of the work in frankly presenting this point of view with all the
consequences springing therefrom produced the effect of a sensational
occurrence upon the Jewish public. Into the mind of Graetz, casting
about for an anchor for his disturbed feelings, it fell like a flash
of lightning, revealing the path to be followed in the search for his
ideals. He reports:

    “Often I spoke of it [religious doubt] to B. B., the only one to
    whom I could tell my thoughts on such subjects. Then he would
    allege the urgent necessity for reforms in view of the gradual
    decay of religion. But I realized, that reform, that is, the
    omission of a number of laws organically interwoven with the rest,
    would abrogate the whole Law. How delighted I therefore was with
    a new book, ‘אגרת צפון {Hebrew: Igeret Tzafon}, Nineteen Letters
    on Judaism, _anonymous_,’ in which a view of Judaism I had never
    before heard or suspected was defended with convincing arguments.
    Judaism was represented as the best religion and as indispensable
    to the salvation of mankind. With avidity I devoured every word.
    Disloyal though I had been to the Talmud, this book reconciled me
    with it. I returned to it as to a mistress deemed faithless and
    proved true, and determined to use my utmost effort to pierce to
    its depths, acquire a philosophical knowledge thereof, and, as many
    would have me believe that I might become a so-called ‘rabbi-doctor
    of theology’ (_studirter Rabbiner_), publicly demonstrate its truth
    and utility. I set about my task at once, beginning with the first
    folio ברכות {Hebrew: Berachot} and the first Book of Moses. I dwelt
    upon every point with pleasure, treating them not as remnants of
    antiquity, but as books containing divine help for mankind. My
    endeavor was materially advanced by the knowledge I had acquired
    here, among other things of theology, which only now I learned to
    esteem as a branch of science; of geometry--I had studied nearly
    the whole of the first three books of Euclid; and of history.”

After that he could not content himself with life in Wollstein; the
place had nothing more to offer him. The resolution to quit the town,
which had grown into his heart as his second home, was facilitated by
the removal of an uncle, depriving him of his strongest support; by
the usual disappointment and revulsion of feeling following the usual
extravagance of a youthful, fantastic love-affair; and by conflicts
with companions and patrons, caused to some extent doubtless by the
disharmonious state of his mind and aggravated by tittle-tattle. But
whither was he to turn to satisfy the yearnings of his soul? He decided
on Prague, the Mecca of the young Jewish theologians of the day, “a
city most famous for learning, hospitality, and other virtues.”


II.

THE APPRENTICE.

Graetz left Wollstein in April, 1836, and went to Zerkow to acquaint
his parents with his intentions and consult with them. Letters of
recommendation to families in Prague were obtained, and his parents
and other relatives made up a small purse for him. Graetz secured a
passport, packed his modest belongings in a handbag, and set out on his
journey in high spirits. Partly afoot, partly by stage when the fare
was not forbidding, he made his way to Breslau, and thence through
the Silesian mountains to the Austrian boundary, which he reached not
far from Reinerz. Here, though he was fortified with a passport, the
frontier inspector, like a cherub with a flaming sword, opposed his
entrance into Austria. He was unable to produce ten florins ($5) cash,
the possession of which had to be demonstrated by the traveler who
would gain admission to the land of the double eagle, unless he came
as a passenger in the mail-coach. Dismayed our young wanderer resorted
to parleying, and appealed to his letters of recommendation. In vain;
the official would hear of no compromise. Too proud and inflexible to
have recourse to entreaty or trickery, Graetz grimly faced about, and
much disheartened journeyed as he had come, over the same road, back
to Zerkow. His parents were not a little astonished at his return, and
equally rejoiced to have their son with them for some time longer. The
adventure may be taken as typical of the curious mishaps that befell
him in practical life, particularly at the beginning of his career.
They often cut him to the quick, but never shook his belief in his
lucky star. His originative and impressionable nature carried with it
the power of discerning important points of view and valid aims, but he
seems to have been too far-sighted and impetuous to lay due stress upon
the means and levers necessary for the attainment of ends.

For the moment he sought to drown remembrance of his abortive journey
in study. He became absorbed in Latin works; he read Livy, Cicero’s _de
natura deorum_, which compelled his reverential admiration, Virgil’s
Æneid, and the comedies of Terence. Besides, he busied himself with
Schrökh’s universal history and with his Wieland, whose “Sympathies,”
“Golden Mirror,” and other works “delighted, refreshed, and fascinated”
him “inexpressibly.” The Talmud and Hebrew studies claimed no less
attention; he was especially zealous about the exegesis of the Earlier
Prophets. Downcast by reason of the uncertainty of his future, and his
scorn piqued by the pettiness and narrow-mindedness of his provincial
surroundings, he found an outlet for his restlessness in all sorts of
wanton pranks, such as high-spirited youths are apt to perpetrate in
their “storm and stress” period. He ridiculed the rabbi, played tricks
on the directors of the congregation, annoyed the burgomaster, always
escaping unpunished, and even horrified his parents by accesses of
latitudinarianism, such as the following. On the day before the eve
of the Atonement Day, it is a well-known custom for men to swing a
living rooster and for women to swing a living hen several times about
their heads. At the same time a short prayer is recited, pleading
that the punishment due for the sins committed by the petitioner be
transferred to the devoted fowl. At the approach of the holy season,
Graetz announced that he would certainly not comply with the _Kapores_
custom, but his words were taken to be idle boastfulness. The fateful
evening came, and the seriocomic celebration was long delayed by the
non-appearance of the eldest son. The father’s wrath was kindled,
and he threatened to burn all books other than Hebrew found in the
possession of his heretic offspring. The mother set out to search
everywhere for her erring son. When she finally found him, he went home
with her in affectionate obedience, but nothing could induce him to
manipulate the rooster in the customary way. Unswung and uncursed the
bird had to be carried to the butcher, and only on the following day a
touching reconciliation was effected.

After the Fast, a bookdealer at Wollstein, a friend of his, who usually
kept him informed about new books on Jewish subjects, sent Graetz the
“Nineteen Letters by Ben Usiel,” which he had longed to possess. The
book again electrified him, and he conceived the idea of offering
himself as a disciple to its author, whose identity had meantime been
revealed. Samson Raphael Hirsch appeared to him to be the ideal of a
Jewish theologian of the time and of the confidence-inspiring teacher
for whom he had yearned, to obtain from him guidance and, if possible,
a solution of the manifold problems occupying his mind. Accordingly,
Graetz wrote to the District Rabbi (_Landesrabbiner_) of Oldenburg. He
did not conceal his views, but clearly and frankly laid bare the state
of his feelings and the course of his intellectual development. He was
successful. After a short time, Hirsch addressed the following letter
to him:

    “My dear young Friend:--With pleasure I am ready to fulfill, as far
    as in me lies, the wish expressed in your letter to me. You know
    the sentence of our sages, יותר משעגל רוצה לינק הפרה רוצה להניק
    {Hebrew: Yoter mishe’egel rotzeh linak, haparah rotzah l’hanik},[6]
    and if, as I should gladly infer from your letter, the views
    therein expressed are more than an evanescent mood; if it is your
    resolute determination to study _Torah_ for its own sake, you are
    most cordially welcome, and I shall expect to see you after
    פסח הבע''ל {Hebrew: Pesach haba aleynu l’tovah}.[7] But I have one
    request to make. In the ardor of your feelings, you have conceived
    an ideal picture of the author of the ‘Letters’ by far exceeding
    the real man in size. Reduce the picture by half, by three-fourths,
    indeed, and ask yourself whether you are still attracted by it. Do
    not expect to find an accomplished master, but a student occupied
    with research. If your heart still says _yes_, then come. I should
    like to be informed as soon as possible, whether I may expect
    you after _Pessach_, as I shall have to modify another relation
    accordingly. Be kind enough, too, if you have no objection, to
    let me know how you expect to support yourself here. I trust that
    you will neither take umbrage at this question nor misconstrue
    it. It was put only because I wanted to express my willingness to
    assist you as much as I can during your stay here, if it should
    be necessary. Therefore, I beg you to be as frank and unreserved
    in your answer as I ventured to be in my question. With kindest
    regards, etc.

    OLDENBURG, December 26, ’36.”

To this letter Graetz replied, that he did say “yes” from the bottom
of his heart; that it was his dearest ambition to devote himself to
genuine Judaism and its doctrines; that he especially desired to learn
the methods of Talmud study, particularly of the _Halakha_, pursued
by a man whom he admired profoundly; that as for his livelihood, the
satisfaction of the most elementary needs sufficed for him; and that
his parents would give him a small allowance.

In answer thereto, the formal invitation to come to Oldenburg was
extended by Hirsch on February I, 1837. He offered Graetz board and
lodging in his own house, with the understanding that his parents would
provide for other needs, and he expected his disciple after Passover
(in May). Wishing to visit relatives on the way and see the sights of
Berlin and Leipsic, Graetz set out as early as the beginning of April.
In Berlin the museum and the picture-gallery made a deep impression
upon him. That he was a remarkably sharp observer is shown in the
following accurate characterization of the preacher Solomon Plessner,
with whom he became acquainted in Berlin:

    “This famous man I also visited, and I found attractive features
    indicative of acuteness, but a neglected exterior and careless,
    ungrammatical speech, not guiltless of the Jewish sing-song
    (_mauscheln_). This surprises me, for his language in his sermons
    is pure and choice. He is between forty and fifty years old, wears
    a beard, and seems to be honestly and genuinely religious. But his
    manner is excited; he speaks with rapid utterance, all the while
    running to and fro and arranging his books absent-mindedly.”

In Leipsic he visited his countryman Fürst, concerning whom he reports:

    “A little man whose face was familiar to me from my childhood days
    came towards me. I handed him the letter given me by his mother.
    He said indifferently: I shall write in a few days. But when I
    told him the goal and purpose of my journey, and showed him the
    letters [from Hirsch], his attitude changed, and he talked with
    me in a very friendly way. Finally, when he recognized that I
    was not an ignoramus, he confided several matters to me, told me
    about his scientific adversaries, and boasted that he had taught
    Gesenius, that he had become reconciled with Ewald, that the
    greatest scholars corresponded with him, etc.... Our conversation
    grew more and more confidential, and finally we parted as friends.
    He invited me to visit him again, if I changed my mind and staid
    over פסח {Hebrew: Pesach}.... In case I did not remain, I had
    to promise that I would enter into correspondence with him....
    I was particularly pleased to find, that Fürst has no intention
    of accepting baptism, and that he means to promote the cause of
    Judaism.... To work for Judaism, he says, is the prime obligation
    of every Jew that devotes himself to study, by which he means
    strictly scientific, possibly also philologic study.”

In order not to fritter away all his time while traveling, Graetz
began to study Greek, and the Greek conjugations served to beguile
dreary hours, banishing remembrance of the mishaps that could not
fail to befall one with straitened means on so long a journey, and
counteracting the despondency which in consequence often seized upon
him. In a miserable village, in which he was forced to spend a whole
day on account of the Sabbath, he found a copy of the New Testament,
and read it for the first time. He describes the impression made upon
him by this first reading in the following words:

    “Despite the many absurdities and inconsistencies, the mildness
    of the character of Jesus attracted me; at the same time I was
    repelled, so that I was altogether confused.”

On May 8, finally, he arrived in Oldenburg, where a new world opened
before him.

In Samson Raphael Hirsch he met a man whose spiritual elevation and
noble character compelled his profound reverence, and who fully
realized all the expectations that he had harbored concerning him.
Hirsch was a man of modern culture, and his manner was distinguished,
even aristocratic, although he kept aloof from all social intercourse.
He was short of stature, yet those who came in contact with him were
strongly impressed by his external appearance, on account of his grave,
dignified demeanor, forbidding familiarity. With great intellectual
gifts and rare qualities of the heart, he combined varied theological
attainments and an excellent classical education. Comprehensive
or deep ideas cannot be said to have been at his disposal, but he
scintillated with original observations and suggestive sallies, which
put his new pupil into a fever of enthusiasm. He was the only teacher
from whom Graetz’s self-centered being received scientific stimulation;
perhaps the only man to exercise, so far as the stubborn peculiarity of
Graetz’s nature permitted it, permanent influence upon his reserved,
independent character.

On his arrival in Oldenburg, the new-comer was most kindly received by
Hirsch, and was at once installed in his house, of which thenceforth
he was an inmate. Instruction was begun on the very next day. The
forenoons were devoted to the Talmud, the late afternoons to the
Psalms. The disciple was singularly attracted and stimulated, fairly
elevated by the brilliant, penetrating method applied to the exegesis
of these works. Plan, order, and coherence were now imposed upon his
scientific acquirements. Hirsch took true fatherly interest in his
protegé; he exerted himself to discipline his mind and fix his moral
and religious standards. At the same time, as though even then a
suspicion of the unusual force and talent of this youth panting for
knowledge and instruction had dawned upon him, he guarded against
assuming the airs of a domineering pedagogue. Despite the difference
in age between them he treated him as an equal. He was endowed with
truly marvelous power to stir his disciple’s soul-life to its depths.
Every chord of Graetz’s being was set in vibration, and he solemnly
vowed to remain a true son and an honest adherent of Judaism under all
circumstances. Added years may have contributed to the result; but
at all events it is certain that Graetz developed visibly under this
master’s guidance.

The services required of him in the house of his teacher were mainly
those of an assistant. He accompanied the District Rabbi on his tours
of inspection, the tedium of their journeys being relieved with
discussions on Talmudic and Biblical subjects. He revised with Hirsch
the last part of the latter’s “Horeb,” helped him read the proof of
the last sheets of the book, which delighted and thrilled the young
man, and assisted him in various similar ways. How flattering an
opinion the punctilious rabbi must have held of his assistant is proved
by the fact, that when he had to go to a resort for the restoration
of his undermined health, he authorized him to render decisions on
questions of religious law (שאלות{Hebrew: Sh’eylot}) during his
absence. The assistant fulfilled his duties so conscientiously that the
responsibility oppressed him. He confessed that he had imagined the
rendering of correct decisions much easier. His enthusiasm burst into
flame when he received the following affectionate letter from Hirsch:

    “My dear Graetz:--I still owe you cordial thanks for your kind
    lines. I am delighted to hear that you are industrious, and that
    you keep to my time-schedule so well. Continue to study, for I,
    on my part, shall soon have forgotten how to study, and literally
    shall have to begin to learn all over again. Before my departure,
    I wanted to call your attention to something, and I do now what I
    then forgot. I have frequently seen you read the works of Bayle.
    They are a treasury of learning, and much information can be
    derived from them, but the man takes peculiar pleasure in laying
    stress upon דברי ערוה {Hebrew: Divrei ervah};[8] things of that
    kind are טמא {Hebrew: tamei} and מטמא {Hebrew: M’tamei}[9]. Pass
    lightly over such passages; they are unprofitable and harmful; read
    only what is purely scientific. Follow my advice, etc., etc.”

Such friendly and tactful admonitions, permitting the pupil to follow
out his own bent, were always employed by Hirsch, and they but served
to enkindle Graetz’s enthusiasm anew. In spite of the young man’s
critical propensities combined with a sanguine temperament, his devoted
attachment to his master by no means waned under the strain of daily
intimate intercourse, not even when he could no longer doubt his
ideal’s lack of historic depth and scientific, or rather philosophic
insight. Graetz’s nature strongly impelled him to form friendships,
and his attachments were fervent. He always felt a lively interest in
what went on about him, and even at that early time he was fond of
taking an active part in shaping the occurrences of the day, whenever
he thought, that by assuming the rôle of Providence he might be useful
to his friends in the ordering of their affairs--a disposition that
redounded later to the benefit of many of his pupils. In January,
1837, for instance, the belated news reached him from his home, with
which he kept up a steady correspondence, that the Chief Rabbi Akiba
Eger had died in Posen. Without being commissioned to do so, he wrote
to the directors of the Posen congregation, and brought Hirsch, whose
yearning for a wide sphere of activity he knew, to their notice. When
the directors entered into negotiations with Hirsch he broke out
into jubilation. In fact, a party favoring the pretensions of the
Oldenburg District Rabbi formed in Posen, but nothing more resulted.
The procedure was repeated when the Wollstein rabbinate fell vacant in
1840, except that Hirsch, to his disciple’s great disappointment, would
not share Graetz’s enthusiasm for Wollstein. From this it appears that
Graetz was not a recluse nor a bookworm. In Oldenburg, as everywhere,
he sought to meet people and cultivate friendly intercourse with them,
and his joyous nature readily yielded to the innocent gayety of social
pleasures.

At the same time he neglected neither his duties nor his studies. While
with Hirsch he acquired the English language, and finding some Syriac
books in the rabbi’s library, he began to devote himself to Syriac.
The study of the former language his master seems to have encouraged,
but not of the latter. Hirsch met his disciple with uniform kindness,
and returned his enthusiastic devotion with fatherly benevolence.
Graetz was treated as a member of his family. In the third year of
his Oldenburg sojourn, his relations with the mistress of the house
were disturbed by slight discords, such as cannot fail to arise in
long-continued, familiar intercourse, and tend now to strengthen, now
to abridge intimacy. With Graetz’s proud sense of independence they
finally sufficed to ruffle the tranquillity of a soul wholly absorbed
by the present. Anxiety about his future began to disquiet him. The
desire to decide definitely upon a career and the longing to see his
parents, who in the meantime had removed from Zerkow to Kosten near
Posen, a somewhat larger town, united to make his departure from
Oldenburg seem advisable.


III.

THE JOURNEYMAN.

The adieux were said with touching cordiality, and after an absence
of more than three years Graetz set his face homeward, and arrived in
Kosten in the middle of August, 1840. The younger people everywhere
received Hirsch’s disciple with joyous welcome, and induced him to
preach at Wollstein, Kosten, and Zerkow. His sermons, to be sure,
did not transport his audiences with enthusiasm, but they were ample
guarantees of the preacher’s fund of knowledge and originality. All
his friends, therefore, agreed, that it would be advisable for Graetz
to “study,” in the technical sense of the German word, that is, go
through the university and obtain a degree. They adduced the fact that
the smaller congregations at least, such as Wreschen, Wollstein, and
Kosten, in part had appointed “graduate rabbis” (_studirte Rabbiner_),
in part had resolved to fill their rabbinates with them.

To secure means for a university course, he agreed to accept a
position as tutor in Ostrowo, and entered upon his work at the end
of 1840. Ostrowo is a little town in the south-eastern part of the
Province, the seat of a large Jewish community, which at the time was
still completely under the sway of the graceless habits of Ghetto life.
Graetz felt thoroughly uncomfortable. His position in the house at
which he was engaged to teach did not please him, and in the town he
found no one with whom he cared to cultivate friendly intercourse. He
had submitted to tutoring, by no means an arduous occupation, in order
to lay by money, but he lacked financial talent and the ability to
economize. In fact, his devotion to his family connections, his good
nature, and his improvidence involved him in pecuniary embarrassments
so serious that the monologues in his diary overflow with pessimistic,
melancholy reflections. He sought indemnification in frequent
excursions to neighboring towns, in composing a Hebrew biography of
Mishna teachers under the title תולדות אבות {Hebrew: Toldot Avot},[10]
and, it appears, in reading the works of the Fathers of the Church. On
one of his little trips, the occasion being the betrothal of a friend
of his, he met the sister of the _fiancée_, a very young girl, who
attracted and pleased him, and who was destined to exert decisive and
salutary influence upon his life. The meeting acted like a soothing
charm upon his ill-humor, though he was far from anticipating the
consequences it bore. He remained in his position at Ostrowo for one
year and a half, until July, 1842, when a trivial occurrence ruptured
the irksome relation in a manner not altogether pleasant.

Now he went straightway to Breslau to the University. As he had not
been graduated from a _Gymnasium_, Graetz had to obtain ministerial
permission to attend the University. His petition was granted, and,
in October, 1842, he was matriculated. With reverential awe and
expectation the self-taught student entered the mysterious lecture
halls consecrated to pure science, only to leave them shrugging
his shoulders at the wisdom proclaimed, disappointed, his longings
unsatisfied. The knowledge of which he was master when he began his
University course was richer and more varied than ordinary students are
likely to start with, and though it was not systematically ordered nor
well-balanced, it formed a unit, and had already begun to crystallize
about a center. His apprenticeship years, in short, were over; the
maturity of his views and his judgment is unmistakable.

While at the University, he heard lectures on a wide variety of
subjects--on history, philosophy, Oriental languages, even physics--but
it does not appear that any left deep traces upon his mind. Even
Professor Bernstein, an Orientalist of considerable reputation, who
drew him into the circle of his close associates, did not understand
how to kindle his pupil’s zeal, usually so impetuous, for the thorough
study of Syriac and Arabic. Apparently Graetz had relinquished the
ambition to gain mastery of them. The only one to have success was
Professor Braniss, a philosopher in high esteem in his day, with whom
also Graetz cultivated intimate relations. He at all events must
have been instrumental in acquainting him with the Hegelian system
of philosophy, and in imbuing him with the recognition, that even
in the world of liberty, that is, man’s world of mental endeavor,
phases of development succeed each other in conformity with absolute
laws, chiefly of an ideal, non-mechanical nature; that therefore the
spiritual powers that produce the history of mankind by the realization
of ever higher ideas not only follow their indwelling laws, but at the
same time submit unconditionally to the law of cause and effect; and
that the paradox of opposites, the principle of thesis, antithesis, and
synthesis, is particularly helpful in the consideration of historical
phenomena.

Though Graetz was immersed in his studies, he did not fail to give
close attention to the occurrences in the Breslau Jewish community.
The events happening there in those days were not merely of local
interest. They cast their light and their shadow far beyond the
Silesian frontier, and were the cause of intense excitement in all
Jewish circles of Germany. In Breslau the orthodox and the reform views
of Judaism for the first time rushed at each other with full force in
the struggle for supremacy. Storm and conflict raged violently between
the old and the new. Blind to the conditions of the time, orthodoxy
stubbornly opposed a _non possumus_ to every offer looking to an
adjustment of difficulties. The representatives of the two parties,
the orthodox Solomon Tiktin on the one side and the progressive
Abraham Geiger on the other, sought to get the better of each other
with remorseless acrimony. Geiger won the upper hand, and even the
disruption of the Breslau congregation caused by Tiktin’s defeat did
not derogate from the reform champion’s victory.

Dr. Abraham Geiger should be classed among the most prominent rabbis
of his time. The modern development of the religious life had been
proceeding quietly though steadily, when it was convulsed to its depths
by the storm announced by his first appearance upon the rabbinical
scene. As a speaker and as a writer he handled a popular style with
masterful skill, which manifested itself in felicitous copiousness
rather than in the concentration of precise, forcible language. One of
the best pulpit orators among Jews, he succeeded in holding attention
and stimulating thought by his simple manner and brilliant turns of
expression. His published sermons, very limited in number, give not
even an approximate idea of the powerful impression produced by his
spoken words, totally unaided though they were by charms of person.[11]
His scholarly contributions to Jewish science are of pre-eminent and
of permanent value. He has rendered particularly valiant service by
his researches into the history of literature, a field in which he
was master. On the other hand, one sometimes misses thoroughness of
scholarly culture in his early productions, especially those of the
first part of his Breslau period. Besides, he was fond of obtruding his
reform bias. In spite of his scientific attainments, his historical
sense lacked profundity, and in spite of his great achievements in the
province of modern liturgy, his appreciation of the needs and emotions
of the people’s spiritual life was neither sufficiently delicate nor
sufficiently intense. At bottom he was a doctrinaire rationalist. His
religious program and aims, too, were not clearly and definitely put
forth. For example, his attitude towards the radical currents at that
time rolling their destructive waves over Judaism amounted to more than
benevolent neutrality. The observer cannot ward off the impression,
that he was inclined to steer straight for ethical deism, and was
restrained only by opportunist reasons. At this above all Graetz took
umbrage, and by and by his antipathy to Geiger was complete. A good
deal of sham and tinsel had probably slipped into the various tentative
organizations which Geiger endeavored to call into existence; perhaps
they were unavoidable concomitants of such efforts. It is possible,
too, that the unpleasant impression was reinforced by a tendency to
officiousness observable in Geiger--at worst a pardonable foible.
As Graetz was constituted, he felt so strong a repugnance to humbug
and pretense that he exercised neither forbearance nor consideration
towards such faults. He visited Geiger only once, possibly twice.
Immediately after Graetz had made himself at home in the lecture-rooms
of his department, he paid his respects to the two rabbinical
party-leaders. The entry in his diary is as follows:

    “I have made the acquaintance of Rabbi Tiktin. With what reverence
    I used to stand and look at the mail-clad names of the Tiktins on
    the first pages of רי''פים {Hebrew: Rifim}![12] As Charlemagne in
    his iron armor kept all intruders at a becoming distance, so the
    dignity of those theologic knights seemed to me to be enhanced by
    the long beards and the imposing Spanish canes[13] and the Talmudic
    dust. There was I sitting next to a descendant of those rabbinical
    נפילים {Hebrew: Nefilim}.[14] Ah! what a falling-off there has
    been! _Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis._ To be sure, there
    is still the stately stature, still the Spanish cane. But the
    _ensemble_, a something not to be defined in words, is missing.
    Next to the rabbi, _nolentes volentes_, I place Dr. Geiger, a
    spare little man. Why he was so very kind to me I do not know.
    Of Hirsch we have not yet spoken, and probably shall not speak.
    But to what depths we have sunk! In the presence of fifty Jews,
    headed by a רב {Hebrew: Rav}, Dr. Freund[15] dares utter words like
    “rabbinically erratic inferences.” Cicero and Plato, then, are to
    be read as antidotes to rabbinical perversions. Zounds! And to-day
    Geiger delivered his first lecture on the Mishna. The Mishna is a
    collection of _religious notions, as they were formed and developed
    from the Exile to R. Jehuda Hanassi_. What insane logic!”

When, in March, 1843, the stiff-necked, tenacious champion of an effete
form of Judaism, the lion-warrior Solomon Tiktin, last representative
of a race of Talmudic heroes, wounded to the quick by his defeat,
was removed from the scene by death, Geiger stood at the zenith of
his fame. Since many a day no rabbi’s name had been so well-known as
Geiger’s in all the extent of German Jewry, none was so frequently
mentioned. In Silesia there was no more popular rabbi, and in Breslau
his word was potent, influential, and feared by his adversaries. His
scientific eminence was generally acknowledged; his eloquence dominated
the pulpit no less than the minds of his hearers. Who dared attack him
was badly used, and bore ridicule as well as injury from the fray.

In the course of the year 1844, the first signs of a slowly
crystallizing reaction became noticeable. Various germinating forces
looking to the formation of a new theologic party on a conservative
platform consolidated in that year under the leadership of Zacharias
Frankel. From this place and that, single barbed arrows, followed
by more and sharper ones, winged by irony and hard to parry, came
whizzing through the air, striking Geiger and his followers in the most
sensitive spots. A well-known weekly Jewish journal, _Der Orient_,
under the editorship of Dr. Fürst, published reports of the more
important occurrences in the Breslau community. The descriptions of
the anonymous correspondent were graphic, pungent, and critical. The
articles naturally aroused attention. In Breslau, as they continued
to appear week after week, they created a veritable sensation. The
two parties looked forward to each issue of the “Orient” with equal
expectancy, though otherwise with opposite feelings. In the orthodox
camp there was exultation. At last an expert writer had appeared,
who laid bare all sorts of evils fearlessly and unsparingly, and who
seemed to serve the cause of conservatism by his bold opposition to
Geiger. But who was the archer that sped his arrow with aim so true
and poise so elegant? Guesses were hazarded, a narrow search was
instituted, and especially the ranks of the Jewish students of theology
at that time gathered in Breslau, mostly about Geiger, were sharply
inspected. It was established beyond a doubt, that it was a _homo
novus_, a student from the Province--Graetz, who, proudly independent
of every sort of patronage, was earning a scant livelihood by giving
lessons. The amazement grew when Graetz, nearly simultaneously with
the just mentioned contributions to the “Orient,” published a critical
review, valuable even at this late day, of Geiger’s “Textbook of the
Mishnic Language.”[16] This critique, auspiciously ushering him into
the scientific world,[17] was begun in the literary supplement of the
“Orient” at the end of 1844, and continued as a series of articles
in the following year. It gave him the opportunity of expounding his
own views upon the subject and displaying advantageously a fund of
information, mastery of the material, philological tact, scientific
instincts, and considerable talent as a stylist. His criticism of the
book is often to the point, but rather severe and not entirely free
from animosity. It was characteristic of Graetz to express his opinion
clearly and directly. Geiger replied to the challenge in “The Israelite
of the Nineteenth Century”[18] in still more acrimonious articles,
which likewise are not wholly objective. In fact, they contain
approaches to personalities, and dwell upon slips and trivial details,
thus demonstrating the importance attached to the appearance of his
young antagonist in the arena. In any event, Graetz had drawn the
attention of a wider circle to himself, and in Breslau he had become at
one bound the central topic of interest in _Karlsstrasse_. The orthodox
partisans made advances to him, although he did not for a moment leave
them in doubt about his disapproval of their program and his dissent
from their religious views. He told them that he was pursuing his
own original ideas, and that his guiding principle was unalterable
loyalty to positive Judaism. However, he restrained them from many a
foolish and fanatic step. In the face of orthodox opposition Geiger
had energetically organized a religious school, which was prospering.
Graetz therefore advised the adherents of orthodoxy not to permit
themselves to lose touch with the younger generation, but to build up
a similar institution on conservative lines. The advice seems to have
fallen on fruitful soil. It was intimated to the counselor, that the
intention was to entrust him with the organization and superintendence
of a school of that kind, provided he obtained his University degree
before its opening. Besides, his name was beginning to be mentioned
in connection with vacant rabbinates. It was therefore necessary to
hasten his graduation. After a few weeks of severe application, he
finished his thesis, _De auctoritate et vi, quam gnosis in Judaismum
habuerit_, which secured him the doctorate from the University of Jena
in April, 1845. Under the title, “Gnosticism and Judaism,”[19] the
dissertation was published in that year as the first original product
of his pen. The work in every respect bears the peculiar stamp of his
scientific character. It is distinguished by familiarity with patristic
literature; by his method of explaining Talmud statements, commonly
taken to be general, as particular historical cases; by lucidity of
arrangement and presentation; and by his happy gift of divining the
occult relation between things, which enabled him to shed the first
rays of light upon the ספר יצירה {Hebrew: Sefer Yetzirah},[20] the
most enigmatic book of rabbinical literature. The thesis was received
kindly, and it gave him a place in the Jewish world of scholarship.

Such surprising successes swelled the breast of the literary novice,
who had worked his way to the front by arduous toil, with justifiable
and happy hopes. The halcyon days of young fame, at the remembrance of
which his face lighted up with pleasure even in old age, he planned to
spend with his parents. On his way home he passed through Krotoschin.
There, in his friend’s house, he met the half-grown girl of other days,
now in the flush of young womanhood. Her image, faint though it had
become in the background of his memory, had not faded entirely. She
was the daughter of Monasch, the proprietor of the well-known Hebrew
printing establishment. Each made a deep impression upon the other,
and encouraged to believe that his future might be considered assured,
Graetz did not conceal his feelings. They were requited, and the young
people plighted their troth. Graetz did not suspect that he had won a
strong womanly heart that would be his beacon and a prop to which he
would cling for support during the dark days soon to break over him.

All sorts of vague, undefined hopes arose before his view, and some of
them gradually assumed shape. The prospect of an honorable position,
such as he had longed for and aspired to, seemed about to be realized.
The rabbinate of Gleiwitz, one of the larger congregations of Upper
Silesia, taking rank in wealth and perhaps in size after Breslau, was
vacant, and the authorities were looking out for a man equipped with
rabbinic lore, standing upon the height of modern culture, and favoring
a sober, moderate reform movement. All entitled to a voice in the
matter fixed upon Graetz, whose reputation as a writer had spread to
them. He seemed the most suitable incumbent. By virtue of his native
talent and his attainments, it was thought that he would be able to
overrule or to meet the manifold, rather hazy views and demands of the
members of the congregation. The leading spirits among them declared
themselves in favor of his election. Nothing more was necessary than
to attract all the other circles of the community by proving his
homiletic ability in several trial sermons, the success of which seemed
a foregone conclusion. Before the great Holy Days of 1845 (5606) Graetz
received a Hebrew communication from the directors of the Gleiwitz
congregation, couched in the most flattering terms, assuring him of the
reversion of the rabbinate, and inviting him to preach the sermons in
their synagogue on the Day of Atonement.

At the appointed time, on the eve of the sacred day, he ascended
the pulpit, and the result was--a thoroughly unexpected fiasco, the
more deplorable as it shattered his own confidence in his oratorical
powers. He had forgotten his memorandum completely. Losing his presence
of mind, he had to leave the pulpit after saying a few words. His
friends and followers stood by him loyally, and did their utmost to
secure for him the opportunity of repairing the damage. He succeeded
in rehabilitating himself only partly; the ground lost could not be
recovered. The surprising mishap, it must be confessed now after the
lapse of time, was a stroke of good fortune for the ambitious scholar
and his life-work, ungentle though the impetus was that forced him into
the path for which he was peculiarly equipped and gifted. In those days
of universal fermentation, the religious life of Jewish communities was
crossed and agitated by opposite, confused, and stormy currents. A man
of uncontrollable impulse to be active and to exert independent, direct
influence whenever it might seem necessary, and prone to give utterance
to his convictions in truthful, incisive, and caustic language--a
quality of dubious value--would hardly have succeeded in steering his
rabbinical boat among the crags of party strife, usually carried on
with fanatic violence. He would either have had to become faithless to
his nature and genius, or, if that were not possible, eventually be
wrecked. At best, in case he had a high degree of tact and prudence at
his disposal, he would have consumed his finest powers in putting more
or less salutary measures into effect on a restricted field. Graetz,
who knew himself thoroughly, had always feared that he would not be in
his proper place in a rabbinical position. From the first he had felt a
shrinking at the thought of the duties and responsibilities of a rabbi.
A few days before he left for Gleiwitz he wrote in his diary:

    “Of all positions I am least adapted for that of rabbi; in every
    way I lack force of manner, an imposing presence. My knowledge,
    too, is highly defective, but my will is strong, energetic. If
    God’s service can be performed by an instrument of such caliber,
    then here am I ready for it, body and soul. But the preaching!”

In very truth the preacher’s Pegasus serves the noble enthusiasm of
the elect willingly and ardently, and as willingly lends his back to
mediocrity to execute more or less doubtful tricks before the eyes
and ears of the many-headed crowd. Graetz it threw in the critical
moment, and the fall affected him deeply and painfully. He who only a
short time before, almost without effort, had won literary triumphs,
and who as a rule shrank from no difficult undertaking, now despaired
of ever being able to wield the living word with the power with
which he directed the pen. In fact, he had been denied the external
qualifications of an orator. It cannot be said to have been his
appearance that stood in the way of success; he was of average height
and well-knit frame. But in loud speech his voice lacked modulation,
and his manner was ineffectual. Above all, he was incapable of posing;
in his character there was not the slightest trace of the actor, who,
as Goethe says, “might give points to a preacher.”


IV.

SCHOLAR AND TEACHER.

The above incident put a hopeless end to all the prospects he had
entertained. Again care for his daily bread stalked by his side like a
specter. The most deplorable aspect of his case was that his strength
did not emerge from this severe contest, as from former ones, steeled
and braced by cheering hopes for the future. Besides, he reproached
himself for having drawn another and a beloved person into his forlorn
life. Then the high-mindedness and unselfish devotion of the woman of
his choice sustained him, refreshing his weary soul with consolation
and encouragement, and calming the tumult of his wounded feelings.
His animal spirits rose again under the stimulus of an honorable
invitation, extended by Zacharias Frankel, to join a conference of
conservative rabbis called by him to meet at Dresden in September,[21]
1846, for the purpose of discussing the religious problems of the day
and uniting for concerted action.

At the very beginning of his career in Dresden, Dr. Zacharias Frankel
had developed fruitful activity in connection with the removal of the
political and civil disabilities, especially with regard to oaths,
under which his coreligionists in Saxony were laboring. None the less
he was essentially a scholar. Master of comprehensive knowledge of the
Talmud, which he had acquired with critical thoroughness, he laid the
foundations for the modern analysis of this work of literature. He made
it his life-task to promote the scientific study of the Talmud and
trace the evolution of the _Halakha_. The first-fruits of his literary
endeavor betrayed the serious, thorough scholar by the accuracy, the
scrupulous nicety, and the trustworthiness of his research, and
secured for him a high and undisputed position in the scientific
world. When the reform agitation within the Jewish community of
Germany developed into a rapid stream whose waters grew more and more
turbulent; when, on the one side, rabbinical conferences were planned
for the purpose of systematizing and sanctioning projected innovations,
and, on the other, distrust of the progressive leaders inspired the
fear that the resolutions and professions of such assemblies might
throw dangerous, inflammable material into the different congregations;
Frankel deemed it prudent to give up his reserve and actively influence
the religious movement. In 1844, accordingly, he began to publish the
quarterly “Journal for the Religious Interests of Judaism.”[22] It was
to bear a strictly scientific character, and at the same time discuss
the religious topics of the day. A sober, experienced, and tolerant
theologian, Frankel held the position, that in matters of faith as
in the other concerns of life the exigencies of the times have to be
considered, but that concessions to the modern spirit may not remove
us from historic ground, and that all modifications must result from a
scientific appreciation of the essence and traditions of Judaism.

All this appealed strongly to Graetz, and no sooner had he come into
public notice, in the year following the first appearance of the
journal, than he sought to establish relations with Frankel. The latter
met his advances with cordiality, and invited the young scholar to
become a contributor to his quarterly review. Graetz responded with a
brilliant and suggestive article, “The Septuagint in the Talmud.”[23]
It affords a striking example of his peculiar method of comparing
Talmud and Midrash passages with each other and with the statements
and quotations of the Fathers of the Church, thus determining the
historical elements of the Talmudic account and building theories upon
it. In the same year (1845), Frankel had gone to Frankfort-on-the-Main,
to the second rabbinical conference, with the hope of infusing a spirit
of moderation and conciliation into its proceedings and measures.
But he abandoned the hope on the passage of the resolution, that the
retention of Hebrew as the language of the synagogue service was only
“advisable,” not “essential” (_objektiv-nothwendig_). He, therefore,
withdrew from the conference in a public manner, and justified his
action in a formal declaration, equally dignified and firm.

On all sides Frankel’s course met with hearty approval. Its effect was
to startle the conservatives of every shade of opinion out of their
apathy. Numerous prominent communities sent him flattering addresses,
conveying their thanks and their unreserved commendation of his
resolute policy. Graetz had written an enthusiastic document, which
was circulated in Breslau, and was quickly covered with signatures.
In collecting them, he had not been able to resist the malicious
prompting to secure the names of notorious adherents of Geiger. The
latter had taken deep offense at Frankel’s secession, and had been
betrayed into abuse by his declaration. It is impossible to say now,
why Frankel did not at once utilize the disposition in his favor to
gather a large conservative party about himself. Only in the following
year, 1846, he took steps looking to this end. He issued invitations
to the conservative theologians of modern bias, summoning them to
a convention at Dresden, with the purpose perhaps of devising an
effective opposition to the third reform conference of rabbis to meet
at Breslau in July of the same year. But even this effort was not made
with the energy characteristic of Frankel and necessary to accomplish
the desired result. When Graetz arrived in Dresden in September,
1846, he was amazed to find that no one else had put in appearance.
Samson Raphael Hirsch, at that time District Rabbi of Emden, had
from the first refused co-operation with the movement, inasmuch as
he denied the authority, natural or conferred, of the modern rabbi
to modify the religious cult. Rapoport of Prague had declined the
invitation for reasons not specified. It is well-known that his
interests were enlisted only in scientific pursuits. Michael Sachs of
Berlin had excused himself on the plea of routine duties. For most of
the others the time and place of convention were not convenient. To
sue for support was out of the question with Frankel’s aristocratic
temperament. It was repugnant to him, or he did not know how, to
create sentiment in his own favor by agitation or self-advertisement.
He could not attract a party to his leadership by seductive wiles,
nor infuse fanatic factionalism into its ranks. Relying solely on the
justice of his cause, and appealing exclusively to the convictions
of his followers, he scorned petty tricks and artifices. That Graetz
was the only one to render unconditional obedience to his summons
must naturally have produced a deep impression upon him. The two
men, so different in years, disposition, and endowments, but at one
in views and aims, were brought close to each other by the personal
meeting. By tacit agreement they became companions in arms from that
moment unto the end. Graetz, at all events, recognizing that their
religious principles approximated each other, was resolved to take
his position in theological affairs by Frankel’s side, whenever so
doing involved no loss of independence. Frankel in turn evinced a
sense of their religious affinity by conferring upon Graetz, at his
request, the formal authorization for the exercise of rabbinical
functions התרת הוראה ({Hebrew: Hatarat hora’ah}). At the end of 1846,
Frankel gave up the publication of his journal to save his strength
for a better future. To this third and last annual series, Graetz had
contributed, besides several reviews, one of his important treatises,
that discussing “The Construction of Jewish History”[24] in several
articles. Bright and vivid in style and replete with fine thoughts
which even homiletes drew upon in various ways, the essay defines
clearly and sharply the considerations and points of view of essential
importance in a complete presentation of Jewish history. But the
author was still so prejudiced in favor of the technically philosophic
terminology and conceptions of his time that he was betrayed into
giving undue prominence to the transcendence of God as compared with
the monotheistic idea.

Though Graetz had won high respect by his scholarly productions
especially in theologic circles, he vainly looked about for a position,
no matter how modest, in which to strike root. At last the sky seemed
to grow brighter; he was cheered by the prospect of soon being able
to establish a home of his own, a prospect that proved a _fata
morgana_. By the end of 1846 the orthodox party in Breslau resumed
energetic operations. They had accepted as their rabbi Gedaliah, the
son of the deceased Solomon Tiktin, who had inherited from his father
only his tall stature, and they were preparing to open a religious
school for the propaganda of their principles. Its organization and
superintendence were entrusted to Graetz.[25] The Breslau community
was no longer a unit, the orthodox members having separated from the
congregation. But the seceders had no legally valid right to form
a body corporate. Moreover, on July 23, 1847, the law defining the
status of the Prussian Jews appeared, and it could not be determined
how conditions would be modified by it. Wealthy individuals in their
private capacity therefore assumed responsibility in the business
contracts of the orthodox party, particularly in the matter of the
new school. Then the political storms of 1848 swept over the Prussian
provinces. Economic disturbances occurred, and apprehensive of still
more serious ones, the wealthy patrons of the orthodox party recalled
their pledges. The complete collapse of the religious school followed
as the first sacrifice in orthodox circles claimed by the political
flood, whose waves carried destructive change to the most remote
relations between men. Graetz was again left stranded, without an
occupation, without a livelihood.

At that time all eyes were turned towards Vienna, where the popular
uprising had assumed vast dimensions and won surprising victories.
Democracy stood in battle array, and had gained possession of the
Austrian capital. It was fondly hoped that the fortune of war would
decide there in favor of the democratic party. A friend of Graetz, Dr.
B. Friedmann,[26] later rabbi in Mannheim, was at that time prominent
in Breslau as an effective popular speaker, and was a member of the
editorial staff of the democratic organ, the _Oderzeitung_. By his
intervention the curious proposition was made to Graetz to go to
Vienna as correspondent of the journal just mentioned. In his forlorn
state he acquiesced, though not without reluctance. On his journey
to Vienna, he felt impelled to leave the direct route and stop off
at Nikolsburg to pay a visit to his former teacher, Samson Raphael
Hirsch, who had meantime resigned the District Rabbinate of Emden
for that of Nikolsburg. Letters had passed between them constantly
since the Oldenburg days, and although Graetz was not in sympathy
with the rigidly traditional point of view occupied by Hirsch, and no
longer viewed the theologic attitude of his old guide with youthful
enthusiasm, but rather with critical, sober judgment, their friendly
relations of other times had suffered no diminution in cordiality.
Graetz’s love and reverence for Hirsch had not in the least evaporated,
and Hirsch still felt strongly attracted to the younger man. He was not
disposed to sanction his project of going to Vienna, the hot-bed of
revolution, and Graetz, who had little love and desire for the calling
of a political reporter, was easily persuaded to stay in Nikolsburg and
content himself with a subordinate place at the religious school of
the town. In the background, to be sure, the reversion of a teacher’s
position at a theologic seminary, projected and seriously considered by
Hirsch, loomed up before him.

Hirsch had long cherished the idea of founding a Jewish theologic
institute. He shared this dear ambition with the other prominent
rabbis of his generation, who hoped thus to further their wish to
perpetuate each one his own theologic bias. The establishment of a
theologic seminary was, in fact, one of the burning questions of the
day. Nikolsburg, where a popular Talmud school had flourished from time
immemorial, seemed to lend itself to the execution of Hirsch’s plan. It
was only necessary to use the existing institution as a foundation,
make the proper changes in its management, and infuse the new spirit
into it. Graetz was at once induced by his patron to give a course of
lectures on Jewish history to the students at Nikolsburg, who were well
versed in the Talmud, but whose training had been wholly dialectic.
The character of his auditors suggested the subject to the lecturer.
He treated the time of the Mishna and the Talmud, a period of which he
had previously made a thorough study, and to which he again devoted
serious research with a view to his academic purpose. Despite the zeal
with which he applied himself to his lectures and studies, his main
expectation suffered disappointment. The painfulness of his precarious
position became more pronounced as time passed. The fanatics of the
Nikolsburg Ghetto found fault even with the scrupulously religious
conduct of their District Rabbi; as for his disciple, he went up and
down among them a strange, repellant figure. Denunciations led the
local authorities to suspect him of democratic leanings, and he was
thus branded with the darkest stigma that could be fastened upon any
one, but particularly upon a foreigner, in the Austria of that day. All
the influence possessed by his friends had to be exerted to ward off
ugly complications and immediate expulsion.

It became more and more evident that the rabbinical seminary, upon
which Graetz had staked all his hopes, was only a bubble. Whether
the circumstances of place and time were unpropitious, or whether
Hirsch dropped the plan for other reasons, is doubtful.[27] Moreover,
the friendly relations between the two men began to be somewhat
strained. Therefore, the proposal to undertake the organization and
superintendence of a school, made him by the directors of the Jewish
community of Lundenburg, a little town in the Nikolsburg district
in the neighborhood of Vienna, was hailed by Graetz as release from
an untenable position. Negotiations were quickly concluded, and on
September 12, 1850, he was appointed director and superintendent of the
Jewish school at Lundenburg.

Before entering upon the duties of his office he hastened home, and in
the beginning of October, 1850, solemnized his marriage with the loyal
woman whose patience had never failed, who had never been discouraged
by hope deferred, and had never lost confidence in his ability. He
could not have found a truer, a braver comrade than the wife who shared
the fortunes of the rest of his career. By her harmonious, temperate,
and loving nature, she not only glorified his home and cheered cloudy
days, but also restrained his impetuous disposition, and moderated
his proneness to sharp, caustic, aggressive words. She understood the
needs of his inmost soul, in the recesses of which a reverberation was
sometimes heard as of vague, unfulfilled longings. His personality was
made up of many an incommensurable factor that baffled explanation.
With all his communicativeness he was reserved; the most intimate
emotions of his heart were never revealed. To outsiders he always
appeared wholly unruffled and serene, and no one suspected the thoughts
and feelings stormily surging through his being under its placid
surface. But in order to preserve his equanimity, he stood in need of
frank expression to some one or in some way. It was the outlet and
the purification of the easily excited and strongly reacting emotions
of a nature responding quickly to external pressure. Probably the
leaves of his diary served this purpose; most of them were written
under the stimulus of tense passion. From the day of his marriage the
record becomes more and more attenuated, until it ceases entirely. In
his life-companion he had found the responsive being devoted to him
in boundless veneration and sympathy, whose sentiments were a perfect
echo, clearer usually than the original sound, of his thought and
feeling. And as she took part in his soul-life, so she shared in his
intellectual plans. She made her husband’s scientific interests her
own, and in his scholarly research afforded him the efficient help of a
careful assistant.

The new principal began his work in Lundenburg on October 15 with
zeal and love for his task--he superintended, classified, taught, and
delivered solemn addresses. Apparently success was not lacking, for he
met with encouraging applause. In the shelter of his modest but happy
home, he resumed his literary plans and work. While preparing his
Nikolsburg lectures, he had gathered together an abundance of material
on the Talmudic era, which he now meant to put to use.

Before long, however, gray clouds cast a shadow on his idyllic
condition. The relation between him and Hirsch almost suffered an open
breach. When the newly married couple came to Nikolsburg to pay their
respects to him, Hirsch demanded that the young wife, in accordance
with a Talmudic custom, cover her beautiful hair with a sort of wig,
called _Scheitel_. She resisted the bidding politely but firmly, with
the pride of an offended woman. Graetz upheld his wife energetically,
and the two parties separated little pleased with each other. The
low-hanging mist apt to develop in the atmosphere of narrow,
undisciplined Ghetto life, particularly in a small Austrian community,
was more oppressive even and harder to bear. The Lundenburg rabbi, a
narrow-minded Talmudist, who feared to have his fame overshadowed by
Graetz’s, now and again asserted his official superiority unpleasantly.
Small town rivalries were fomented to annoy the notabilities of the
congregation by means of attacks upon the measures and the men they
favored. Such conditions made Graetz feel by their hidden venom that
unmixed joy is the portion of no mortal, least of all of the principal
of an Austrian communal school. Denunciations of him were again
rife. Those before the district court representing him as a democrat
incarnate were particularly troublesome. Happily the charges were
dismissed without in the least injuring him.

The year 1851 heightened his happiness; it brought him the joys of
fatherhood. A daughter was born to him, the only one in a family
of five children. His relation to her was always peculiarly close
and affectionate. In the same year Zacharias Frankel re-entered the
theologic arena with a monthly journal, which, unlike his earlier
venture, the _Zeitschrift_, was to be devoted first and foremost to
scientific interests. Graetz received a most honorable invitation to
become a contributor, and he gladly ranged himself under Frankel’s
banner. In quick succession he published in the first year of the
“Monthly Journal for the History and Science of Judaism”[28] (October,
1851-December, 1852) a series of historical monographs: “Jewish
Historical Studies;”[29] a review of Rapoport’s Encyclopedia; “Talmudic
Chronology and Topography;”[30] and “The Removable Highpriests of the
Second Temple Period”[31]--all of which evinced great erudition,
clear grasp of the subject, and mature judgment. They are of the
nature of special studies in preparation and as a foundation for a
connected account of the events from the downfall of the Jewish state
until the completion of the Talmud. He had long cherished the idea of
such a work, and he now reduced it to writing with great rapidity.

In the meantime, in the course of the year 1852, the complexion of
the district court seems to have changed, or the wind was blowing
from another quarter; at all events, Graetz suddenly and with
painful surprise became aware that unceasing intrigues and malicious
denunciations had at last taken effect upon the district governor.
He found himself exposed to serious annoyances and humiliations. No
effort to ward them off promising success, he resigned his position at
Lundenburg.

He felt impelled to return to his native Prussia, and determined to
remove to Berlin with his family. The decision was inspired by the
hope of easily finding in the capital a publisher for his history
of the Talmudic epoch, which was almost ready for the press. He was
furthermore actuated by the consideration, that in the prosecution of
the plan of writing a complete history of the Jews, already taking
shape in his mind, he could not well do without the libraries to be
found only in large cities. In the latter half of September, 1852,
he arrived in Berlin, and was kindly received by Dr. Michael Sachs
and other friends willing to serve him. Through Dr. Sachs he became
acquainted with the excellent Dr. Veit, who undertook the publication
of his work. During the winter _semester_ 1852-53 the directors of
the Berlin congregation invited him to deliver, for a honorarium, a
number of historical lectures before students of Jewish theology,
in a course in which the other speakers were Zunz and Sachs. His
lectures were received with approval.[32] At the close of one of
them, delivered in the middle of February, he was approached by Joseph
Lehmann, railway director and editor of a journal in good standing,
“Magazine for Foreign Literature,”[33] a man justly enjoying high
respect. Acting under the instructions of the Board of Curators of
the Fränkel Bequests in Breslau, Lehmann asked Graetz, whether he
would be disposed to become a member of the faculty of the rabbinical
seminary to be established at Breslau. At the same time he told him,
that negotiations with Dr. Frankel, Chief Rabbi of Dresden, were
pending with regard to the directorship, and that Frankel, among other
conditions of his acceptance, had demanded Graetz’s engagement as
teacher. The Board of Curators had assented cheerfully, and now desired
Graetz’s answer. Graetz made his consent dependent upon Frankel’s
final, favorable decision, which was received soon after. These
preliminaries over, the troublesome discussions on the organization of
the seminary began. In the first place, no model or scheme whatsoever
existed that might serve as a guide in the organization of a rabbinical
academy, with regard to such matters as the time-schedule, the
curriculum, and the choice of subjects. Its creation was pioneer work,
in furtherance of which there was no available experience; yet the
arrangements determined upon under such peculiar circumstances were
to bear within themselves the guarantee of practical and immediate
success. Besides, the will of the founder, Jonas Fränkel, contained
certain clauses, the execution of which, in view of the changed times,
might become a menace to the new institution.[34] The plan, curriculum,
and methods of the future seminary were determined by Zacharias
Frankel alone, who recognized the aim to be pursued with clearness and
practical insight, and so created the basis for the Jewish theology
of the present. His wish to secure a professionally trained man,
whose assistance might be freely drawn upon by himself and the Board
of Curators, was all the more willingly complied with, as from many
considerations an intermediary between the business and the pedagogic
heads seemed not superfluous. Frankel had parted from Dresden with a
heavy heart, and was inclined to seize the first fairly just pretense
to recall his word to the Curators. Thus it came about that Graetz
entered the service of the projected seminary on July 1, 1853, with
the assurance of being employed, under Frankel’s directorship, as one
of the principal teachers,[35] in case the statutes and the plans for
the institution met with governmental approval, which seemed not at all
doubtful.


V.

THE MASTER HISTORIAN.

At the same time Graetz’s book issued from the press under the title:
“History of the Jews from the Downfall of the Jewish State to the
Completion of the Talmud.”[36] This was really the sub-title. The chief
title-page ran as follows: “History of the Jews from the Earliest Times
until the Present Day. Volume IV,”[37] indicating that the author had
conceived more than the first sketchy plan of a complete history of the
Jews, and that the publication of the fourth volume first was merely an
accident in the order of production. Beginning with the account of the
Talmudic time turned out a happy hit. If the two literary events admit
of comparison, Graetz’s first important work has its only counterpart
in the biography of Rashi, with which Zunz, the creator of the science
of Judaism, inaugurated his notable activity. The enthusiasm of Zunz’s
contemporaries is said to have been kindled when Rashi, the eminent
interpreter of Bible and Talmud, familiar to them from their childhood
days, and esteemed an indispensable guide and companion in exegesis,
appeared to them divested of the vaporous halo of supernatural glory,
and translated into the sphere of human reality. Similarly the effect
was electrifying when a flood of brilliant light suddenly scattered the
mist of the dark epoch in which Mishna and Talmud, the authoritative
books of post-Biblical Judaism, were composed, and revealed to sight
life-size the rabbi-authors of those works, whose names and maxims
were matter of common knowledge. The pen of our historian had charmed
them out of the unreality of their existence. They had been habitually
looked upon as abstractions, doctrines incarnate. Not much more had
been known of them than that they had said, asked, and sometimes
wailed. At best, people had been inclined to imagine them a sort of
Kabbalists or Polish itinerant rabbis. Now it was seen that hot blood
and throbbing life pulsated in their veins. Their clear-cut, mental
features with their characteristic excellencies and shortcomings
distinguished one from the other. They stood before the reader in
checkered array, true knights by the grace of intellect, antique
figures, glowing with patriotism, of inflexible will and indestructible
faith. With equal vividness the author depicted the spiritual
atmosphere of the time with its humors, passions, fermentation, and
struggles; the surging and seething of ideas, factions, opinions, and
aims in wild disorder and violent opposition to one another; and the
final evolution of the impelling forces which determine the course of
historical events by the exchange of thrust and counterthrust. Graetz
wanted to make the heart-beat of the period perceptible to the senses.
Therefore, he was little concerned about the technical correctness
of his style and diction. He did not shrink from brusqueness in
words, nor from luridness and voluptuousness in coloring. Without
regard to sensitive feelings he chose the plainest, the most striking
expressions, that he might be understood by all; that no doubt as to
his opinion might suggest itself; that personages and events might
appear upon the canvas in a clear light and in the proper position, as
they were mirrored in his mind.

The book naturally aroused a great sensation upon its appearance. It
at once created an audience for itself with which it found a rich
measure of favor and applause. On the other hand, most of the author’s
scholarly colleagues at first reserved their opinions. They were taken
aback by the new data, which--as, for instance, the formation of
Christian sects--had been boldly pressed into service to complete the
picture, and they could not reconcile themselves to the description
of ancient conditions by means of modern catchwords and turns of
expression peculiar to the lighter forms of literature. For example,
Graetz characterizes Nachum of Gimso, in whose life mishap after mishap
redounded to his benefit, as the Candide[38] of the Tanaitic world of
legend. He seeks to reconstruct the details of the Bar-Cochba revolt,
the chapter on which is one of the most beautiful and touching in his
“History,” from single names and widely scattered debris. He goes so
far as to speak of two lines of defense, the Esdraelon line and the
Tur-Malka line.[39] He charges the eminent teacher Judah ha-Nassi with
irritability and sensitiveness.[40] Relying on Talmudic accounts, he
refuses to credit the Romans with a civilizing mission in Asia, and
describes their influence in Western Asia in particular as destructive
of culture and detrimental to morality. Such features of the work
confounded the critics and judges. They did not venture to decide
whether the boldness of genial originality was asserting itself, or
only the uncouthness of fantastic sensationalism, whose tinsel would
not stand the test of time. Moreover, the two religious parties looked
askance and with dissatisfaction at a book written to serve the truth
only and not available for any sort of propaganda. Loud and public
quarrel between them had ceased in the face of the world-stirring
events of 1848 and their consequences, but they were as sharply divided
as ever. The adherents of the reform party reproached the author
with having glorified the Talmud and its teachers, and with having
omitted to touch in “a single word”[41] upon the sorest spot, “the
petrifaction and ossification of Judaism” brought about by the code and
its exponents. The rigidly orthodox, on the other hand, were incensed
at the criticism, unwarranted in their eyes, to which he subjected the
bearers of tradition and at his effort to prove the body of traditional
doctrine the product of historical processes.[42]

But no voice dissented from the opinion, that in Graetz Jewish science
had gained an eminent promoter with astonishing scholarship at his
disposal. His qualifications and achievements were too extraordinary
to be belittled on account of the unavoidable errors that had slipped
into his history. It could not be denied, that research had received
a decided impetus, and that the sum of historical knowledge had been
considerably increased by Graetz’s results, which he had obtained
by his mastery over the two Talmuds and the Midrash literature; by
his close acquaintance with patristic works; by his effective way of
bringing these two widely separated literary spheres close to each
other, permitting the one to shed light on the other, and thus clearing
up critical points; by his happy gift first of discerning, in spite
of the rectification they frequently stood in need of, that certain
data scattered over various by-paths of literature were complementary,
and then of combining them with each other; and by his acuteness in
detecting with unerring glance, animating with spirit, and applying to
good purpose, long disused geographical names and obsolete terms lying
forgotten in some dark corner and buried under debris.[43] In view of
the fact that it required rare courage to venture upon the elaboration
of one of the obscurest and most difficult portions of Jewish history,
thoroughly neglected at that time in the way of special research and
monographs, even his opponents could “not help confessing that on
the whole he had fulfilled his task satisfactorily.”[44] There was
evidence, to be sure, of still higher courage in Graetz’s announcement,
made without fear or diffidence, on the title-page and in the preface
of his book, designated as the fourth volume, that he intended to
publish a complete history of the Jews, written in the same spirit of
critical research and in the same style. The promise gave occasion for
ironical insinuations. How could a single individual hope to accomplish
so great an undertaking? Was Graetz endowed with the creative, plastic
power of the genuine historian? Or, perhaps he expected to obtain the
laurels of the historian on credit!

On the whole, circumstances shaped themselves in a way favorable to
him, and facilitated the execution of his bold undertaking. It should
not be imagined that a community, or--still more extravagant idea--a
Mæcenas offered to furnish him with the means indispensable for the
accomplishment of a task such as he had set himself. Brilliant as his
achievement was, how much greater it might have been, if he, with his
genius for work, had been put in a position to examine and use at his
leisure the manuscript treasures of the various European libraries! Up
to the present day such good fortune has not befallen Jewish science.
It seems as though the Jewish race, endowed with an understanding
heart and an open hand for humane interests in general, has not yet
awakened to a full recognition of the debt of honor it owes its own
past. Graetz, however, was well content to be relieved of the irksome
care for his daily bread by the ratification, on April 10, 1854, on
the part of the Prussian government, of the statutes, the plan, and
the teaching staff of the Rabbinical Seminary. He returned to Breslau,
where his literary star had first risen, and where he had once tried
vainly to establish himself permanently. Thenceforth he remained there
in the congenial position of a regularly appointed teacher at the first
Jewish theologic institution, which was inaugurated, with Z. Frankel as
director, on August 10, 1854, under the name of “The Jewish Theological
Seminary founded by Fränkel.”[45]

It must be looked upon as providential that the task of first
impressing the modern spirit upon the theologic training for the
rabbinical office fell to the share of men of such eminent distinction
as Frankel, the director of the new institution, and Graetz and Jacob
Bernays, its regular teachers. The personality of each of the three was
strongly marked. Each one was a _homo trium litterarum_, in the sense
that in subordination to his specialty, he had acquired mastery over
the Hebrew-rabbinic, the classical, and the modern literature. By deep
and earnest thought each had arrived at a conservative view of Judaism.
Of the three, Jacob Bernays,[46] a scholar of far-reaching fame in
classical philology, doubtless possessed greatest ability as a teacher,
which, however, demanded talented pupils for its effective exercise.
Frankel’s forte lay in his tact as an organizer and in his practical
gifts; he exerted wholesome authority over his disciples in religious
as well as scientific matters. Both desired to impress their scientific
bias upon those that came under their influence. Graetz, on the other
hand, heeded the individuality of his pupils, and in his activity as
teacher had in mind especially their stimulation and encouragement.
Frankel was desirous of transferring to the Theological Seminary the
rigid discipline and detailed supervision of an elementary school,[47]
because his dearest object was to turn out thorough Talmudists and
professionally well-equipped rabbis. Bernays aspired to the romantic
splendor of a theologic faculty, and wanted to educate scholarly
theologians. With correct and healthy instinct, Graetz endeavored to
reconcile these opposite aims and identify the Seminary with a middle
course. Although Frankel grasped the rudder with a firm hand, he was
sensible enough to consider prudent counsel and kindly enough to give
scope to the wishes and views of his colleagues. In this way harmony
prevailed among the Seminary teachers, which reacted beneficially upon
the students. As long as he lived, Frankel justly maintained what
officially and morally was the dominant position in the Seminary. The
prosperity of the institution he considered the consummation of his
life-work, and being childless, he regarded his pupils as his children,
and took a truly paternal interest in their fortunes. Next to him
Graetz exercised the most generous hospitality towards the students. He
was ever ready to serve any one of them that needed help and advice.
Especially such as had aroused his interest, or had impressed him
favorably with their ability and character enlisted his sympathy, which
he manifested with all the ardor of his temperament. Like Frankel, he
identified himself completely with the Breslau Seminary. After many
thwarted plans and years of anxious uncertainty, he felt that, at
last, through his position as teacher at the Seminary, his vessel had
floated into deep, navigable waters, that he could venture to ply the
oars with full force, unfurl all the sails, and, favored by wind and
weather and propelled by the buoyant courage peculiar to his sanguine
nature, steer straight for the destination whither impulse drew him. It
was the first time that his official duties coincided with his inner
vocation. Faithful, zealous performance of the service he was engaged
to do promoted the work he had set himself as the goal of his life. In
regular, uninterrupted succession, volume after volume of his “History”
now began to appear in complete realization of his plan.

In 1856 the _third_ volume was published under the title, “History
of the Jews from the Death of Judas Maccabæus to the Downfall of the
Jewish State.”[48] It formed the complement and justification of his
view of the Talmudic epoch, the one with which he had begun as being
the period “least understood in its inner relations.” At the same time
the third volume distinctly bounds the spiritual territory in which the
Jewish history of the diaspora is rooted. For he intended to dispose
of the Jewish history of the diaspora down to the present time before
beginning the account of the Biblical and the early post-Biblical
periods. Therefore, when he published his fifth volume, “History of
the Jews from the Completion of the Talmud (500) to the Beginnings of
Jewish-Spanish Culture (1027),”[49] he had, as he said in the preface,
“got back on the right track.” Now every doubt was bound to vanish;
after many years a genuine historian had arisen unto Judaism.

The historian must not be confounded with the scholar. The chief tasks
of the latter are the critical examination of historical records, the
determining and grouping of facts, the identifying and differentiating
of persons, the demarcation of time and place, and the defining and
demonstrating of the causal relation between events, their succession,
and their interaction. The minute details to which his research happens
to be devoted at any moment are as important in his eyes as great and
comprehensive principles. Style, form, and manner, moreover, are minor
considerations with the scholar; he aims only at accuracy and lucid
presentation adapted to the subject-matter. The demands made upon the
historian are more numerous and more exacting. He must constantly carry
the whole in mind, he must have the ability to mould the historical
material with an artist’s creative power and restore the faded features
of the past by the life-bestowing word. First of all, he must be
equipped with unlimited mastery over the existing material and with
easy and sure grasp of all the phases of the historical process, in
order to be able to estimate every phenomenon duly, according to its
intrinsic value and its external effect, emphasize characteristic and
significant points, and allot to persons and events their proper place
in the historical succession. He cannot, of course, dispense with the
acumen that intuitively arrives at the inwardness of every detail.
For it is needful, not only to determine with critical penetration
the trustworthiness of existing traditions and documents, but also to
discern and demonstrate, as one traces the course of a stream with its
tributaries and branches, the presence of the primal forces at work
under the surface of things, giving them impetus and direction, and
of the factors that impede, strengthen, or divert the action of these
forces. From investigations of this kind the historian should derive
the chief points of view, those which grow naturally and logically out
of the course of events. The true historian must be endowed to a high
degree with a faculty for presaging, amounting almost to divination,
that he may, like a “backward-looking prophet,” overcome the inadequacy
and incompleteness of the material transmitted to him; restore the
defective parts by means of his plastic fancy; and everywhere recognize
as well as bring to the recognition of his readers, that historical
events in their connection are developments from within outward, the
outcome, not of a game of chance, but of the workings of absolute
law. For such results of his research and insight the historian must
then find adequate expression. His presentation of them must serve as
the clear, polished mirror reflecting the play of many-hued, chaotic
details in distinct and simply grouped pictures, and permitting the
peculiarities and characteristics of single persons and events to be
apparent, as the warp and the woof are distinguishable in the finished
fabric. Real life as it throbbed in the happenings of the past must
stand renewed before our eyes, and its fresh, warm breath as it brushes
us must constrain our souls to respond at once to its humors and
passions.

These qualities are the distinction of Graetz. By reason of their
possession and exercise he is a master historian, and his art manifests
itself in each of the twelve comprehensive volumes in which he has
thrown light upon the history of the Jewish race from its early
beginning to the present, a period of more than three thousand years,
with every part of the earth as the scene of its events. But we have
not yet come to the end of Graetz’s accomplishments as an historian.
The lack of special studies in the province of Jewish history made his
attempt to write a history of the Jews appear untimely and the prospect
of successful execution slight. His undertaking seemed to be opposed
not only by well-nigh insuperable inner and outer obstacles, but also
by stubborn prejudices. Graetz heeded nothing of all this. Unaided by
any committee or corporation, simply by virtue of his exuberant genius,
he executed the apparently impossible work. He created the history
of their race for his brethren-in-faith, and awakened in the general
public sympathetic interest in the past of Judaism. With bold hand he
ventured to brush aside the layer of dust and mould encrusting the
darkened portraits of the past, and restore freshness and color to the
faded, pale contours and forms.

The most important particulars upon which the value and influence of
his work depend deserve analysis.

Above all, Graetz, though he did not create it, was the first to define
and occupy the point of view from which the historical development
of Judaism must be judged. He cleared the whole historical field,
so as to be able to examine the various phases of this development
with ease and accuracy. As an historian, Graetz had had but a single
predecessor[50] who must be taken into account, Isaac Marcus Jost. In
1820, the latter began to publish a “History of the Israelites from
the Time of the Maccabees.”[51] Nine years later nine volumes had
appeared, bringing the history down to his own time. Under the title,
“Universal History of the Israelitish People,”[52] he published, in
1850, a two-volume epitome with corrections and improvements, covering
in addition the period from Abraham to the Maccabees. He did not prove
himself a real pioneer in either work. Jost was a scholar, but not an
historian; a noble man with admirable qualities, whose varied knowledge
gave a considerable impetus to Jewish historical work, but he had not
been singled out as the proclaimer of an historical revelation to be
spread far and wide in joyful, vigorous utterance. In view of the fact,
however, that no monographs on special phases of the subject existed
at his time, Jost’s achievement cannot be sufficiently admired. He
sought out and arranged the more or less obvious, but widely scattered
data, appraising their value and assigning to each its due place.
He thus produced a manual for the chaos of confusing details and
facts. In respect to manner, his presentation of the subject makes
the impression of an herbarium. His work consists of a collection
of persons and events, heaped up without reference to their inner
relations and classified only according to superficial and accidental
marks of resemblance. His speculations are prosy, and do not touch the
essence of their subject. His style is dry, diffuse, and monotonous,
destitute of fire and force, with nothing to indicate that the author
had a lively realization of the past. An admirer of the Roman system
and impregnated with Christian ideas, he was unconsciously oppressed
by the fear that he was not abreast of the times, and dreaded the
charge of partiality if he gave due credit to Judaism and Rabbinism.
This accounts for his misrepresentation of the Pharisees and their
successors, the Rabbis, and for his false, almost caricature-like
treatment of the Talmud and the literature depending upon it. He felt
that the consideration of Judaism from the point of view of history at
once becomes a glorification thereof, and under no circumstances did he
care to incur the imputation of being its apologist.[53]

Graetz entertained no such scruples. In the formation of his opinions
fear or timidity had no part; they did not curtail the expression
of his judgment regardless of the feelings of friend or foe. He was
the first to divest himself wholly of Christian prejudices in the
consideration of the Jewish past; the first to try to explain the
development of Judaism on inherent principles, as all similar phenomena
are explained. He was thus able to distribute light and shade justly,
without any attempt to gloss or slur facts. Graetz had been in Berlin
but a short time when he met Zunz at the house of Michael Sachs. The
two visitors had not yet made each other’s personal acquaintance. The
host presented Graetz, adding in praise of him, that he was about to
publish a Jewish history. “Another history of the Jews?” Zunz asked
pointedly. “Another history,” was Graetz’s retort, “but this time
a _Jewish_ history.”[54] And, in truth, Graetz was the first to
vindicate the fair claims of Jewish history; he did pioneer work in
establishing the validity of the Jewish point of view. Christianity
considers the belief in the Messiahship of the Son of God and in
the miracles reported in connection with his birth and death the
completion and fulfillment of the Law of Moses and of the prophetical
promises. Only what springs from this dogma can rise to a proper
conception of God, to the heights of true morality, and is capable of
promoting the advancement of civilization. Accordingly, having begotten
Christianity, Judaism fulfilled its religious mission, and the loss
of Jewish national independence occurring almost simultaneously with
the rise of Christianity, its spiritual importance was extinguished
and its historical progress arrested. Its development since then, it
is maintained, bears the marks of decrepitude and degeneration--is
nothing more than idolatry of the _Torah_ and religious formalism.
To this consciously or unconsciously biased view Graetz wished to
oppose a faithful presentation of facts, free from partiality,
personal predilections, or specious coloring. He held, that an
objective, unprejudiced account sufficed to demonstrate the vitality
of Judaism, asserting itself again and again in the midst of distress
and persecution; continuing to develop its monotheistic doctrines and
its ethical system undisturbed by the loss of a national background,
and borne onward only by virtue of its spirituality and ideality;
producing thinkers, poets, and even statesmen despite untold suffering;
and contributing zealously to the solution of the problems of human
civilization, uprooted and dispersed though its adherents were. This
point of view Graetz assumed energetically and applied consistently in
the elaboration of Jewish history, with the result that we owe to him
our conscious acquaintance with the various aspects of Judaism in all
their abundance and suggestiveness.

Besides making new sources available, Graetz gained fresh points
of view and surprising information from the old ones. He was
particularly successful in restoring to Jewish accounts that had
become hazy or sounded incredible a freshly colored background and
life-like reality, or at least in laying bare their kernel of fact,
by the discovery of hardly recognizable parallel passages and proofs
in non-Jewish authors. He sought everywhere, and was more or less
successful in finding and inserting in their place, connecting links
and complementary pieces. When he approached his bold undertaking
with the courage inspired by enthusiasm, Jewish history was a vast
field of debris, over which volcanic events had poured out their
lava, and the centuries had scattered their dust. Here and there a
gigantic ruin, some literary production, towered in solitude over the
wide stretches of the pathless, dismal waste, the only guide-posts to
direct the wanderer through the labyrinth of ruins and underbrush.
The great creators of Jewish science, to be sure, Zunz and Rapoport,
whose extraordinary deserts are not yet duly appreciated by their
brethren-in-faith, had already given the world their excellent works of
fundamental importance; yet the great tracts explored and made arable
by them seemed no more than smaller or larger islands in a vast sea
of rubbish. They did not afford vantage-ground from which the whole
could be overlooked. Rarely leaving the domain of literary history,
these scholars did not lead up to the positions that dominated the
field. In this respect particularly Graetz proved himself a pioneer.
Whatever epoch he may be considering, and however much he may seem to
be absorbed in details, he never takes his eye from the grand whole.
His purpose always is to clear a path through the rank underbrush,
or to trace on the exposed surfaces of shattered remains the lines
and veins that indicate the essential character and the trend of the
historical process. He was endowed with a number of qualities that
enabled him to introduce light, order, system, and classification into
the chaos of the historical material at his disposal. With rare energy
he plunged into the consideration of vast systems of thought, and
almost without an effort assimilated and grouped them. In his learned
notes he opposes varying accounts, proofs, and hints to one another,
and with an adroit hand and a perspicacious mind grasps the main idea
firmly and unravels the knotted thread. Finally, fear of error did not
deter him from taking a decided stand towards events and persons and
giving frank and vigorous expression to his views upon them. Let the
reader examine the essays that serve as introductions to certain parts
of his work, as, for instance, those in the fourth, fifth, and seventh
volumes, and he will appreciate the unerring eye that espies and never
loses from sight the motive ideas and the dominating points of view,
which not merely are sketched in a general, comprehensive way, but are
applied in detail. His “History” affords numerous illustrations of the
way in which Graetz promoted and enriched historical research. For
example, Saadiah Gaon had been discovered, as it were, by Rapoport,
and Geiger had made valuable contributions to our knowledge of him,
but the chapter about him in the “History”[55] first fully revealed
his epoch-making importance and his rich literary activity. Graetz was
the first to recognize and appreciate the notable influence exerted by
Chasdaï Crescas[56] upon philosophy and social conditions. The great
Disputation of Tortosa, of which we have a trustworthy Jewish account,
was nevertheless not understood in its historical bearing and political
effect until Graetz ingeniously confronted the Jewish source with
Christian reports.[57] The cloud of legend enveloping the enthusiasts
David Reubeni and Solomon Molcho,[58] whom students were inclined to
regard as no more than hallucinations or phantasmagoria, he resolved
into the reality of their fantastic adventures. In short, coupled with
rare sagacity in perceiving the true meaning of a mutilated text and
emending it accordingly, he had a remarkable instinct for piercing to
the reality of facts, no matter how grotesque they might appear.

Such endowments qualified Graetz to translate the Talmudic method of
thought and expression into the terms of modern feelings and views,
and give a model illustration of the critical examination of the
literature of Talmudic times and its use as a valuable historical
source. Non-Jewish scholars and sciolists were quick to brand the
apparently unintelligible or the curious passages abounding in rabbinic
literature as evidences of Talmudic ignorance or rabbinic folly, and
the Jews of the emancipation period, if they did not subscribe to
this verdict, at least hesitated whether or not to endorse it. Graetz
showed plainly that precisely the text of the historical narratives had
become wretchedly corrupted and would have to be restored. Besides,
he called attention to various features of the historical tradition
as told by the rabbis. Either they were treated pragmatically, with
their causes and results, or their presentation was intentionally
biased, or layers of legend had deposited themselves about the kernel
of fact, which awaited release from its envelopes. Over and above
all this, he urged that the concrete, figurative expressions of the
rabbis, derived from a sphere of thought foreign to us, must be
translated into modern concepts. For instance, in an ancient rabbinic
chronicle, the _Seder olam rabba_, it is reported that the war of
Vespasian is separated from that of Titus by an interval of twenty-two
years. Aside from the consideration that it is neither historical
nor justifiable to distinguish between a war of Vespasian and a war
of Titus, it is impossible to give a satisfactory explanation of the
period of twenty-two years. The same incomprehensible distinction
between Vespasian’s and Titus’ war occurs in the Mishna at the end of
the tractate _Sota_. Graetz changed a single letter, ט {Hebrew: tet}
into ק {Hebrew: kof}, and instead of טיטוס {Hebrew: Titus} (Titus), he
reads קיטוס {Hebrew: Kitus} (Kitus), _i. e._ Quietus. In this way he
discovered a rebellion in Palestine against Lucius Quietus. We know
none of its details, but its occurrence is beyond the peradventure
of a doubt. The conjecture, as simple as it is ingenious, has been
corroborated by a manuscript reading.[59] A narrative in tractate
_Sabbath_ 17_a_ is no less curious: “A sword was thrust into the
academy, with the words: Whoever desires may go in, but none may
come out,” etc. Graetz explains the enigma thus: in the first year
of the rebellion against Nero a terrorist synod was dominated by the
Shammaites.[60] In general, he considered the opposition between the
schools of Hillel and Shammai not merely theoretic but also political,
and he identified the rabid Zealots with extreme Shammaites.

    “Graetz is deserving of great praise for having established this
    fact [the existence of the terrorist synod], until then not
    sufficiently appreciated. In itself it is an extremely important
    result, and its value is heightened by reason of the data growing
    out of it.... At all events, Herr Graetz has won a second
    distinction of equally great importance by his use of the _Megilla
    Taanith_ as a historical source and his verification of its
    statements, even though many remain dubious.”

This is the opinion of the historian[61] Jost, surely a competent judge
in such matters.

Where so much light is radiated, there cannot fail to be some shadows.
Graetz’s admirable qualities have a reverse side. He often permits
subjective views to obtrude themselves too much, and in stating his
hypotheses he is apt to clothe them in terms too positive and incisive,
not heeding that events dovetail into each other; that men yield to
changeful humors and motives, often of a contradictory nature; and
that illogical, even irrational turns of language and thought may
occasionally occur in the texts. It surely is not astonishing to
find inaccuracies, human errors, and misconceptions here and there
in a gigantic work of twelve bulky volumes. Faults and shortcomings
vanish into forgetfulness by the side of the multiplicity of his
results and the grandeur of his achievement. Perspective, life-like
characterization, distinct outline, glowing color--these Jewish history
owes solely to Graetz’s rich fancy. He opened up new problems, created
the historical types, constructed the framework of Jewish history.
But his greatest achievement, one that cannot be rated sufficiently
high, is that of having procured a hearing with all strata of his
coreligionists by means of his charming, easy style. He revived the
consciousness of an illustrious past, glorious in spite of persecution
and degradation, and the belief in a future of spiritual triumph for
Israel. Energetic and ardent as his temperament was, he merged his
being in the past of his race, as it were, giving devoted study to
the most hidden emotions of the national soul. He associated with the
rabbis, philosophers, and poets whose features and forms he draws as
with companions and intimate friends. When storms are imminent in the
course of the history, he is visibly swayed by hope and fear, and
when a catastrophe has overwhelmed his people, he is bowed down with
anguish and grief. The reader sees his suffering, and cannot withhold
passionate sympathy. For instance, he trembles at the thought of
the disgrace and misfortune threatening Israel on account of the
aberrations of the pseudo-Messiah Sabbataï Zevi, and consoles himself
with the brilliant light of Jewish origin irradiating the world through
Spinoza. According to his favorite method of setting men and events
over against each other and permitting them to elucidate each other
by their very opposition, he sharply contrasts the two figures. He
represents both as the product of the Jewish passion for speculation
on the infinite, and shows how in the end both sever their connection
with Judaism; the one, lured on by the will-o’-the-wisp mysticism,
to sink into the abyss of deception and immorality; the other, borne
upward by philosophic thought, to soar to the calm but cold heights
of an ideal sage.[62] His creative, life-dispensing power wafted the
warm, liberating breath of spring over the dull apathy settling like an
icy crust on the soul-life of the Jewish brotherhood. He re-awakened
general interest in the spirit and the history of Judaism. The most
popular writer in the field of Jewish science, he could boast of
success phenomenal for a Jewish author; in a comparatively short
time, his voluminous work, apparently intended for scholars, attained
the distinction of a third, in parts even of a fourth, edition, and
in its English, French, Russian, and, last though not least, Hebrew
translations,[63] it has become the common possession of all the
author’s brethren-in-faith.

The only help extended to Graetz in the prosecution of his
comprehensive plan proceeded from the “Institute for the Promotion of
Israelitish Literature,”[64] founded in 1855 by Dr. Ludwig Philippson,
the most genial and most productive journalist among rabbis. In return
for a modest subscription price several books were issued annually,
among which a volume of Graetz’s “History” usually formed the chief
attraction. Through the “Institute,” a large circulation was secured
for the “History” from the first. The Society in turn was so dependent
upon Graetz’s work for its popularity that when, on account of a
misunderstanding with Philippson, Graetz refused to have the last
(eleventh) volume published by the “Institute,” it could not maintain
itself long.

On the other hand, there was not lack of hostility, jealousy, and
petty annoyances. His work was used everywhere, but not infrequently
without an open acknowledgment of its helpfulness. Especially at first
the faultfinders and finical critics plied their trade vigorously on
his work, as though any Talmudist considered a scholar in his small
circle needed but to dip his pen into ink to write a history superior
to Graetz’s. Even later, when recognition could not be withheld, praise
was given grudgingly, in half-hearted accents. The young theologians
of both parties, of the right and of the left wing, were indefatigable
in picking flaws of all kinds in his details. They did not realize how
effectually they were thus demonstrating his pre-eminence, and failed
to understand that so monumental a work cannot by any possible means
escape blemishes and malformations.

The “History” completed the breach between Graetz and his sometime
teacher, Samson Raphael Hirsch. The latter had left Nikolsburg
to act as the rabbi of a wealthy private congregation in
Frankfort-on-the-Main. Soon after his removal, he began to issue a
monthly journal, _Jeshurun_. In the second and third volumes of the
magazine appeared a passionate, violent review of the two parts of the
“History” then published, in which Hirsch sat in judgment on Graetz’s
heresies. The soreness of the critic is unmistakable. It is doubtful
whether his thrusts were not meant to strike the Jewish Theological
Seminary at Breslau rather than the “History.” Personal attacks usually
left Graetz unmoved, though he was in the habit of repelling them with
caustic brevity. But he never forgave hostility towards the young
institution. Thus the last slender ties that had still bound the two
men to each other were snapped asunder forever. For the rest, active
and joyous as his nature was, he did not trouble himself about his
critics, nor did they thwart the success of his work; its triumph was
complete. On the other hand, he was frankly proud of the distinction
conferred upon him by the Prussian government in making him, in
December, 1869, honorary professor of the Breslau University. This
governmental recognition went far towards compensating him for the lack
of regular professional advancement in his academic career, the sore
point in his life, at which spiteful antagonists delighted to aim their
shafts.

With the eleventh volume, published in 1870, he brought the history of
the Jews since the Maccabean struggle down to the present time (1848);
nine volumes had appeared in uninterrupted succession. To complete
and crown the work it was necessary to give an account of ancient
Jewish history covering the Biblical and three centuries and a half of
post-Biblical times. Graetz devoted scrupulous care to this portion
of his work. He considered its importance paramount, and regarded the
treatment of the early epochs as a most difficult task, requiring
for its adequate performance exegetical studies and original text
criticism. Graetz thought himself particularly qualified and endowed
for such work; it had always been his favorite pursuit. But before
attacking the history of Israel and ancient Judæa, he determined to
satisfy his longing to behold the Holy Land with his bodily eye, as he
had often sought to picture it to his mental eye. With equal force his
artistic impulse drew him to Palestine. He hoped to derive local color
and inspiration for the description of hoary events from the sight of
consecrated places, which had been their scenes and their witnesses.
As early as 1865, he had formed the plan of a journey to Palestine,
the execution of which became possible only in March, 1872, when two
friends joined him. Limited to his private resources and hampered by
consideration for his traveling companions, he was not able to make
his trip thoroughly satisfactory from a scientific point of view.
After all he obtained what he had journeyed abroad to find; he brought
back impressions, enthusiasm, inspiration. In quick succession the
two, or more accurately, three[65] parts of his work treating of the
Biblical and early post-Biblical time appeared between 1874 and 1876,
and his historical work was complete according to the plan he had
sketched for himself. It was the brilliant fulfillment of the promise
“to furnish a history of the Jews from the most ancient times to the
present day elaborated from the original sources,” which he had made
in 1854, when he began his career as an historian with the publication
of the fourth volume of his “History.” Grand in conception, clear and
perspicuous in execution, riveting attention by its charming style, the
work has not failed to find entrance into the hearts of the author’s
brethren-in-faith. It remains unsurpassed in the present, and the
future historian will realize that he cannot deviate from the great
lines laid down in it. The little blemishes and errors of various kinds
that disfigure all human creations do not affect the impression made by
the work as a whole. The discovery of hidden sources, now unsuspected,
may necessitate additions and changes in details, but the great points
of view, the pragmatic conception, the underlying thoughts, as he
deduces them from the intricate complexity of Jewish history, will
never be superseded. Graetz’s “History of the Jews,” voluminous though
it is, will forever remain an integral part of Jewish literature.


VI.

THE EXEGETE.

The first two, or rather three, parts of the “History” form the
transition to Graetz’s exegetical studies. In their excellencies as
well as in their shortcomings they betray all the characteristics of
his work in Bible exposition. Obviously Graetz had only awaited the
completion of the history of Judaism from the end of the Maccabean
struggle to the present time to enter, with all the vigor of his
intellect, upon the _second phase of his activity as a writer_, that
devoted to Bible exegesis and textual criticism. Exegetical studies,
no less than historical research, were a distinct life-aim with him.
They were begun in 1871, and continued without interruption until
unexpected death snatched the pen from his hand. To be accurate, the
second phase of his literary activity should be dated from 1869. In
that year Zacharias Frankel, wishing to devote all his energy to his
work on the so-called Jerusalem Talmud, transferred the _Monatsschrift_
to Graetz. He marked the beginning of his editorial management with
an essay on “The Ebionites in the Old Testament,”[66] the first of a
series in Old Testament exposition and Hebrew philology. In part, they
may be regarded as monographs in preparation for his history of the
Biblical times. The series was continued uninterruptedly, year after
year, until 1887, when Graetz discontinued the publication of the
_Monatsschrift_.

In view of the narrow compass of Biblical literature, comprising the
whole residue of ancient Israelitish writings and therefore the whole
treasury of the Hebrew language at our disposal, even those expounders
that cling to the word and to tradition with slavish faithfulness are
granted wide scope for individual judgments and subjective hypotheses,
depending for their acceptance not upon precise proof, but upon the
inquirer’s will and disposition. It is natural, then, that Graetz
with his strongly developed subjectivity, his delicately attuned ear,
and his gift of bold conjecture, should have reached conclusions
sharply contrasting with all accepted views and incapable of logical,
scientific demonstration. His results and explanations, the outcome
of a passionate desire for clearness and consistency, are often of
startling originality. All sorts of new questions were set on foot by
him, many fruitful suggestions may be traced to him, and he bore many
a trophy from the battlefields of textual criticism. The boldness of
his exegesis is illustrated by his treatment of the two Hagiographic
books, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, which, published in quick
succession in 1871, introduced him to the world as an exegete. He
attributes the composition of _Koheleth_ (or the Preacher, translation
and critical commentary)[67] to the reign of Herod, and places the
author of _Shir ha-Shirim_ (or the Song of Songs, translation and
critical commentary)[68] in the Macedonian-Syrian time. Though the
hypotheses concerning the time of the composition of the two books
and many other propositions are curious, and overwhelm the reader
by their pronounced deviation from all opinions hitherto advanced;
still it must be confessed, that the conjecture with regard to the
origin of Ecclesiastes is engaging in the extreme, and it cannot
be denied, that the translations are good and in unexceptionable
taste, that the remarks and references are instructive, and that the
older versions were used with care and attention. In the commentary
on Ecclesiastes, decidedly more valuable than that on the Song of
Songs, he offers besides interesting data with regard to the Greek
translation. Moreover, Graetz frequently adduced analogies from the
Mishna and the Talmud, made exhaustive use of whatever was advantageous
for textual criticism in the Talmudic literature, and thus brought
to light new material in such a way as to make it available for the
“higher criticism.” This, in fact, constitutes his real and permanent
distinction as an exegete.

His expositions were guided by two chief assumptions, both rooted in
the depths of his character. He held that in every Biblical work an
historical background can be discerned with more or less ease; that
even generalizations and reflections cannot conceal their connection
with special facts, which must be deduced and determined. Again, he
was of the opinion, that a contradiction or obscurity in a Biblical
passage cannot be resolved by a twisting of words and phrases or by
far-fetched analogies in remote though related idioms. They were
evidence to him that the text had come to grief, and that the original
text could be restored only by a conjecture, which might be disengaged
from the context, or patterned on a Talmudic parallel, or deduced from
older translations. He did not doubt that catastrophes, the centuries,
and perhaps also the incompetence of copyists, had mutilated the
original Bible text, and wrenched it out of shape, and he thought that
even later, when it had been fixed with scrupulous care, all sorts of
errors might have crept in.

According to these principles Graetz treated the Psalms. In 1881
he published a German translation of them, and in 1882-83 followed
a “Critical Commentary to the Psalms with Text and Translation.
2 vols.”[69] The commentary is designed on a generous scale, and
gives abundant evidences of ripe scholarship. But by the side of its
excellent features it contains many hazardous guesses and vague,
even though ingenious hypotheses. Justus Olshausen, an Orientalist
highly esteemed on account of his learning and his sobriety, who was
occupied with the critical examination of the Old Testament text for
philological purposes, says the following about the commentary on the
Psalms in a letter to the author:[70]

    “On account of its boldness your commentary will certainly arouse
    serious objections with the larger number of exegetes, themselves
    overbold in exegesis, but weak in criticism. As for me, you know
    that I am not affrighted by boldness in criticism when coupled with
    knowledge of the language and the subject-matter, with acumen,
    and, above all, with sound common sense. Doubtless, I shall not
    be able to agree with you in every case in which, overconfident
    perhaps, you may believe that you have hit upon the correct
    solution of a difficulty. That, however, does not prevent me from
    recognizing that your book, by reason of its abundance of excellent
    emendations, is a valuable addition to exegetical literature.”

Graetz undoubtedly hit upon many a happy guess, and applause was not
lacking, but in general his results met with opposition so decided
that we may surely expect a later generation to review the judgment
of our time and separate the chaff from the wheat. Not in the least
intimidated by the adverse criticism upon his exegetical methods, he
was resolved to remove the difficulties attaching to the Old Testament
language by all the means at his command. He thought himself justified
in his confidence in himself in matters of textual criticism, upon
which chiefly he concentrated his explanations in the course of
time. He grew more and more unrestrained in his efforts to restore
approximately the original text of the Bible by means of audacious
conjectures, which his sympathetic mind was never weary of devising. In
other fields he was always careful to keep in connection and in touch
with tradition; destructive tendencies were not at all characteristic
of him. But in his textual criticism he permitted his zeal to run away
with him, until he lost the solid ground of the Bible text and of
reality from under his feet. His acumen displayed and dissipated itself
chiefly in the blinding pyrotechnics of rocket-like emendations. Of
this character are his exegetical studies on the prophet Jeremiah,[71]
on the Proverbs of Solomon,[72] and his fine essay on Bible
exegesis.[73]

This kind of work was so attractive to him, that in the latter years
of his life he set about the execution of a long-cherished and widely
comprehensive plan for the critical examination and the emendation of
the text of the whole Bible. The realization of this plan was to be the
consummation and crown of his life’s labors. But he was not destined to
celebrate such unquestioned and brilliant successes in this field as
in that of history, where he had earned and received the laurels due a
pioneer. Yet, we must be careful not to underrate his exegetical and
critical achievements as to their intrinsic value and their influence.
His exegetical works and essays are replete with new points of view and
interesting suggestions. Many a germ that has since proved fruitful
can be traced to them, and they have had a lasting effect upon the
development of Bible exegesis. His works of this class, original and
important enough to fill a life of scholarly research, would suffice to
secure to their author an honorable name and a prominent place in the
history of Jewish science.


VII.

LAST YEARS.

From year to year Graetz received an increasing number of proofs of
the recognition and veneration paid him by a large circle of readers
and admirers and a growing band of friends and aspiring disciples.
But the enjoyment of his success was not to be unalloyed. In 1879 the
feeling against Jews in Germany, always on the point of breaking out,
was set free in the shape of an anti-Semitic movement, to serve as an
unfailing instrument for political agitation. Heinrich von Treitschke,
an historian characterized by patriotic ardor rather than scrupulous
adherence to word and truth, a writer with affecting, oratorical
pathos and a brilliant style at his command, soon assumed the rôle of
challenger in the fray. He was scandalized by the boasting spirit
which, he alleged, was in the ascendant in Jewish circles, and was
to be regarded as a menace to the German empire. He illustrated his
strictures by references to Graetz, who, he maintained, made use of
intemperate language in his polemics against Christianity, and in his
“History” had been guilty of applying disrespectful expressions to
the German nation.[74] Graetz replied, and Treitschke in turn made
him the subject of an article,[75] in which he tried to prove his
allegations. He quoted passages from the “History,” tearing them from
their context, and resorted to all sorts of sophistry. The leaders
of the intelligent portion of Berlin Jewry probably did not realize
the gravity of the situation. At all events, they were far from
having a clear idea of the means necessary for stemming the rapidly
swelling tide. They were disinclined, however, to suffer Treitschke’s
attacks to pass unrepulsed, for they had reason to suppose them to
be more than the venomous utterances of a professor. Thereupon H. B.
Oppenheim, a well-known politician and writer on political economy,
and highly esteemed for his disinterested and noble character, adopted
the mistaken course of sacrificing Graetz to Treitschke’s aggressive
charges without examining them. Confessedly he had not read Graetz’s
works, yet he disposed of their author summarily as “a man without
tact and fanatically one-sided, whose great learning has been rendered
nugatory by the absurdity of his practical deductions.”[76] This
peculiar defense of Judaism, to be sure, did not excite distressful
feeling in any one, but later events prove it to have been symptomatic
of the opinions and the mental constitution of the intellectual
notabilities of the Berlin Jewish community.

A Berlin Jew had been put at the head of the “Union of German
Israelitish Congregations,”[77] when its headquarters had been moved
from Leipsic to Berlin. Active and clever in practical affairs, he
invested the “Union” with dignity, and stirred it up to work and
enterprise. With his help all sorts of useful undertakings were
executed; among them, in 1885, a plan to promote the science of
Judaism, hitherto wholly neglected, along definite lines. A commission
was to be appointed to make means and sources for research into the
history of the Jews of Germany available under the protection of the
“Union.” The project was hailed with satisfaction by Jewish scholars.
It was hoped that it would eventually furnish the center from which
other scientific endeavors might radiate. All hopes of this kind were
early doomed to grievous disappointment. The leaders of the “Union”
lacked perception of the needs of the situation; they permitted an
ambitious young scholar of the Jewish faith, an “extraordinary”
professor at the University of Berlin, to become the governing spirit.
He was familiar with the mediæval government offices, and did valiant
service in the study of documents. But he was destitute of the most
elementary knowledge of Hebrew, and therefore could have no conception
of the peculiar difficulties the writer of Jewish history has to
grapple with. Besides, he had so completely identified himself with his
specialty and with the academic world of professors that a realizing
sense of the condition and needs of German Judaism was out of the
question. Under these circumstances serious mistakes were inevitable.
In the first place Graetz was disregarded, completely ignored, when
the commission which was to organize and superintend the historical
investigations was made up. The arbitrary exclusion of the only or, at
all events, the most eminent historian the Jews can boast of must be
considered a gross offense against good manners. What is more, the
good work was thereby deprived of the best and most valuable guarantee
of success. Personal animosity may have contributed to bring about the
deplorable action, but that does not alter the fact that Graetz was
most familiar with the field of work to be cultivated. None recognized
more clearly than he the desiderata[78] that occupied the attention
and guided the efforts of the scholars interested in Jewish history at
the time. Besides, he was an indefatigable, impulsive worker, and his
name was one to conjure with. The slight put upon Graetz called forth
decided ill-humor among his numerous friends and disciples, a large
portion of whom were the rabbinical heads of respected congregations.
Their irritation could not long remain without tangible effect.
Moreover, though the commission was composed of highly esteemed
scholars, among them Christians who were master historians of the
first rank, there was not one member who had attained to more than
respectable dilettanteism in his acquaintance with Jewish literature,
a thorough knowledge of which was indispensable for the proper
realization of the plan, and only one member who had given evidence
of his special interest in Jewish history by a work of note. This
exception was Professor Stobbe, a humane Christian scholar and eminent
jurist, who has described the historico-legal status of the German Jews
in “The Jews in Germany during the Middle Ages,”[79] a book that has
not yet been superseded. The absence of Jewish scholars, specifically
of Jewish historians, awakened distrust in the ability of the
commission. In fact, its achievements, as displayed in the “Journal for
the History of the Jews in Germany”[80] and in separate publications,
are far from realizing the expectations awakened by the boastful,
arrogant tone of scientific conceit in which the leaders announced
the undertaking, and are out of all proportion to the expenditures
incurred. The most ambitious production, “Documents on the History of
the Jews, etc.,”[81] is a fragment. Quietly, unnoticed, the experiment
died one day in the year 1892.[82]

The inconsiderate treatment accorded him by the Berlin coterie or other
circles did not cause Graetz much heart-ache, and whatever soreness
it may have produced was completely healed by London, whence he
received the flattering invitation to open the Anglo-Jewish Historical
Exhibition with a lecture. The honorable reception accorded him in
the English capital, the persons whose acquaintance he made, and the
impressions he carried home with him, all this refreshed him, and put
him into a buoyant frame of mind. The visit to England he accounted one
of the happiest and most enjoyable events of his life. The experiences
gathered there strengthened the hope, to which he had often given
expression, that salvation would arise for Judaism out of England and
America.

On October 31, 1887, he celebrated the seventieth anniversary of
his birth. His disciples and friends made it the occasion for an
extraordinary ovation, and from all countries and climes homage
was laid at his feet. An overwhelming number of addresses, gifts,
congratulatory letters, and poems proved that his achievements were in
the mind and his honor in the keeping of the whole body of intelligent
Jews. A particularly gratifying surprise came in the shape of a
diploma announcing that on October 27, 1888, he, the Jew, who had not
dealt leniently with the Spanish nation in his historical writings,
had been elected an honorary member of its section in history by the
Spanish Academy at Madrid.

Until the very last his body and mind retained remarkable elasticity
and vigor; time seemed to pass him by unnoticed. His indestructible
working powers and his literary fertility continued to be
astonishing.[83] Even after concentrating his efforts on exegetical
research, he was a vigilant reader of the monographs in whatever
civilized language, bearing, however remotely, on problems of the
science of Judaism. He gave the conclusions reached in them a critical
examination, and either noted them for the enrichment and correction of
a new edition of his “History,” or refuted them in special articles,
if they seemed sufficiently important. For, besides his historical and
exegetical works, in number and bulk an imposing array, he published
numberless essays and _Programmschriften_ on the most various subjects,
many of them real gems, models of clear writing and deep scholarship.
In some of them daring theories are advanced, as, for instance, the
one which he would never abandon, that the Massora originated with
the Karaites, from whose literary works the Rabbanites derived it.
The conjecture was received with a great display of indignation, but
its refutation was not equally emphatic, and it cannot be denied that
certain evidences may be interpreted in its favor.

Among his _Programmschriften_ the following deserve to be singled out:
“Visigothic Legislation with Regard to the Jews,”[84] in the annual
report of the Jewish Theological Seminary for 1858; “Frank and the
Frankists,”[85] in that for 1868; and “The Kingdom of Mesene and its
Jewish Population,”[86] in that for 1879. In the _Monatsschrift für
Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums_, of which, as mentioned
above, he was the editor from 1869, the greater part of the articles
issued from his pen. There is but one way of accounting for his
numerous achievements: he understood to perfection the art of utilizing
every moment.

Five o’clock in the morning found Graetz at his desk. Until nine he
gave uninterrupted attention to his literary work. After that hour he
was in the habit of devoting himself to his lectures. He carried on
an extensive correspondence, found leisure for all sorts of things,
and was fond of the innocent gayeties of social life. He retired late,
and in general needed but little sleep. His sound, almost invincible
nervous system was supplemented by a constitution calculated to supply
his extraordinary capacity for work with a proper physical basis. He
was of average height, and habitually bent forward his lean and spare,
but sinewy, muscular figure, built upon a strong bony frame. His face
was somewhat marred by pock-marks, but his head made a massive, unusual
impression. Soft, chestnut-brown, later gray hair, in fair though
not clustering abundance, crowned his board-like, square forehead.
His sharp, observant eyes, grayish-brown in color, betokened the
owner’s enjoyment of life, and a somewhat large, prominent nose with
its delicate nostrils, quivering like “feelers,” gave his long, oval,
bony face its characteristic searching expression. Sometimes sadness
played about his lips, but usually they were curled by mockery, irony,
and defiance, as though sarcastic words might dart out at any moment.
In point of fact, sharp satire occasionally spiced his conversation,
which, as a rule, however, was far from fulfilling the expectations
aroused by his writings. In his younger years happy moments found
him full of jokes and pranks for the delectation of his domestic
circle, and at all times he displayed unquenchable zest for life and
cheerful optimism. Love of family was a dominant trait in him. Towards
his wife his bearing was always tender and attentive, as though the
honeymoon had not passed; towards his daughter it was marked by the
perfection of gallantry; towards his sons he exercised forbearance and
self-sacrificing devotion, and his aged father he met with the filial
respect of Talmudic times. He enjoyed and cultivated intercourse with
friends. For a friend, for any person or cause that had enlisted his
sympathy, he was ready to pledge himself. Deeply moved by the sad
conditions prevalent in Palestine, he had brought thence a plan for
the education of Jewish orphans in Jerusalem. He and his traveling
companions founded a society, and he exerted himself to secure a
fund, small though it might be, for the promotion of its object. For
this purpose he took journey after journey, delivered lectures, at
first much against his inclination, in many cities, and even accepted
an invitation to go to Galicia, where he was received with joyful
demonstrations and overwhelmed with flattering homage. Encouraged by
such successes, he persisted, until he had put the society upon a
modest but secure basis, which enables it to continue its good work to
this day.

Robust and vigorous as he felt himself, he undertook in his old age
a work in which he meant to sum up his Bible studies of a critical
and exegetical character. He counted, not upon the sympathy of his
contemporaries, but upon the appreciation of a late posterity. All
subordinate occupations were dropped. In 1888 he even discontinued
the publication of the _Monatsschrift_, none of his pupils being able
then to assume the editorial management. In order to give a clear,
comprehensive review of the results of his Biblical text studies, he
proposed to print the Hebrew Bible in its entirety with emendations
and short notes justifying them. In 1891 all preparatory work was
completed, and the printing was begun. How he cherished this life-work
of his is evident from the prospectus. Contrary to his custom, he
addresses himself to his friends, and requests them to assist him in
his venture.

    “At the end of my life,” he says in the prospectus, “I have
    undertaken the laborious task of _summarizing_ the emendations
    of the text of the Holy Scriptures, the admissibility and
    justification of which no less than the necessity for which the
    accompanying prospectus sets forth.... I beg you to aid my efforts
    ... in order that the pecuniary risk incurred may not too far
    transcend my means.”

This prospectus appeared in July, 1891, and it was the last word that
issued from the author’s untiring pen for publication.

Although he was escaping the infirmities and ailments of the old,
and considered himself perfectly well, and certainly felt vigorous,
age had crept upon him insidiously. The action of his heart was so
much impaired that his physicians became anxious about his condition.
According to his annual custom he went to Carlsbad for the cure
of minor indispositions. Thence he had planned to go to Munich on
a few days’ visit to his oldest son, who occupied the position of
“extraordinary” professor of physics at the University there, and
then spend some time resting at Reichenhall with his son’s family.
Shortly before the time set for his departure from Carlsbad, where he
had not taken care of himself, he had a fainting spell of so serious
a nature that the physician urged Mrs. Graetz to return to Breslau
without delay. He considered the precaution exaggerated, and when he
finally yielded, he refused to forego the trip to Munich. There, at
his son’s house, he suffered, in the night between the sixth and the
seventh of September, a violent attack of colic. Under the influence of
opium administered by a physician the pain passed away, and he dropped
to sleep. When his wife arose early in the morning to observe his
condition, she found him lying in bed lifeless. His heart had ceased
to act, and so a life replete with work and rich in attainment had
too soon come to an end. His remains were transported to Breslau, and
three days later, in the presence of a numerous gathering of his pupils
and friends and amid demonstrations of general sympathy, they were
consigned to the grave in the Jewish cemetery.

His wife, whose days are devoted to the memory of her celebrated
husband, considered it incumbent upon her to publish his last work,
the manuscript of which was all but complete, but of which only a few
sheets had issued from the press at the time of Graetz’s death. The
editor is Professor W. Bacher of Buda-Pesth, one of Graetz’s disciples,
who has won honorable repute by his editions and his studies in the
history of Hebrew grammar and exegesis. Besides the editorial work
proper, he has been forced to supply from memoranda a considerable
piece in the Prophets, which by some mischance had gone astray. On the
whole, this critical Bible edition, by which the departed author set
great store, has been pursued by peculiar ill-luck. Unlike his other
productions it must miss the author’s pruning and correcting hand as
it passes through the press. It is doomed to appear as an incomplete
because a posthumous work. The title is: _Emendationes in plerosque
Sacræ Scripturæ Veteris Testamente libros secundum veterum versiones
nec non auxiliis criticis cæteris adhibitis. Ex relicto defuncti
auctoris manuscripto edidit Guil. Bacher. 3 Pts. Breslau, 1892-1894._
The Hebrew text of the Bible is treated boldly and subjectively. But it
remains for a later generation to pass final judgment upon the value of
Graetz’s contributions to the critical determination of the Bible text.
There can be no doubt that Graetz was as much a master in the field of
exegesis as in that of history.

The time will come when his contemporaries will be envied for the
privilege of having stood face to face with one so great and noble.
Those days, to be sure, will not know the grief and sorrow that befell
us when unexpectedly and without warning the revered teacher was
removed from our sight. Still less will there be a suspicion of the
self-reproaches that assail us too late for having frequently had a
keen eye for the detection of minute shortcomings and inadequacies, the
inherent foibles of the human kind, rather than a willing, attentive
ear to listen to the suggestions and solutions so lavishly offered.
After all, the most beautiful blossoms put forth by him, the best
fruits produced by his mind, are in his writings; he that can read may
enjoy them.

       *       *       *       *       *

    NOTE.--While this _Memoir_ was passing through the press, the
    commission on the history of the Jews of Germany, spoken of on pp.
    78-80, after five years of inactivity again showed signs of life in
    the form of a valuable publication by a rabbi: _Das Martyrologium
    des Nürnberger Memorbuches_ by Dr. S. Salfeld. At the same time,
    the promise of the completion of _Die Regesten zur Geschichte der
    Juden, etc._, is held out.




TABLES OF JEWISH HISTORY.


CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF JEWISH HISTORY.

  PERIOD                                                        PAGE
      I.  The Patriarchal Age                                     90

     II.  The Exodus                                              90

    III.  The Conquest of Canaan                                  90

     IV.  The Era of the Judges                                   90

      V.  The Kingdom (1067-977 B. C. E.)                         91

     VI.  Judah and Israel until the Capture of Samaria
            (977-719 B. C. E.)                                    92

    VII.  Judah until the Destruction of Jerusalem (719-586
            B. C. E.)                                             94

   VIII.  The Captivity (586-516 B. C. E.)                        95

     IX.  The Age of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Scribes (516-332
            B. C. E.)                                             96

      X.  The Age of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidæ to
            Antiochus IV (332-175 B. C. E.)                       97

     XI.  The Age of the Maccabees (175-140 B. C. E.)             98

    XII.  The Hasmonæan Dynasty (140-37 B. C. E.)                100

   XIII.  The Herodian Dynasty (37 B. C. E.-72 C. E.)            102

    XIV.  The Epoch of the Mishna and the Tanaites
            (72-219 C. E.)                                       104

     XV.  The Epoch of the Talmud, the Amoraim, and the
            Saboraim (219-550 C. E.)                             106

    XVI.  From the Completion of the Talmud to the End of
            the Gaonate (550-1038 C. E.)                         108

   XVII.  The Age of Gebirol, Halevi, Rashi, and Maimonides
            (1038-1204 C. E.)                                    111

  XVIII.  From the Death of Maimonides to the Expulsion
            from Spain (1204-1492 C. E.)                         114

    XIX.  From the Expulsion from Spain to the Persecution
            in Poland (1492-1648 C. E.)                          120

     XX.  From the Persecution in Poland to the Present Time
           (1648-1873 C. E.)                                     123


I. THE PATRIARCHAL AGE.

B.C.E.

  1500 (about).     =Abraham= leaves Ur of the Chaldees.

                    Supreme power of _Joseph_ in Egypt.

                    _Jacob_ and his household occupy Goshen in Egypt.


II. THE EXODUS.

                    Birth of =Moses=.

                    The =Exodus=.

                    =Revelation at Mount Sinai.=

                    Worship of the Golden Calf.

                    Rebellion of Korah.

                    Death of Miriam and AARON.

                    The Israelites defeat the Emorite king Sihon at
                      Jahaz.

                    Og, king of Bashan, defeated at Edreï.

                    The prophecy of Balaam.

                    Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh settle in the land
                      east of the Jordan (Peræa).

                    DEATH OF MOSES.


III. THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN.

                    Leadership of JOSHUA.

                    Passage of the Jordan.

                    Capture of Jericho.

                    Submission of the Gibeonites.

                    Division of the land among the tribes.

                    The _Jebusites_ and others permitted to keep their
                      territory.

                    The TABERNACLE at Shiloh.

                    Death of Joshua.


IV. THE ERA OF THE JUDGES.

JUDGES.

  1. Othniel,
  2. Ehud,
  3. Shamgar,
  4. Deborah and Barak,
  5. Gideon,
  6. Abimelech,
  7. Thola,
  8. Jair,
  9. Jephthah,
  10. Samson,
  11. Ibzon,
  12. Elon,
  13. Abdon,
  14. Eli,
  15. Samuel.

                    Othniel delivers the southern tribes from an
                      Idumæan king.

                    Ehud routs Eglon, king of Moab.

                    Shamgar opposes the Philistines.

                    DEBORAH and Barak defeat Sisera, Jabin’s general,
                       at Mount Tabor.

                    GIDEON routs the Midianites under Zebah and
                       Zalmunna.

                    Abimelech leader of the Shechemites.

                    JEPHTHAH repulses the Ammonites in the
                      trans-Jordanic provinces.

                    SAMSON keeps the Philistines at bay.

                    Eli, priest and judge.

                    The Ark captured by the Philistines at Aphek.

                    =Samuel=, judge and prophet.

                    Levitical and prophetical schools formed.


V. THE KINGDOM.

(1067-977 B. C. E.)

KINGS.

  Saul,      David,      Solomon.

  =1067.=           =Saul= anointed king.

                    The Philistines defeated at Michmash.

                    Jabesh-Gilead saved from the Ammonites.

                    Agag, king of Amalek, defeated.

                    =David= anointed king.

                    The Gibeonites massacred by order of Saul.

                    David slays Goliath.

                    David flees before Saul, and leads the life of an
                      outlaw. He is on friendly terms with the king of
                      Moab, with Nahash, the Ammonite king, and Achish,
                      the Philistine king.

                    ZADOK high priest.

  1055.             Saul and Jonathan die in a battle with the
                      Philistines near Mount Gilboa.

  1055.             David king of Judah; Ishbosheth king of the
                      trans-Jordanic tribes.

  1051-1049.        Civil war between the houses of Saul and David.

                    _David sole king_ of the whole people; reigns at
                      Hebron for seven years.

                    Nathan and Gad prophets.

                    Jerusalem made the capital after the conquest of
                      the Jebusites.

                    The Philistines defeated at Mount Baal-Perazim.

                    Abiathar high priest in Jerusalem; Zadok in Gibeon.

                    The descendants of Saul, except Mephibosheth,
                      killed by the Gibeonites.

                    David victorious over Moabites, Ammonites, and
                      others.

                    Revolt of Absalom.

                    Sheba’s insurrection.

                    =Solomon= anointed king by Nathan.

  1015.             Death of David; succession of Solomon.

  1014.             Solomon begins the first Temple.

                    Zadok sole high priest.

  1007.             THE FIRST TEMPLE CONSECRATED.

                    Solomon establishes a fleet. Roads built. Commerce
                      extended. Foreign alliances.

                    The kingdom at its greatest extent. Literature
                      flourishes. Idolatry introduced.

                    Rebellion of JEROBOAM.

  977.              Death of Solomon.


VI. JUDAH AND ISRAEL UNTIL THE CAPTURE OF SAMARIA.

(977-719 B. C. E.)

(_See the Table of the Kings of Judah and Israel, p. 127._)

  =977.=            Rehoboam king of Judah.

                    Jeroboam king of Israel; rules at Shechem.

                    Rehoboam allies himself with the king of Damascus.

                    Shemaiah, prophet, averts a civil war.

  972.              Shishak, king of Egypt, ally of Jeroboam, enters
                      Jerusalem.

                    Jeroboam institutes calf-worship at Bethel and Dan;
                      Ahijah prophet.

  960.              Abijam, son of Rehoboam, king of Judah.

  957.              Asa, son of Rehoboam, king of Judah.

  955.              Nadab, son of Jeroboam, king of Israel.

  954.              Baasha destroys the house of Jeroboam, and rules at
                      Tirzah.

                    Asa forbids the worship of Astarte in Judah.

                    Baasha, assisted by Ethiopians and Syrians, makes
                      war upon Asa.

  933.              Elah, son of Baasha, king of Israel.

  932.              The house of Baasha exterminated by Zimri.

  932-928.          Civil war between Omri and Tibni.

  928.              Omri, the first king in Samaria, introduces the
                      worship of Baal and Astarte.

                    Alliance between Israel and Phœnicia. Jezebel
                      marries Ahab.

  922.              AHAB king of Israel.

  920 (about).      =Elijah= and the prophets persecuted by Jezebel.

  918.              Jehoshaphat king of Judah.

                    Micah (I) (Michaiah) prophesies.

  904.              Ahab victorious over Ben-hadad II, king of Aram
                      (Syria).

                    Alliance between Jehoshaphat and Ahab.

  901.              Ahaziah, son of Ahab, king of Israel.

  899.              Jehoram, son of Ahab, king of Israel.

                    Jehoram and Jehoshaphat defeat Mesa of Moab.

  894.              Joram, son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah.

  888.              Ahaziah, son of Joram and Athaliah, king of Judah.

                    _Elisha_ and Jehu.

  887.              Jehu kills Jehoram and exterminates the house of
                      Omri; his followers kill Ahaziah.

                    Jehu king of Israel.

                    Athaliah queen of Judah; she has male members of the
                      house of David executed.

  881.              JOASH, son of Ahaziah, only surviving male
                      descendant of David in the direct line, king of
                      Judah.

  864.              The Temple repaired.

                    Hazael, king of Syria, conquers the trans-Jordanic
                      provinces of Israel.

  860.              Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, king of Israel.

                    Joash submits to Hazael.

  845.              Jehoash, son of Jehoahaz, king of Israel.

                    Samaria besieged by Ben-hadad III; Jehoash
                      victorious.

  843.              Amaziah, son of Joash, king of Judah.

                    Amaziah victorious over the Idumæans.

  840.              Death of Elisha.

                    Amaziah of Judah taken prisoner by Jehoash of Israel
                      at Beth-Shemesh; Jerusalem ransacked and its walls
                      destroyed.

  830.              Jeroboam II, son of Jehoash, king of Israel.

                    Jeroboam II re-conquers districts taken by the
                      Aramæans.

                    _Jonah_ prophesies.

  815.              Amaziah killed at Lachish.

                    The Idumæans invade Judah, and sell Judæan captives
                      as slaves. _First dispersion of Judæans._

  805.              Uzziah, son of Amaziah, king of Judah.

                    Earthquake and drouth.

                    Uzziah re-conquers districts lost since Solomon’s
                      time.

                    Jeroboam II takes Damascus and Hamath; peoples
                      become tributary to him.

                    Luxury in Samaria under Jeroboam II.

  800(about).       _Amos_, _Joel_, and _Hosea (I)_ prophesy.

  769.              Zechariah, son of Jeroboam II, king of Judah.

  768.              Shallum kills Zechariah and exterminates the house
                      of Jehu.

                    Shallum king of Israel.

  768.              Menahem kills Shallum and reigns over Israel.

                    Uzziah usurps the offices of the high priest in the
                      Temple.

                    _Pul, king of Assyria, invades the kingdom of
                      Israel_, acquires booty, and carries off
                      prisoners.

  757.              Pekahiah, son of Menahem, king of Israel.

  756.              Pekah kills Pekahiah.

  755.              Pekah king of Israel.

                    =Isaiah= utters his first prophecy.

  754.              Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah.

                    _Zechariah (I)_ prophesies.

  739.              Ahaz, son of Jotham, king of Judah.

                    Pekah allies himself with Rezin of Damascus against
                      Tiglath-pileser II.

                    Ahaz disregards the warning of Isaiah and offers to
                      become a vassal of Tiglath-pileser II.

  738.              FIRST DEPORTATION OF ISRAELITISH CAPTIVES TO
                      ASSYRIA by Tiglath-pileser II.

                    Ahaz introduces Assyrian worship into Judah.

                    _Micah (II)_ prophesies.

  736.              Pekah killed by Hoshea.

  727.              _Hoshea_ last king of Israel.

                    Shalmaneser IV, king of Assyria, invades Israel.

                    Hosea (II) prophesies.

                    Hoshea refuses the yearly tribute to Shalmaneser IV.

  724.              HEZEKIAH, son of Ahaz, king of Judah.

  =719.=            Shalmaneser IV =captures Samaria=, puts an end to
                      the kingdom of Israel, and DEPORTS MOST OF ITS
                      SUBJECTS--THE SO-CALLED =Ten Lost Tribes=--TO
                      ASSYRIAN PROVINCES.


VII. JUDAH UNTIL THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.

(719-586 B. C. E.)

(_See the Table of the Kings of Judah and Israel, p. 127._)

                    Hezekiah tries to banish idolatry.

                    Isaiah advises neutrality between Assyria and Egypt.

                    Shebna dictates the foreign policy.

                    Micah and Isaiah predict a glorious future for
                      Israel.

  711(about).       Sennacherib invades Judah and demands tribute.
                      Destruction of the Assyrian army.

                    Hezekiah makes a treaty with Merodach-baladan, king
                      of Babylon.

                    Literature flourishes.

  695.              Manasseh, son of Hezekiah, king of Judah.

                    Idolatry flourishes.

                    Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, takes Manasseh captive.

                    Manasseh restored.

                    Esarhaddon COLONIZES SAMARIA WITH CUTHÆANS.

  640.              Amon, son of Manasseh, king of Judah.

  638.              JOSIAH, son of Amon, king of Judah.

                    _Zephaniah_ prophesies.

                    Scythian invasion of Judah.

  627.              Josiah repairs the Temple.

                    =Jeremiah= (b. 645-640, d. 580-570) prophesies.

  621.              Hilkiah, high priest, finds a copy of the =Book
                      of the Law= in the Temple.

                    Huldah prophesies.

  608.              Necho, king of Egypt, _defeats Josiah at Megiddo_;
                      Josiah killed.

                    Jehoahaz (Shallum), second son of Josiah, king of
                      Judah.

  607.              Jehoiakim (Eliakim), oldest son of Josiah, made
                      king by Necho.

                    Idolatry flourishes. _Habakkuk_ prophesies.

  607-604           Uriah, prophet, beheaded.

                    Jeremiah’s life imperiled; Baruch his secretary.

  600.              Jehoiakim pays tribute to Nebuchadnezzar, king of
                      Babylon.

  598.              Jehoiakim allies himself with Egypt against
                      Nebuchadnezzar.

  596.              Jehoiachin, youngest son of Jehoiakim, king of
                      Judah.

                    Judah overrun by Nebuchadnezzar, Jerusalem
                      besieged by a Babylonian general,
                      Jehoiachin taken prisoner. FIRST DEPORTATION OF
                      JUDÆANS TO BABYLONIA.

  596.              Nebuchadnezzar makes Zedekiah (Mattaniah),
                      youngest son of Josiah, king of Judah.

  593.              Jeremiah advises submission to Nebuchadnezzar.

  591.              Zedekiah renounces allegiance to Babylonia.

  587.              THE FINAL SIEGE OF JERUSALEM BEGUN.

                    The siege of Jerusalem interrupted by the battle
                      between the Chaldæan army and Hophra, king of
                      Egypt.

  586, Tammuz 9.    First breach in the walls of Jerusalem.

                    Zedekiah taken prisoner and blinded; Seraiah, high
                      priest, and others beheaded by Nebuchadnezzar
                      at Riblah.

  =586=, Ab. 9.     =The Temple razed=, and =Jerusalem destroyed= by
                      Nebuzaradan, general of Nebuchadnezzar.

                    Second deportation of Judæans to Babylonia.


VIII. THE CAPTIVITY.

(586-516 B. C. E.)

BABYLONIAN KINGS.

  605. Nebuchadnezzar,
  561. Evil-merodach,
  559. Neriglissar,
  556. Laborosoarchod,
  555. Nabonad and Belshazzar.

PERSIAN KINGS.

  558. Cyrus,
  529. Cambyses,
  522. Pseudo-Smerdis,
  521. Darius I Hystaspis.

  586.              Gedaliah appointed governor of the remnant of Judah
                      by Nebuchadnezzar.

  586.              Jeremiah at Mizpah with Gedaliah.

                    Gedaliah murdered by Ishmael, son of Nethaniah.

                    Obadiah prophesies against Edom, which possesses
                      itself of southern Judæa.

                    Jeremiah and Baruch in Egypt with Johanan, son of
                      Kareah.

  582.              THIRD DEPORTATION OF JUDÆANS TO BABYLONIA by
                      Nebuchadnezzar.

                    =Ezekiel= (620-570) prophesies.

  561(about).       Jehoiachin honored by Evil-merodach.

                    _Descendants of the Ten Tribes deported by the
                      Assyrian kings mingle with the captives from
                      Judah._

  555(about).       The historical books of the Bible compiled in
                      Babylonia; literature flourishes.

                    Nabonad of Babylonia persecutes the exiles.

                    The =Babylonian Isaiah= prophesies.

  538.              CYRUS takes Babylon, and PERMITS THE EXILES
                      IN BABYLONIA TO RETURN TO PALESTINE.

  537.              ZERUBBABEL AND JOSHUA BEN JEHOZEDEK LEAD THE FIRST
                      RETURN.

                    Foundation of the second Temple laid.

  520.              _Haggai_ and _Zechariah (II)_ prophesy.

  516.              THE SECOND TEMPLE CONSECRATED.


IX. THE AGE OF EZRA, NEHEMIAH, AND THE SCRIBES.

(516-332 B. C. E.)

PERSIAN KINGS.

  521. Darius I Hystaspis,
  486. Xerxes I,
  465. Artaxerxes I Longimanus,
  425. Xerxes II,
  425. Sogdianus,
  425. Darius II Nothus,
  405. Artaxerxes II Mnemon,
  359. Artaxerxes III Ochus,
  338. Arses,
  336. Darius III Codomannus.

                    The Samaritans accuse the Judæans of disloyalty to
                      Persia.

                    The Judæans contract marriages with their heathen
                      neighbors.

  459.              EZRA LEADS THE SECOND RETURN with the permission
                      of Artaxerxes I Longimanus.

  457(about).       _Ezra prevails upon the people to repudiate their
                      heathen wives._

                    The Samaritans under Sanballat engage in
                      hostilities against the Judæans.

  444.              NEHEMIAH LEADS THE THIRD RETURN.

                    The Samaritans intrigue against Nehemiah.

                    Internal reforms by Nehemiah.

                    _Ezra reads the Law to the people at Jerusalem._

                    The wall of Jerusalem rebuilt.

                    Beginnings of the GREAT ASSEMBLY (Keneseth
                      ha-Gedolah).

  432.              Nehemiah returns to Persia.

                    MALACHI THE LAST OF THE PROPHETS.

  430-424.          Nehemiah returns to Jerusalem, and continues his
                      reforms.

  420(about).       The Samaritan Temple built on Mount Gerizim.

                    _Synagogues established_; _the Law studied_, and the
                      _present form of divine service introduced_,
                      probably by the Council of Seventy (Synhedrion)
                      (_Dibre Sopherim_).

  361-360.          Artaxerxes II banishes Judæans to Hyrkania.

  338(about).       Bagoas, general of Artaxerxes III, lays the Judæans
                      under tribute.

                    The Books of Chronicles written.

  332.              _Alexander the Great in Judæa._


X. THE AGE OF THE PTOLEMIES AND THE SELEUCIDÆ TO ANTIOCHUS IV.

(332-175 B. C. E.)

(_See the Table of the High Priests, p. 128._)

EGYPTIAN KINGS.

  323. Ptolemy I Soter,
  285. Ptolemy II Philadelphus,
  247. Ptolemy III Euergetes,
  222. Ptolemy IV Philopator,
  205. Ptolemy V Epiphanes,
  181. Ptolemy VI Philometor.

SYRIAN KINGS.

  312. Seleucus I Nicator,
  280. Antiochus I Soter,
  261. Antiochus II Theos,
  246. Seleucus II Callinicos,
  226. Seleucus III Ceraunus,
  223. Antiochus III the Great,
  187. Seleucus IV Philopator.

  323.              Death of Alexander the Great.

  320.              Jerusalem entered by Ptolemy I Soter. A large
                      number of Judæan prisoners carried to Egypt.

  312.              THE BEGINNING OF THE SELEUCIDÆAN ERA (Battle of
                      Gaza).

  301.              Judæa, a subdivision of Cœlesyria, tributary to
                      Egypt (Battle of Ipsus); the high priest the
                      political chief. Judæan colonies in
                      Græco-Macedonian countries; Greek colonies in
                      Judæa.

  300(about).       SIMON THE JUST high priest and the last of the MEN
                      OF THE GREAT ASSEMBLY.

  240.              After a struggle between the Ptolemies and the
                      Seleucidæ, Cœlesyria again adjudged to Egypt.

                    Onias II, high priest, refuses to pay tribute to
                      Egypt.

  230(about).       _Joseph, son of Tobiah_, and grandson of Simon the
                      Just, represents the Judæans at the court of
                      Ptolemy III Euergetes and Ptolemy IV Philopator,
                      and is made farmer of taxes.

                    Joseph introduces _Greek feasts and games at
                      Jerusalem_.

  218.              Judæa sides with Egypt against Antiochus III the
                      Great.

  209(about).       Hyrcanus, son of Joseph, Judæan representative at
                      the court of the Ptolemies.

                    The “Song of Songs” composed.

  203.              The Tobiades, the elder brothers of Hyrcanus,
                      Syrian partisans. Judæa tributary to Antiochus III
                      the Great.

                    The HELLENISTS and the CHASSIDIM (Assidæans) begin
                      to oppose each other.

  200(about).       _Jesus Sirach_ writes the apocryphal book
                      _Ecclesiasticus_.

  176(about).       Heliodorus, treasurer to Seleucus IV Philopator,
                      attempts to confiscate the Temple treasures.


XI. THE AGE OF THE MACCABEES.

(175-140 B. C. E.)

(_See the Table of the High Priests, p. 128._)

EGYPTIAN KINGS.

  181. Ptolemy VI Philometor,
  146. Ptolemy VII Physcon _and_ Ptolemy VIII Lathurus.

SYRIAN KINGS.

  175. Antiochus IV Epiphanes,
  164. Antiochus V Eupator,
  162. Demetrius I Soter,
  150. Alexander I Balas,
  146. Demetrius II Nicator _and_ Antiochus VI (son of Alexander Balas),
       Diodotus Tryphon, _and_ Antiochus VII Sidetes.

  175.              Antiochus IV Epiphanes ascends the throne of Syria.

  174.              The Hellenists induce Antiochus IV to divest Onias
                      III of the high-priestly dignity, and under Jason
                      obtain citizenship for Judæans
                      trained for the Greek combats.

                    Gymnasiums and the Greek games at Jerusalem.

  172.              Menelaus (Onias) the Benjamite made high priest by
                      Antiochus IV.

  171.              Death of Onias III; Menelaus guilty of Temple
                      robbery, but exonerated by Antiochus IV.

  168.              Antiochus IV attacks Jerusalem, and desecrates the
                      Holy of Holies.

  168, Tammuz 17.   A STATUE OF JUPITER PLACED IN THE TEMPLE by the
                      Syrians.

                    The Chassidim suffer martyrdom.

                    _Mattathias the Hasmonæan resists the Syrian
                      overseer._

  =167.=            =Judas Maccabæus= victorious in his first battle
                      with the Syrians under Apollonius.

  166.              Judas Maccabæus victorious over Heron at Beth-horon.

                    The Book of Daniel written.

                    Judas Maccabæus victorious over Gorgias at Emmaus.

  165.              Judas Maccabæus victorious over Lysias at Bethzur.

  165, Kislev 25.   THE TEMPLE RE-DEDICATED (Chanukah).

                    Judas Maccabæus and his brothers victorious over the
                      Idumæans, Ammonites, and Philistines.

  164.              Death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

  163.              Judas Maccabæus retreats before Lysias at
                      Beth-Zachariah; his brother Eleazar Hauran killed.

                    Jerusalem besieged by Lysias.

                    Judas Maccabæus high priest.

  162(about).       The _Onias Temple_ built at Leontopolis in Egypt by
                      Onias IV, son of Onias III, the first _Alabarch_.

                    The Hellenists calumniate Judas Maccabæus before
                      Demetrius I. Alcimus made high priest. Factions
                      under Judas and Alcimus.

  160.              Judas Maccabæus victorious over Nicanor at
                      Caphar-Salama and Adarsa. _He makes overtures to
                      the Romans._

                    The Judæans defeated at Eleasa by the Syrians under
                      Bacchides; JUDAS MACCABÆUS KILLED.

                    Parties in Judæa: Chassidim, Hasmonæans, Hellenists.

                    _Jonathan Haphus_, brother of Judas, defends himself
                      unsuccessfully against Bacchides; his brother
                      Johanan Gadi killed in a skirmish with the Bene
                      Amri.

  159.              Judæa evacuated by the Syrians.

  157.              The Syrian war renewed at the instigation of the
                      Hellenists.

  152.              Jonathan Haphus high priest; his friendship sought
                      by Demetrius I and Alexander Balas.

  152-143.          The Judæans under Jonathan Haphus participate in the
                      struggles between Alexander Balas, his son
                      Antiochus VI, Diodotus Tryphon, and Demetrius II
                      for the Syrian crown.

  =150=(about).     The Pentateuch translated into Greek: =the
                      Septuagint=.

  143.              Jonathan Haphus executed by Diodotus Tryphon.

  143.              Simon Tharsi, last of the Hasmonæan brothers, made
                      high priest and leader by the people.

  141.              End of the Hellenist party.

  140.              JUDÆA AND ROME ALLIES.


XII. THE HASMONÆAN DYNASTY.

(140-37 B. C. E.)

(_See the Genealogical Table of the Hasmonæan Dynasty, p. 130._)

EGYPTIAN KINGS.

  146. Ptolemy VII Physcon _and_ Ptolemy VIII,

  117. Ptolemy VIII Lathurus _and_ Alexander I,

   81. Alexander II,

   80. Ptolemy IX Auletes,

   51. Ptolemy X _and_ Cleopatra VI,

   47. Cleopatra VI [_and_ Ptolemy XI _and_ Ptolemy XII],

   30. Egypt a Roman Province.

SYRIAN KINGS.

  137. Antiochus VII Sidetes (_alone_),

  128. Demetrius II (_restored_) _and_ Alexander II Zabina,

  125. Seleucus V,

  125. Antiochus VIII Grypus _and_ Antiochus IX Cyzicenus,

   95. Seleucus VI, Antiochus X Eusebes, Philip, Demetrius III
         Eucærus, Antiochus XI Epiphanes, Antiochus XII Dionysius,

   83. Tigranes, king of Armenia,

   69. Antiochus XII Asiaticus,

   64. Syria a Roman Province.

B.C.E.

  140.              Simon made hereditary high priest and Nassi
                      (Prince).

  139.              Simon stamps coins by permission of Antiochus VII
                      Sidetes.

                    Cendebæus, general of Antiochus Sidetes, makes war
                      upon Simon.

  135.              Simon slain by his son-in-law; accession of JOHN
                      HYRCANUS I.

  135-123.          Wars with the rulers of the Seleucidæan house.

  133(about).       Embassy to Rome. Rome calls upon Antiochus VII to
                      make restitution to Judæa.

  120(about).       Samaria reduced; the Temple on Mount Gerizim
                      destroyed.

                    _Conquest of the Idumæans and their conversion to
                      Judaism._

                    John Hyrcanus again appeals to Rome in his
                      difficulties with Antiochus IX Cyzicenus.

                    John Hyrcanus victorious over the allies, Antiochus
                      IX Cyzicenus and Ptolemy VIII Lathurus.

  109.              Samaria destroyed; Judæa at the height of
                      prosperity; 

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/46752