LXXX.

ZIONISM AND JEWISH ART

IT is somewhat difficult to distinguish between Jewish art, that is to say between art expressing the Jewish national spirit, and ordinary art cultivated by the Jews.

Is Jewish art possible to-day? National art requires a soil out of which to issue, and a sky towards which to unfold. We――present-day Jews――have neither. We are inhabitants of many countries, and our thoughts ascend to different skies. Within our innermost soul we know of no earth and no sky. We have no country to bear our hopes in its lap and lend firmness to the tread of our feet, and we have no national sun to bless our sowings and irradiate our day. National art requires a homogeneous community out of which it arises and for which it exists. We have merely fragments of a community, and as yet there is hardly any stirring of the part to assemble into a whole. But without these premisses national art cannot come into existence; it cannot be made. It is no hothouse growth, but healthy, sapful plant life in a free native atmosphere. No artificial conditions may be created for it, it must come and develop with the progressing renascence.¹

¹ Martin Buber, _Jüd. Künst., Lesser Ury_.

Another question presents itself. Are, at present, Jewish artists possible, i.e. artists who respond inwardly and in their works to Jewish individuality? If we may answer this question in the affirmative, the inner possibility of Jewish art is affirmed too. Because, as a rule, two elements have to co-operate so that a national artist may be evolved: a strain of national heredity, and a national environment; the former consecutive, not acquired by experience, but brought in unconsciously, the latter rather atmospheric, and up to a certain point consciously experienced. Since, in the most favourable conditions, present-day Judaism contains only the material and the elements of transformation of national environment, a Jewish artist would have to derive his national individuality chiefly from qualities received through heredity. But this would tend to prove that the artistic aptitude of the Jewish race is still aglow like live coal under ashes, and that it only needs personalities gifted with creative energy, and in whom this aptitude concentrates, condenses and transmutes into works, to bring forth Jewish artists. Are Jewish artists possible nowadays? By way of reply it may suffice to show that there are Jewish artists, or rather that with many Jewish artists we have the impression that their art has a national character.

It is very doubtful indeed whether any clear definition can be given of Jewish national art equally acceptable from the standpoint of the nationalist and that of the artist. We shall, therefore, confine ourselves to a brief outline of the evolution of Jewish artistic

## activity in painting and sculpture in modern times, without entering

into the old and much-discussed question of ancient Palestinian Jewish painting, sculpture, architecture, etc., medieval Jewish miniature-painting of a religious or semi-religious character and more or less Jewish origin, and the arts of poetry and music cultivated by Jews since remotest antiquity and bearing undoubtedly in some cases the national character.

The sphere of art, particularly painting and sculpture, became accessible to the Jews at the same time as the realm of modern science and European culture and education, at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The fugitives from the Ghetto began to devote themselves to the study of art with more or less zeal, according to the opportunities afforded and conditions prevailing in the countries in which they lived――in Western Europe at an earlier period and in Eastern Europe somewhat later. Having received their training in different countries, they were naturally influenced by various schools of art. Some attained great distinction and merit, deserving to be placed in the foremost rank of European art, but these repudiated their Judaism, _e.g._ Munkácsy; others gained locally a high reputation; the majority of them, however, did not rise above mere mediocrity.

Benjamin Ulmann, an Alsatian, born in Strasburg, 1829, was a historical and portrait painter of some merit; Jean Jules Worms, born in Paris, 1832, painted genre-pictures with a good deal of animation; Leopold Pollack, born in Lodenitz, Bohemia, 1809, was a genre-painter of much refinement. He was an artist possessed of various accomplishments, who gained distinction in artistic circles as a “Slav”; Felix Schlesinger, born in Frankfurt O/M., 1814, and educated at Paris, became a famous French painter and was much appreciated as a genre-painter; Emil Lévy, born in Paris, 1826, deserves mention as a painter of idyllic scenery that showed considerable skill combined with simplicity; Louis Neustaeter, born in Munich, 1829 (_d._ 1899), achieved a reputation as a portrait painter; Felix Possart, born in Munich, 1837, was a most versatile popular painter; Nathanael Sichel, born in Mainz, 1843, was a historical painter of great talent; Eugene Benjamin Fischel, born in Paris, 1821 (_d._ 1895), was a historical painter (“The Arrival at the Inn” at the Luxembourg Museum since 1863), and devoted himself later on to painting of miniatures; Eduard Bendemann, born in Berlin, 1811 (_d._ 1889) was a painter of good taste and highly artistic accomplishments: he painted for the most part historical pictures, some of which are hung in German museums; Carl Jacoby, born in Berlin, 1853, distinguished himself among German painters of his time for his remarkable correctness in drawing; Friedrich Friedlaender, born in Vienna, 1825 (_d._ 1895), displayed the peculiar style of “Viennois” painting of his time; Toby Rosenthal, born in New Haven, U.S.A., 1848, was a disciple of Pilloty, and endeavoured to emulate his master; Herman Junker, Frankfurt (_b._ 1838); Karl Blosz, Munich; Edmund Edel, Charlottenburg; Julius Ester, Munich; August Gross, Vienna; Tullo Massarini, Rome; Albert Raudnitz, Munich; Ernest Raudnitz, Paris; Emanuel Spitzer, Munich; Ernst Nelson, Berlin, and others are known more or less as painters of various subjects.

The most notable of Jewish sculptors of the earliest period were: Antoine Samuel Adam Salomon, born in La Grete, France, 1818; Max Klein, born in Hungary, 1847; Josef Rona of Budapest; Adolf Huszar of Budapest, among whose important works should be mentioned the famous monument of the Hungarian national poet, Petöfi; Johann Silbernagel of Vienna, famous for his charming little statuettes; Charles Samuel, born in Brussels, 1862, who executed the monument of the great Belgian statesman, Frère d’Orban; Moses Jacob Ezekiel, born in Richmond, Virginia, U.S.A., 1844, who established a great reputation in America and in Italy, and others.

It cannot definitely be said that this imposing host of artists belonging to the Jewish people who have enriched Art, during a comparatively short period――proving in that way the Jewish capacity for art――have in their works revealed a pronounced Jewish spirit. Jewish artists and their works are scattered all over the world, and there is no possibility even of bringing copies of their works together in one collection, so as to ascertain _ad oculos_ whether there is, in spite of all the differences of schools and influences of environment, any trace of a special character to distinguish them from other collections of this kind, as the special character can only be distinguished when a number of pictures can be reviewed together. Seeing that the racial element is no doubt a potent factor in art, the work of the Huszars of Budapest, the Massarinis of Rome and the Possarts of Munich must have something in common because, after all, in the depths of their being, they are neither Magyars, nor Italians, nor Germans, but Jews. On the other hand, one may say that these Jews, having become an assimilated unit of the peoples among whom they had lived, been educated and worked, have no longer anything in common with and do not represent any specific school of Jewish art.

Another question is, whether the aforementioned Jewish artists have been engaged in presenting Jewish subjects (which is a question altogether removed from the previous, more fundamental question). This question can be easily answered: Jewish subjects were dealt with by Eduard Bendemann (“Boaz and Ruth,” “The Mourning Jews,” “Jeremias”); Emile Lévy “The Feast of Tabernacles” and other pictures); Moses Jacob Ezekiel (various statues of great artistic value).

Apart from these artists who proved that Jews were capable of becoming more or less important artists, there were even at an earlier period some who not only displayed generally great artistic skill, but also gave evidence of understanding something about Jewish art.

First and foremost among these pioneers was Henry Leopold Levy, born in Paris, 1840, who painted “Joash saved from the Massacre of the Grandsons of Athaliah” (1867), “Hebrew Captives weeping over the Ruins of Jerusalem” (1869), and other pictures. Being, so to speak, a divinely inspired artist, his works give proof of profound emotions and transcendental beauty and force. His mastery of dramatic effect, his extent and depth of passion remind one of an old Hebrew prophet.

Moritz Daniel Oppenheim, who was known as “Professor Oppenheim” of Frankfurt (1801‒82), is not of much importance from an artistic standpoint. In his time he was one of the most prominent illustrators of Jewish patriarchy. His “Pictures of Jewish Life” give the impression of great devotion and have gained considerable popularity through thousands of reproductions.¹

¹ The Jews of the Continent offered a splendid album, bound in marone velvet, inlaid with gilt bronze, in 1842 to Sir Moses Montefiore after his return from the East, in commemoration of his efforts on behalf of the persecuted Jews of Damascus. On each cover is a painting by Jewish artists. About these paintings the authors of the address――which was signed by 1490 subscribers――say:――

“The consecration of Joshua by the legislator Moses, as the leader of the armies of Israel, was the first step towards creating Israel a separate state. The pencil of Professor Oppenheim’s genius has here worthily represented this event. Israel’s mourning at the streams of Babel, painted by the masterly hand of Bendemann, brings in the background before our spirit, Jerusalem in flames, and the house of God in ruins. Thus both representations combine whatever constitutes Israel’s pride and grief; whatever in the pages of history is capable of inspiring the champion of Israel with courage and zeal” (_Allg. Zeit. d. Judenthums_, 10 September, 1842).

A tragic figure in the annals of art was Simeon Solomon, born in Bristol, 1834 (d. in London, 1905). At an early age he showed signs of artistic ability and――as his biographers say――“came under the influence of D. G. Rossetti.” His drawings and paintings developed the mystical and sensuous tendencies of the pre-Raphaelite school to the extreme. He published a number of designs for the “Song of Songs” and reproductions of the drawings illustrating Jewish ceremonies. Keen critics of art ascribe to his genius a stimulating originality which influenced the whole pre-Raphaelite artistic school.

The pinnacle of Art, speaking generally, was reached by three prominent masters: Joseph Israels (1824‒1911), Max Liebermann, and Solomon J. Solomon, R.A.

It was Joseph Israels who succeeded in representing the twilights of the Dutch atmosphere in all their individuality and tender charm. To understand how to portray Nature and Humanity, and more especially suffering Humanity, with equal care and art, and to bring into relief their organic interaction; to represent rural scenes, not as a stage setting but as an atmosphere, not forcible but imbued with poetic feeling; to invest human nature with a breath of such delicate lyricism that the impression created is one of love rather than of mere beauty; that is the chief characteristic of Israels’ art, which to us seems so entirely Jewish. It is the enchanting melancholy, the gentle, delicate longing, the half-uttered tones, the soft harmonies which are divined rather than seen or heard that make Israels appear so extraordinarily modern. It is not merely because Israels was a Jew, not merely because his greatest works represent Jewish subjects, but because his art was characterized by a rich poetic fancy, by kindliness and melancholy, and at the same time by a priestly solemnity and a great simplicity which harmonize so wonderfully with the deepest emotions of the Jewish Psyche, that we are justified in regarding Israels as a national-Jewish painter. We are acquainted with the Jewish Rabbi, the calm, discerning, introspective thinker, seeking for the great _ethos_ of existence in all the passing phenomena of life. Joseph Israels was a painter-rabbi. He painted with the same fervour as a _midrash_ scholar would teach, with which a Jehuda-ha-Levi would sing. A “Gaon” in the domain of Art, a “Baal-Shem” who works spells, causing angels to appear not by means of prayers and texts; not by means of cabbalistic incantations, but by means of colours, light and shade effects. Where so visible as in Israels, creations are the groups of Divine sparkle flying about the world, the creative embodiment of the “naked souls” thirsting for existence, peace and incarnation of which the Cabbala speaks with so much enthusiasm and of which Chassidism dreams.

In all his paintings Israels succeeded in effecting a concentration in composition which focussed all interest upon the soul, upon sensation. Israels has not been content to fix by the masterly stroke of the brush a moment of dramatic intensity surprised in his model [as for instance, in the _Writer of the Law_ (_The Thora-Writer_)], or the influences of the moment upon the emotions and expressions of the subject, but the soul itself and the whole soul-state. This directness was attained by Israels through the double study of man and his destiny in direct relation to nature.

Encyclopædias give the names of his masters and types in Amsterdam and Paris. But had Israels been a mere follower of his masters, then his name would not be found in encyclopædias. For decades, for many decades, he, the versatile painter, devoted himself to historical painting. No catalogue has rescued the titles from oblivion. When questioned concerning his early works, he answered the present writer with one of his characteristic subtle smiles: “How should I know where they are?” It was not until he had attained full maturity, or according to general ideas, after he had well passed maturity, that Israels became what he now is: he found himself after the sun of his life had passed the meridian.

Max Liebermann regards himself as a disciple of Israels, but is considered by others to be superior in the brilliancy and versatility of his genius. He was practically the father of the German “Secession,” and is the greatest living painter in Germany and one of the greatest in the world. Solomon J. Solomon is one of the most celebrated English painters. Dignified and serene, he has a wonderfully extensive and many-sided grasp of his art. As to Jewish art, it is a disputable point whether Liebermann’s pictures bear indications of a pronounced Jewish character――some writers having maintained that such is the case. Israels’ “Thora-Writer,” and particularly his “Son of an Old People” ――which is justly supposed to have been inspired by the new national movement――appeal undoubtedly to the Jewish consciousness by their exceptional impressiveness. The picture which established Solomon J. Solomon’s reputation was his “Samson and Delilah,” while his “Allegory” of 1904 is said to depict the triumph of Judaism as the last and only religion of the world.

In closing the review of this epoch, mention must be made of Lesser Ury of Berlin, an artist of great severity and sadness, whose “Jeremias” and other pictures display some originality singularly independent of influences from without――in which fact some critics thought they could trace some visions of Jewish awakening.

A similar change was noticeable in Eastern Europe during the period of transition which began there some decades later than in the West. Here, too, some young Jews entered the academies of art just as others went to the universities for scientific study, but, of course, with that difference in the prospects of success which distinguish art from science, that art depends more on natural gifts than on capacity to study. Some Polish, Galician and Russian Jews pursued their studies in Cracow or Petrograd, some others studied at Munich and Paris. Some deliberately emphasizing their national origin and country, others showing, through their new environment, a leaning towards a diversity of practical and theoretical motives.

Joseph Redlich (1821‒81) was an engraver of world-wide fame during the first half of the century. Alexander Lesser of Warsaw (1819‒91), the son of a Jewish merchant, was described as “the father of Polish historical painting.” Of no importance as a painter, the curious fact remains that this typical Polish Jew was in his time appreciated as a painter of Polish national history (the first and most important publishers of illustrated books and periodicals in Warsaw were Merzbach, Gliksberg, Lewenthal, the son of a Hebrew teacher, and Wolf, who was of Jewish origin).

Leopold Horowitz, born in Hungary in 1831, who lived many years in Warsaw, and since the expulsion of foreign Jews from Russia in Vienna, has the twofold distinction of being an eminent portrait painter of European fame, and a well-known and noble-minded Jew. His Jewish picture “The Ninth of Ab” (the anniversary of the Destruction of the Temple) is a work of grand style, exquisitely finished; his portraits, too, gained highest praise. He is much interested in Jewish matters, and was prominently associated with the foundation of the “Jewish Museum” at Vienna.

One of the greatest painters of the last generation in Russia was Isaac Levitan, born in 1860 (d. 1900), the master of Russian landscape. This Jew of the Russian Ghetto taught Russian artists to abandon mere topography for a poetical treatment of landscape scenery. He did not only paint admirably the rich purple of the northern sunset, the thin clouds, dawn and darkness, but also the very soul of the landscape. A writer in the (anti-Jewish) _Novoye Vremia_ had to admit that “this full-blooded Jew knew as no other man, how to make us realize and love our plain and homely country-scene.” Levitan’s pictures adorn the Tretjakov Museum at Moscow, and have the right of undisturbed shelter in that city that was not unconditionally granted to their originator. Leonid Pasternak, born in 1862, is an important Russian painter,

## particularly known for his connections with Tolstoi.

The most wonderful romance of Jewish vitality and force of self-regeneration is the story of Mark Antokolski (1842‒1900). Whatever modern critics may think of the special value of his master-works――classical or pseudo-classical――from an up-to-date point of view, the fact remains that this Lithuanian Jew, who was a son of poor parents at Vilna, brought up in the atmosphere of the _Cheder_ (religious school) and the Vilna _Schulhof_, which is the most typical and best known centre of what is distinctly Jewish, is recognized, as far as sculpture is concerned, in Paris the metropolis of art. He introduced Russian sculpture into European art and his works have been highly appreciated, seeing with what intense delight and admiration they have been regarded by the highest in his native land, where he was entrusted with the task of executing the greatest national monuments, but his works have also received the highest praise throughout the world. Bernstamm Aronson and ♦Ginzburg, distinguished by exceptional maturity in study and powers of concentration, the former an eminent master where powers of imagination and fascination were concerned, the latter of an observant, subtle intelligence, which proved so useful to him in the careful reproduction of details dealing with nature. They are devoted to the art of sculpture in Paris and in Russia.

♦ “Guenzburg” replaced with “Ginzburg” for consistency

All these artists proved that Jews can be artists. Jewish art in Jewish subjects was here and there to be observed. Isidore Kaufmann, a Hungarian Jew, born in 1853, executed some appreciable work in genre-painting of Polish-Jewish life. He displayed in his “Visit of the Rabbi,” “Talmud Students” and other little pictures, a great simplicity and freshness, and a delightful sense of humour, but these pictures, humorous as they are, have merely anecdotes for the outlines of their scheme. A real awakening of Jewish art in a higher sense was left to the present period of the Jewish National Revival and Zionism.

This new period was inaugurated by two Polish-Galician Jewish artists, who, while their respective artistic achievements were of different value, were instrumental in opening new perspectives for Jewish art; these were Moritz Gottlieb and Ephraim Moses Ha’Cohen Lilien.

Moritz Gottlieb, born in a small village in Galicia, about 1860, was a disciple of the great Polish national painter Jan Matejko. Of great imaginative power and intense feeling, a real artist, he succeeded in mastering the intricacies of modern painting. He soon became a favourite of his tutor, and was much admired in artistic circles at Cracow, where his works were immensely appreciated on account of the suave and well-balanced style of his pictures. His prospects of a great future increased with his popularity. It is said――_se non é vero é ben trovato_――that when he expressed his intention of devoting himself to Polish historical painting, Matejko remarked: “My son, you are a Jew; you cannot weep on the graves of Polish kings; leave it to others.” So Gottlieb devoted himself to Jewish subjects, the most important of which was his admirable “Jew Praying in the Synagogue.” This masterpiece so full of inspiration was more than a picture; it was a message to Jewish artists, one of the most simple and impressive: “You shall go back to your own people; you shall find and see your own greatness and glory; you shall be your own selves again!”

The hand of death removed him in early manhood――at the end of the eighties of the last century――Moritz Gottlieb’s name was cherished by the new generation of Jewish artists as that of a noble pioneer who had ushered in the era of Jewish art.

About ten years later, Lilien, having terminated his studies at Munich, settled in Berlin, and got in touch with the young Zionist intellectual movement. By means of his illustrations in black and white, which combined modernism with archaic forms, permeated by the Hebrew spirit, he soon succeeded in introducing a new element in artistic skill, and played a prominent part in shaping the modern tendencies of a somewhat independent young Jewish art. As to the artistic value and originality of his remarkable and exceedingly fruitful art, opinions may differ considerably, yet there is no doubt, as a master of an unique style of drawing, touch, finish and execution, and as a pioneer and advocate of methods expressing Jewish aspirations, types and ideas, he is unrivalled, and his works have had a far-reaching effect in encouraging Jewish artists to devote themselves to the extension of Jewish art on a self-dependent and self-inspiring basis. The message of Gottlieb and the impulses of Lilien can be easily traced, even among the important Jewish artists who have been their contemporaries or have lived at a later period and have occupied honoured positions in general as well as in Jewish art.

Samuel Hirschenberg, Leopold Pilichowski and Henry Glitzenstein form, with all the distinction of their individualistic and high artistic qualifications, a sort of triumvirate in the realm of art. All these came from the same country――Poland――and from the same district of that country; they were contemporaries in age as well as in their outlook on life, seeing that all these represent the new, emancipated intellectual type of the Polish Jew with a touch of Jewish nationalism of the eighties, who differ so distinctly from the old type of the “assimilation” Jews of a previous period.

Samuel Hirschenberg excelled in the painting of a variety of subjects. His distinctness and fine blending of colours, his skill in creating broad and accurate outlines of figures are indeed remarkable. He was a modest, earnest and most industrious worker of really artistic aspirations. He had a strong predisposition for big canvases and was averse from anecdotal subjects. He was unable to paint anything of a small type. The Jewish people, its suffering, and his persecuted brethren formed the subjects of his brush. “Golus” (copies of which are well known) is a specimen of his art and outlook. Of keen perception, the life-blood of Jewry pulsing through his veins, he painted his “Wandering Jew,” presenting with tragic force the synthesis and the resentment caused by Jewish Martyrdom.

He was one of those who had penetrated most deeply and powerfully the tragedy of the _Golus_, with all its great and desperate dreadfulness and all its abysmal horror, who felt it within their innermost marrow and blood, who went through life with its sad brand on their brows. The brush with which he painted was the master’s heart, and the colour――his blood, the warm life-blood. The blood which has been flowing for thousands of years from the ever-open wound of the creative genius and of the nation. He dreamt to base the future upon sacred ruins. He deemed as nothing the laurels of the _Golus_ as compared with the feeble light which began to glow more and more vividly far away in the old country and in his bosom, which overflowed with sadness and longing. He was a priest of art and a priest of the Jewish renaissance. During the last years of his life he went to Jerusalem to take part in the art work of Bezalel, and died there――as he had lived――upright and resigned to his fate, hiding from the world the sufferings of a noble soul.

Leopold Pilichowski is quite different in artistic temperament. Cheerful, thorough and pleasant, guided by a truly artistic instinct, he possesses the natural gifts of an eminent artist, being a keen observer of life, of charming personality, and an enthusiastic worker. He achieved a high reputation by reason of his admirable blending of colours, his excellent and attractive style, the life-like expression of his portraits and the careful attention bestowed upon details. In France he attained high distinction, and recently also in this country where his works have found considerable appreciation. But the favourite subject of his art is Polish Jews. His picture entitled “Wearied,” the two figures of old wearied Polish Jewish pilgrims――is in conception and execution a masterpiece; this picture has been so frequently reproduced that it is now one of the most popular and most impressive Jewish pictures of the time. He expresses more forcibly than any other contemporary painter the intense fervour of Jewish prayer. He endeavours to penetrate the secrets of Polish-Jewish pathos in his charming picture “The Feast of our Rejoicing” and in another, entitled “Sorrow” which, probably, no other painter would have been able to understand. He describes and creates an historical record for the type of the Polish Jew as he knew him――in the fervour of his prayers, in the glory of his devotion, in the attractiveness of his misery.

Henry Glitzenstein, who now lives in Rome, is the son of a _Melamed_ (religious teacher) in the little village of Turek, Poland. In Italy and throughout Europe, where his works have at several exhibitions gained highest distinction, he is recognized as being one of the greatest sculptors of the age. In ability, taste, gracefulness, originality and invention, he is a sculptor-poet, who excels all Jewish sculptors that ever lived, and even many non-Jewish artists of standing. It is not presumptuous to assert that Glitzenstein is one of the most modern sculptors, whose modernism does not merely amount to the acceptance of a certain “fad” but means original and constructive ability. He, too, is a dreamer of the Ghetto, but at the same time a master of a living art. His “Messiah,” the incarnation of the mighty, asleep yet about to awaken to any movement towards the Jewish future, is a work of an enormous conception.

Hirschenberg’s “Wandering Jew,” Pilichowski’s “Wearied” and Glitzenstein’s “Messiah,” though undoubtedly independent individual works, have yet to a certain extent been influenced by the new national spirit set aglow by Gottlieb and Lilien, and by the literature of the Jewish Revival.

To this category of Jewish artists belongs Hermann Struck, who combines artistic refinement with orthodox Jewish devotion and Zionist aspirations, a master of the first water, who has executed etchings of Israels’ works and those of other great artists, and has a fine record for original portrait painting, Palestinian landscapes, and other drawings of exceptional skill; Moses Maimon, a distinguished Russian-Jewish painter, the author of the very popular “Marranos in Spain,” and of other pictures of value; Jehuda Epstein, who has given proof of possessing great power of imagination by his great sketch “Maccabean,” a picture made for Herzl, who had it in his studio; Minkowski (Warsaw), whose Pogrom pictures are of really artistic value; Pffeffermann (Pan), a man of considerable artistic achievement, who has been engaged on the teaching staff of the Bezalel; Weinles and Altmann (Poland), who are responsible for various pictures and studies of Jewish subjects; Wachtel (Galicia), who emulated Lilien; and Hochmann (Cracow), who was guided by Glitzenstein’s works. In Russia there are the painters: A. A. Maneritsch, M. L. Schafrom, A. B. Lachowski, and the sculptors: F. Bloch, M. L. Dillon, J. A. Troupianski, of the younger generation, and――of the older generation――Gabowitsch, J. J. Brodski, who represent modern Jewish art. In the important colony of artists and art students in Paris, including Leo Minsenberg, Leopold Gottlieb, Cylkow, Markus, Kramstück, Elie Nadelman and others of Warsaw, a real Jewish awakening has been observed, particularly among the younger members of the colony.

Special mention should be made of the well-known landscape painter Abraham Neumann of Sierpce, Poland, who has a fine long record of artistic work. He participated most actively in stimulating Jewish artistic activity in Poland and Galicia.

With regard to sculpture, Alfred Nossig has also to be mentioned. Nossig can boast, among his various accomplishments, also that of an able sculptor _con amore_. In some of his works he has dealt impressively with national Jewish subjects.

Another Jewish sculptor of note should be mentioned, _viz._ F. Beer of Paris (died in 1910). He was an ardent Zionist and a great personal friend of Herzl, and contributed his share to Zionist artistic work (the badges of the Congress).

In this country, Will Rothenstein has become very popular through several of his pictures devoted to scenes of Jewish life; Isaac Snowman and his brother Louis [Conrad] are artists of recognized accomplishments, and have painted valuable pictures of this kind. Wolmark is well known as an artist of exquisite taste and idealistic aspirations. His inclination has led him to the rendering of subjects dealing with Jewish life, so admirably dealt with in some of the pictures. He is a strong individualist and truth-seeker, and has in recent times manifested a decided inclination for futurism, of which he is one of the champions. Jacob Epstein is the most representative of sculptors and combines genius with technical skill.

The foregoing survey of Jewish activity forces us to the following conclusions:――

I. The numerous Jewish works of art, especially in painting and sculpture of such marked ability, with no previous history, patronage or encouragement, and produced under most unfavourable circumstances in a comparatively short time, showed that Jewish genius was as much capable of development in the sphere of art as in music, poetry or the drama, and has made its influence felt at every opportunity.

II. The great artistic value――with few exceptions――of the works of these masters who either were acquainted with the older Jewish traditions, like Israels, H. P. Levy, Ezekiel, or who had come direct from the Ghetto, like Antokolski, compared with the Assimilationist Jews who were either satellites or plagiarists, proves that, even during the period previous to the present national Revival, Jewish consciousness (like any other deep racial consciousness) has stimulated the vigour and originality of artistic activity.

III. The beneficial effects of the National movement in Jewish artistic craftsmanship can be observed in two directions:――

(a) in the artistic value of the productions, especially with regard to Jewish subjects, and

(b) in the degree of influence of the artistic activity on the Jewish people.

With regard to the first point, the progress made can be easily gauged by comparing, for instance, Bendemann and Emil Levy with Gottlieb, or Oppenheim with Lilien, and so on. Jewish life at the period of Assimilation, like the literature of that period was presented essentially in apologetic terms and addressed itself always, consciously or unconsciously, to Gentiles, as if to say: “Think of us, we are really not as detestable as you believe us to be, we are rather attractive”; but, on the other hand, national artists say: “We are what we are,” and more than that, seeing that to deal with Jewish subjects from a national standpoint is self-centred, and therefore more of a psychological question. We are what we are, neither better nor worse than others: we endeavour to know ourselves, and we want to see our images reflected in our own art. Oppenheim’s Jews are so idealistically exaggerated that one would not recognize them if one were to meet them in their shops on the “Zeil” in Frankfurt, while Gottlieb’s Jews are so orientally peculiar, that meeting them in the market-place dealing with tapestry one would have the impression that these dealers are descendants of oriental princes, although the artist had no intention of producing this impression.

The second point is still more important. The art of the period of Assimilation, like the active character of Assimilation, is essentially individualistic and aristocratic, while the art of the period is decidedly of a collective and democratic character. Logically and psychologically, there can be no movement of Assimilation in masses, because Assimilation _must_ be opposed to cohesion or a movement for the cohesion of Jews, except for ritual purposes. A Jew becomes a doctor, a lawyer or a painter――the more he succeeds in his career among Gentiles, the less he is brought in contact with the Jewish masses: nobility of character or generosity may make him a philanthropist to the masses whom he may endeavour to patronize; on the other hand, the absence of these qualities will make him wholly indifferent, but anyhow the chain of natural and simple intercourse is broken. This was necessarily the course of Assimilation in every direction, and also showed us the relationship of Jewish artists to the Jewish masses. All those Huszars, Ronas, Schlesingers and Pollacks had no inclination and no possibility whatever of acquiring the artistic education of the people from whom they sprang. In this respect the situation has considerably improved owing to the national movement, _Chovevé Zion_ and Zionism. Now, many Jewish artists live among the people, and are influenced by them. Not only in Russia, where there is now a strong movement for propaganda ♦and mutual help among Jewish artists (under the tutorship of Ilja Ginzburg)――a movement which was unthinkable in the time of the Assimilation tendencies――but even in Paris a tendency has made itself felt in this direction in the Jewish colony of artists in recent times. Among the masses in the East of London, too, there is an Organization called _Ben Uri_, for the propaganda of art. Lectures are arranged, instruction is given, and popular articles are published on various subjects of art. That popularity is due to the activity of the publishing firms _Phœnix_, _Libanon_, the monthly _Ost und West_, and other publications.

♦ “amd” replaced with “and”

Summing up the effects of relationship between Jewish art and Zionism, we see that Zionism has played its part in the revival of Jewish art. On the other hand, Jewish art has contributed much to the propaganda of Zionism. It cannot be too often repeated that the creative and active forces of Zionism have always been literature, education and art: they have stimulated the people’s hearts and minds, they have opened the people’s eyes and enlisted their generosity. One of the greatest agencies of Zionist propaganda has been the Bezalel, the work of the enthusiastical Jewish artist Boris Schatz, who is in his own art a disciple of Antokolski, but who stands himself, unrivalled, as a pioneer in the propaganda of Jewish artistic activity in Palestine.

It is not hazarding too much to assert, that with an important development of colonization and education in Palestine we are going to see a really original Jewish art. But even in the Diaspora, the awakening of Jewish consciousness will ennoble, popularize and strengthen Jewish art. Jewish artists should not pursue any particular tendency in addition to their own art; they should be only artists, and true to themselves. Art must be free, and being free it will――as a necessary and natural consequence――eventually offer ample scope for the national genius.