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.