| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: History of Zionism, Vol. I (of 2) : 1600-1918
Author: Sokolow, Nahum
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "History of Zionism, Vol. I (of 2) : 1600-1918" ***
(OF 2) ***
HISTORY OF ZIONISM
1600‒1918
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ │
│ Punctuation has been standardized. │
│ │
│ The text may show quotations within quotations, all set │
│ off by similar quote marks. The inner quotations have been │
│ changed to alternate quote marks for improved readability. │
│ │
│ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ Italic text: --> _text_ │
│ emphasized text within │
│ italics --> |text| │
│ │
│ This book was written in a period when many words had │
│ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │
│ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │
│ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │
│ with a Transcriber’s Note. │
│ │
│ The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has │
│ been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there │
│ is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image │
│ adequately. │
│ │
│ Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript │
│ number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │
│ text or to provide additional information for the modern │
│ reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣ symbols in the │
│ text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
│ │
│ The text has been corrected based on the corrections noted in │
│ the Corrigenda of Volume 2. │
│ │
│ The index from Volume 2 has been appended to the end of the │
│ text in this volume. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Illustration: (‡ Dr. Theodor Herzl)
History of Zionism
1600‒1918
BY
NAHUM SOKOLOW
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
THE Rᵀ. HON. A. J. BALFOUR, M.P.
_WITH EIGHTY-NINE PORTRAITS AND ILLUSTRATIONS_
Selected and Arranged
BY ISRAEL SOLOMONS
IN TWO VOLUMES
VOL I.
LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
FOURTH AVENUE & 30TH STREET, NEW YORK
BOMBAY, CALCUTTA AND MADRAS
1919
PREFACE
IN this work an attempt is made to deal with a considerable portion
of the history of Zionism that has hitherto been very imperfectly
explored, namely, the origin and development of the Zionist idea
principally in England, and partly in France, during the last
centuries, among Gentiles and Jews.
In reviewing the gradual evolution of the Zionist idea over such a
wide field, I could not restrict the meaning of the term “Zionism”
to the Zionist Movement and Organization of the present day. I had to
go back to the beginning of this idea, and to extend the meaning of
“Zionism” to all aspirations and efforts tending in the same direction.
There was in these aspirations, undoubtedly, a diversity of reasons
and methods which continues to this day. It is the object of the
present work to trace these various currents of the idea so that the
reader, passing from period to period, and from section to section,
may become acquainted with their relative value and their influence
upon one another.
In this book I have striven more especially to consider the attitude
of the English people towards Zionism, as revealed in the political
history and in the literature of England. The Christian religious idea
of the Restoration of _Israel_ having been a subject of pre-eminent
interest and importance and an influential factor in shaping public
opinion in this country for many generations, the greatest care has
been bestowed upon the investigation of this aspect, no less than
on that relating to the support and encouragement which Zionism has
received in England and in France merely on humanitarian or political
grounds, apart from religious aspirations.
While tracing in detail the growth of these sympathies, I have
endeavoured to throw some light on the motives and sentiments
appertaining to the most significant instances on record. I had,
therefore, to deal with a great variety of subjects which, at first
sight, may seem somewhat remote from the main object of this book,
but are after all closely connected with it, as for instance:――
The Biblical character of the English People;
The Bible in English Literature;
The Love for Palestine in England, and
English Politics in the Near East.
Concerning the last-mentioned subject, it is perhaps necessary to
explain why I was compelled to deal at such length with the Wars
and Treaties of 1839‒40, of 1853‒54, and _The Lebanon_ events of
1860, _etc._ It can hardly be too often repeated that Zionism has to
consider political conditions, and that its realization depends much
on the general political situation. It is for this reason that it
is necessary to devote much attention to all the events which have
more or less determined English policy, and have influenced――in
a favourable or unfavourable manner――the evolution of the Zionist
idea. The events of 1839‒40, for instance, were responsible for the
extension of English protection to Palestinian Jews; those of 1853‒54
caused a revival of Zionist schemes: _The Lebanon_ developments of
1860‒61 created a precedent in Syria for the Charter which modern
Zionism included in its programme; while England’s engagements in the
Near East in 1878 and 1882 on the one hand, and the Turkish Revolution
of 1908 on the other hand, both of which, in different ways, led to
the idea of a rejuvenation of the East, indicate the possible course
of future events.
Taking the same view with regard to Zionism among the Jews themselves,
I had to deal with the expression of different aspirations of that
character in their successive and gradual evolution, no matter how
they were named. From what is stated in the following pages, it is
obvious that Messianic traditions and hopes led to the efforts put
forth for the colonization of Palestine; but it is also evident that
colonization requires political guarantees. Modern Zionism cannot be
fully understood without the movement of the _Chovevé Zion_ = Lovers
of _Zion_, neither can it be properly appreciated without a knowledge
of the influence of _Hebrew_ literature, national propaganda, the
movement at the Universities, and other preparatory agencies of great
importance. Some readers will be more or less familiar with the most
important events in connection with the Zionist Organization, but
so far as I have been able to discover there are very few Zionists
who have ever endeavoured to trace the history of the Idea. Hence,
while the Zionist Organization and its institutions have, naturally,
received special attention, an exhaustive examination of the history
of the Zionist Idea has been no less necessary. The fact should not be
overlooked that Zionism has its external and its internal aspects, its
material realities as well as its spiritual character; and that the
outward form of Zionism is the consequence and not the cause of the
inner spirit. A real knowledge of Zionism presupposes an acquaintance
with its intellectual sources. I felt, consequently, that a history of
Zionism on broad lines must include a survey of the creative forces
underlying the Zionist Idea.
In writing the history of Zionism as evolved principally in England
and France, I do not intend to imply that the history of Zionism in
any other country is unworthy of study. A history of Zionism in other
countries would, no doubt, prove of the greatest interest. But it will
be apparent that in England the Zionist idea has the oldest records,
while as far as practical help for colonization is concerned, France
is the great centre. In view, however, of the world-wide character of
the Zionist Movement, I could not confine myself exclusively to these
two countries, and had to deal briefly with such subjects as Zionist
literature, colonization work, Zionism at the Universities, and the
Zionist Organization in Palestine, Russia, and other countries.
In a single book, which deals with a vast mass of facts and with
records extending over a period of nearly three centuries, it is
impossible to do more than indicate in very general terms the nature
of the different currents and variations of the fundamental Zionist
idea. It would be a tedious, and indeed an impossible task, to attempt
a full examination of the mass of material accessible in the form
of literature and personal reminiscences. It would require several
volumes. While, then, the magnitude of the subject prevents me from
attempting to present my case with absolute completeness within the
limits of this work, nevertheless it is sufficiently important to
justify the endeavour to summarize its most prominent features. I
shall indeed be thankful if my work succeeds in disposing of the most
important points I touch upon. This book has not been written with
a view to Zionist propaganda among the masses. But the propagandist
may be able to make use of some of the material and reproduce it in
popular articles and pamphlets. The book may also prove of interest
to those who have the will and the patience to study the problem of
Zionism more deeply. Students with the inclination to examine more
closely into the subject will find the necessary indications in the
text, as well as in the Appendices and the Indexes.
I have spared no pains in my endeavour to obtain the best sources of
information and to secure accuracy, and have also made every effort
to consult all the literature bearing upon the subject, making liberal
use of all material accessible to me. I have given the authorities
for my statements wherever possible, so that those who may be desirous
of investigating the subject more fully may have an opportunity of
judging for themselves as to the credibility of the evidence upon
which my conclusions are based. It is almost certain, however, that
small mistakes have crept in occasionally, and I shall be grateful
for any corrections which may at any time be indicated to me by
readers. This will be particularly the case with regard to the records
dealing with the workers in the various countries, the movement at
the Universities, and so forth. It was in some instances difficult
to select names, and I have been under the necessity of omitting some
just as important as those which I have recorded. And in connection
with this part of my work I had very little literature, and it is
quite possible that my memory has failed me in respect of the order
and details of certain facts and events. But I hope that such errors
can be easily corrected.
As regards general treatment, the subject presented the usual
difficulty in the choice of a chronological or analytical method.
In a strict chronological arrangement things of a similar character
would often be widely separated, and the chain recording a certain
development would be broken. In the other arrangement the points
appertaining to the influence of a particular period would be obscured,
and the survey rendered difficult. I have therefore combined as far as
possible the advantages of both methods, and have endeavoured to avoid
their drawbacks. I have arranged the material chronologically for
every subject, but in order to explain activities connected with one
another, I have often had to take a retrospective glance at an episode
or a personality.
The elucidation of Zionist aims, with special reference to the present
situation, is, apart from several allusions to it in the text of
the present volume, mainly dealt with in the Introduction. The whole
history, and particularly the Introduction, is, as I am perfectly
aware, written from the Zionist standpoint. A historian should, it
is true, put aside party interest. But nobody not himself a Zionist
could penetrate into the kernel of Zionism, because one cannot fully
comprehend any spiritual phenomenon without feeling it within himself.
Those who have no experience in Zionism may have their opinions, but
they are invariably found to be ignorant of the more minute features
and finer points which are essential to a faithful portrayal of
Zionism. Zionists, on the other hand, may be partial, but they are
certainly better informed. Anyhow, I have endeavoured to be just to
the best of my ability.
To Zionists themselves this history needs no recommendation. The
records of an ideal of thousands of years for which the best of our
nation have laboured, struggled, suffered and died cannot fail to
interest most profoundly those who have inherited their principles and
continue their work, thoroughly convinced that it is in harmony with
humanity and justice, as well as with Jewish tradition.
Having said so much, I need only add one word of explanation
concerning the term “Jewish Nationalism,” which is frequently
used in this book. “Nationalism,” generally speaking, is a modern
description of certain political parties and schools, which stand for
an exaggerated racial self-consciousness. It is difficult to define
this word without importing into our thought the idea of the contrast
between broad-minded humanity and tribal or national exclusiveness and
hostility towards other nations. This, however, would be an extremely
unfair rendering of what we call “Nationalism” in relation to the Jews.
In the present book, as indeed in the whole of Zionist literature,
the word is used without any reference to narrow-minded exclusiveness,
and it stands only for the recognition of the national character of
the Jews in so far as they are an ethnic, historic, and cultural unit
in the Diaspora, and in so far as they aim at a revival of their full
national life in the land of their fathers. Obviously, this idea has
nothing in common with what is usually called “Nationalism.” This
distinction must always be borne in mind.
It is now my pleasant duty to express my grateful acknowledgments to
colleagues and friends who have so generously and zealously assisted
me in the preparation of this work.
Mr. Elkan N. Adler has kindly allowed me to take extracts from the
correspondence that passed between his father, the Very Reverend Chief
_Rabbi_ Dr. Nathan Marcus Adler, and Sir Moses Montefiore, Bart.,
concerning the Holy Land.
Mr. Leon Simon has made many valuable suggestions, and most generously
devoted considerable time to the reading and correcting the proofs.
I am, however, particularly indebted to Mr. Israel Solomons, who
revised the chapters of the first volume, added considerably to the
biographical and bibliographical details, and volunteered to see the
work through the press.
He also placed at my disposal his unique collection of books and
tracts on Anglo-Judaica, and having decided to illustrate the book,
he generously undertook this part of the work, giving me the benefit
of his great knowledge and experience and furnishing from his many
portfolios rare portraits and other engravings. He also devoted
much time and energy in procuring from sources far and wide the
illustrations deemed necessary, when not in his own collection.
N. S.
N.B.――All Biblical references have been taken from תורה נביאים וכתובים The
Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic text. A new translation
with the aid of previous versions and with constant consultation with
Jewish Authorities.
Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America.
London: George Routledge and Sons, Limited. 5677――1917.
THE AUTHOR’S INTRODUCTION
THE Zionist idea has two distinctive features. On the one hand there
is nothing in Zionism which is not more or less found elsewhere. The
Promised Land, Jewish national distinctiveness, the future of the
Jewish people――these ideas exist in Judaism and in Christianity. They
go back to the remotest past; they take, during many generations, a
thousand forms――sentimental, practical, sublime, even mystical. In
Modern Zionism we find them all. On the other hand, while the elements
of the older Zionism seem familiar, the total effect of Modern Zionism
is that of something new and strange. The reason is that there is
something in Modern Zionism which stamps it as unique, and raises
it far above all older ideas and aspirations. Some of the old ideas
of the Middle Ages about the restoration of Israel would nowadays
be hardly acceptable. But the same ideas, when we see great masses
of Jews inspired by them and aiming at their realization, become
attractive. The same holds good as regards details.
In the Zionist programme every point of the old Zionist idea is
preserved, but everything is modernized. Modern Zionism is the
logical consequence of Jewish History. It does not appeal merely to
old memories, which, however noble and moving, cannot be permanently
sustained; it works by simple, intelligible means, by means of a
Renascence. This Renascence kindles enthusiasm, renews courage,
awakens in the heart fresh fervour and stimulus to action.
Zionism has tradition to support it; but if it were simply a thing
of antiquity, it would perish; if it were simply a matter of history
and not of living experience, it would be relegated to the sphere
of archæology. Zionism, although old, like the Jewish people, thinks
freshly and independently on Jewish subjects. The roots of Zionism are
in the past, but its blossom is in the present and its fruit in the
future. The reason is simply that everything really Jewish must be
bound up with history. Zionism is, first of all, undoubtedly a great
historical idea. It is a simple matter of fact that Israel’s history
begins with Zionism. Israel’s history in ancient times shows the path
to the realization of Zionism. The exodus from Egypt was an example
of combined emigration and colonization. The Jewish people entered
Canaan, occupied lands, and in a few generations became a glorious
nation. The return from Babylon was a great Zionist event, without
any supernatural miracle, dependent only on the grace of God and the
approval of Cyrus the Great. The Jews who returned from Babylon were
only an insignificant minority in numbers, but they were inspired,
and therefore they succeeded in founding a centre, and that centre,
Palestine, became a new light for Jews and Gentiles. In fact, the
favourite idea of Modern Zionism, the idea of a spiritual centre in
Zion for the whole Diaspora, the focussing of a pure Jewish life in
Palestine, the creation of an intellectual and moral reservoir, from
which a stream of influence should flow all over the scattered nation,
and waves of Jewish inspiration and knowledge should spread in all
directions, making the little land a metropolis of Judaism in religion
and life――was not this Zionist programme laid down and carried out in
the intentions and achievements of _Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah_?
In after years Jews went forth as emigrants to all parts of the world.
They submitted to the laws of the various countries, and were capable
of adapting themselves to surrounding circumstances. Wherever they
went they carried with them their God and their traditions, their
literature and their customs, nor did they ever forget the old, holy
home which they had left.
This faithfulness is one of the most stirring and pathetic facts in
the history of the world; it is the most sublime fact in the history
of the Jews. The Jews never forgot _Jerusalem_, its ruined walls, its
shattered palaces, its former grandeur, its old associations; they
never forgot the old land and its desolate fields. This feeling never
depended on individual Jews, it depended on the whole Jewish nation.
The Jews never forgot their old nationality. They never forgot that
they were a nation apart, distinct in morality, in learning, in
literature, in social arrangements and in agriculture: a civilized
nation at a time when Western civilization was still unknown. For two
thousand years after the loss of political independence, they believed
with passionate intensity in their future as a nation in Palestine.
While they were mingling with the world around them, no temptation,
whether the hope of material success or the still more irresistible
force of emulation, could withdraw them from their allegiance to the
future. No inducement, however powerful, no suffering, no martyrdom,
no agony could make them forget the sacred debt they owed to God, to
their ancestors and to themselves. They always considered it their
duty to be members of one great family, bound together not alone
by a common past, but by a community of undying ideas, aspirations,
and hopes for a national future. They remained unmistakably true to
their duty. This strong conviction is deeply rooted in the hearts of
millions of Jews. It is an unbroken chain stretching from the dawn of
Jewish history through all generations from _Abraham_ to our own times.
This unshaken belief, which kept and still keeps together the Jews
all over the world, is the quintessence of all Jewish prophecies,
from _Moses_ to _Malachi_, of all Jewish teaching, from the men of
the _Great Synod_ to _Maimonides_ and to the present day.¹
¹ See Appendix i: _The Hebrew Prophets and the Idea of
National Restoration_.
This idea of a national future for _Israel_ is the essence of all
Jewish prayers, from the time when the “Eighteen Benedictions” were
composed to the last of the _Paitanim_. It is the keynote of all
_Hebrew_ poetry, old and new, from the holy Psalms to the inspired
poems of Jehudah Ha’levi, and from Jehudah Ha’levi to the living
_Hebrew_ poets of our own day. This everlasting, all-absorbing and
unconquerable idea of a national future is absolutely Jewish. It has
accompanied the Jews from the cradle to the grave. It is the secret of
their long existence, which has no parallel in history. It has nothing
to do with nationalistic tendencies and currents among the Gentiles in
modern times. It existed as well in times of distress and misfortune
as in times of prosperity. It was never the invention of individuals;
on the contrary, there can be found occasionally the expression of
individual views, in passages of little importance, which reveal
a somewhat different standpoint. But the Jewish people as a whole,
including even the most extreme sects, such as the Karaites and the
Samaritans, remained faithful to this idea.
From an historical point of view, to speak of “Germans, Hungarians
or Turks of the Jewish faith” in order to describe the Jews simply
as persons of a certain religious faith similar to Protestants,
Catholics or others, is nothing short of defying authentic history
and hard facts. The Jews do not form a State within a State, as
some anti-Semites maintain; but they are undoubtedly an old historic
nation within other nations, an old nation which has outlived Egyptian
Pharaohs, Assyrian Kings and Arabian Khalifs. That they at present
do not live in their own land, but are scattered everywhere, that
they have become acclimatized in different countries, and not only
conform to their laws but belong to their most loyal citizens, that
fact does not in the least alter the truth of our assertion. With
a few unimportant exceptions Jews marry among themselves, and as
far as the majority is concerned maintain their racial and historic
peculiarities. Moreover, their entire religion abounds in historical
ideas and national reminiscences. They can by no means be compared
with Catholics or Protestants: there are French Catholics and German
Catholics, English Protestants and German Protestants, but the Jewish
religion has been a religion of the Jewish nation alone for thousands
of years.
It is only in quite modern times that a kind of opposition to this
idea has begun to find expression in some Jewish quarters, influenced
by the general tendencies of the end of the eighteenth century, and
chiefly represented by the so-called Mendelssohnian school. This
opposition has been intensified to a certain extent, since Modern
Zionism came into being with its clear programme and its up-to-date
character.
The principal points of this opposition to the Zionist cause are the
following:――
1. The Spiritual Character of Judaism.
2. The so-called Mission of the Jews.
3. The Progress of Modern Civilization.
4. The Duty of Patriotism, and
5. The Problem of Equality of Rights for the Jews.
The slightest examination of these objections shows that they are
partly based on misunderstanding, and partly mere verbal criticism,
which in no way affects the essence of Zionism.
1. It would be absurd to suppose that Zionism denies the spiritual or
universal character of Judaism. Zionism does not worship “tribalism.”
Far from it. Jewish religious doctrines are of value to the whole
world, and their ethics undoubtedly tend to unite humanity. This is a
truth so evident as to need no confirmation. But Jews are not ghosts;
they are human beings, and they have to look upon Judaism in a human
sense. And the human sense is that Jews, notwithstanding the spiritual
character of their teachings, are, like any other ethnic group, a
species of the _genus homo_, a distinct people united by their origin
and by their common history. “God,” said Mazzini, “has written one
line of His thought upon each people, and consequently each is to
bring its gifts into the market-place of the world’s good.” In this
sense Zionists are Nationalists: they look forward to the gradual and
ultimate triumph of all national types, including their own. There is
no reason for humanity to deny this natural right to the oldest nation
of the world, and no justification for the Jews themselves to commit a
sort of national hari-kari because of the spirituality of Judaism.
2. The Zionist conception of a living nationality, with all universal
qualities, yet living and distinctive, holds good also for the idea
of the Mission of Judaism. Frankly, Zionists do not like this idea
as a justification of the Jew’s “right to exist.” But what exactly
is the meaning of a mission of a people? This uncertain phrase of a
mission of a people, the mystic form in which the knowledge won by
a retrospective observation of history is expressed, the idea that
a given people in a given way has influenced the development of the
human moral system. In fact, this mode of expression confuses cause
and effect. It presupposes that definite tasks are assigned to a
nation beforehand and that it exists and acts with regard to the
solution of these problems. The truth is, however, that every nation
creates definite phenomena in the history of civilization, whilst
it lives and acts as it can and must owing to its natural conditions
and the influence of its surroundings. A nation has no other mission
but to live and to develop fully all its latent capacities. Without
intention and consciousness it then fulfils quite alone a rôle in
human history. An oppressed, persecuted and despised Jewish people
is worthless to humanity; a free, strong, happy Jewish people becomes
a useful partner in the task of the progress of the whole human race.
The co-operation in this task may be called a mission. In any case,
this mission will certainly not be fulfilled by a Jewish people
harassed by persecution or absorbed by assimilation; but, on the
other hand, it may be fulfilled by a national self-centred Jewish
people. Let us suppose that there are prospects of a “Jewish Mission”
to spread far and wide the moralities that were revealed to the
Jewish nation at the foot of Mount _Sinai_, to influence humanity by
teachings given them and by examples which they are called on to offer.
Surely, though such a mission may perhaps be carried out to a certain
extent in the Diaspora, if circumstances are favourable and if the
Jews themselves do not amalgamate and are not absorbed by others,
it can be carried out best and most completely from a Jewish centre,
from a Jewish Commonwealth living in that land from which the
spirit of Judaism first passed into morality, into human society and
institutions. There this mission will be on firm ground. Thence came
the Divine literature, which has affected all subsequent literature,
all hearts, all minds, and all studies. From Palestine the light of
the Jewish genius will shine forth again with the light of a modern
civilization according to the ideas and teachings of the Prophets.
This will be the most efficient instrument of propaganda, because
it will be the clearest manifestation of the real Jewish spirit and
activity.
3. The progress of modern civilization has come to be regarded as a
sort of modern _Messiah_ for the final solution of the Jewish problem.
Zionism considers this conception superficial and misleading. “Modern
Civilization” is one of those vague, indefinite expressions which
convey to the mind ideas large enough, no doubt, but still very
nebulous, very indistinct. But our age is a mystery-dispelling age.
Somehow during the last generations mysteries have become fewer and
fewer; the light of truth has become more penetrating. Men begin to
know what “modern civilization” is in its separate and distinctive
aspects. “Modern civilization” connotes advanced thought, domestic
comfort, railroads, telegraphs, telephones, airships, and many other
things of the kind. It connotes the development of those rich physical
resources by which man is surrounded; it connotes also guns and
super-dreadnoughts and submarines, diplomacy and power. Zionists
do not see how this “civilization” will become a _Messiah_ for the
Jews; they do not see how this “civilization” will solve any human
or national problem. They see that in spite of all the admirable
achievements of modern civilization something is wrong. Indeed, except
for technical improvements everything is still lacking. One must go
back and seek again the proper fountain-head of that real civilization,
of that culture of the heart, whose triumph will be the “new heavens
and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.” If any one idea
running through all the teachings of the Jewish prophets, and embodied
likewise in the teachings of Christianity, is needed nowadays, it is
the doctrine of Love and Justice and Truth.
Where are these ideals? We have seen all the Demons of Earth, all the
Powers of Darkness let loose. The signs on Belshazzar’s wall appear
again on the wall of modern civilization: _Mene, Tekel, Upharsin_.
Never at any time has a crisis more momentous impended over humanity.
Never at any time has a gloom more heavy darkened the world. Never
did humanity long more than nowadays for Truth, Justice and Liberty,
for the salvation of small, disinherited and oppressed nations. We
all hope that good will come out of evil. But this good will not come
automatically out of “Modern Civilization.” It will come from that
Universal and National Justice to which Zionism appeals.
4. Of greater apparent importance is the question of Patriotism. But
in reality, so far as Zionism is concerned, this is no question at all.
It was an offensive and insulting question asked by anti-Semites: “Can
a Jew be a patriot?” It is equally insulting to ask: “Can a Zionist
be a patriot?” As a matter of fact there are no conflicting sentiments
to be reconciled; there is only one sentiment: loyalty. A selfish
materialist will never be attached to the old home of his fathers, nor
to his present country. His maxim will be: _Ubi bene, ibi patria_. On
the other hand, a man of character will as easily combine two objects
of loyalty as he easily and naturally combines the love of his country
and of his family.
The heart of the Jew beats warmly for the country in which he lives,
the land in which is the home of his childhood, the school of his
boyhood, the household of his mature life: the land in which he
labours in his busy years, and in which he expects to rest when his
struggles are over. No Englishman can love England better or labour
for it more zealously than does the English Jew. The child will never
forget the fostering warmth of the breast on which it has rested in
happier days. This is natural. And Zionism has never interfered with
this feeling. Zionists are as faithful patriots as non-Zionists: they
work for their native lands, they sacrifice their fortunes and their
lives. Even in countries where Jews have been deprived of the rights
of citizenship they have been active as citizens, not only in war-time,
but also in peace-time. There is no body of individuals more loyal,
more charitable, more anxious at all times to do what they can for the
country and to promote to their utmost its industry, arts and sciences.
There is not the slightest difference in this respect between Zionists
and non-Zionists. Zionists do not know or care whether it will please
anti-Semites to recognize Zionist patriotism or not. It is equally
impossible to know whether anti-Semites will recognize the patriotism
of Jews who are not Zionists. Against sheer prejudice nothing can
be done. But among Jews themselves and broad-minded Gentiles this
question of the incompatibility of Zionism and patriotism should be
eliminated at once on account of its manifest absurdity.
5. The question of equality of rights is another problem out of which
anti-Zionists have endeavoured to make controversial capital. The
Russian Revolution, with its recognition not only of individual but
also of national equality of rights in the country where of all others
this problem was most acute for the Jews, has taken the ground from
under their feet; and we are no longer called on to treat seriously
the contention that there is any sort of incompatibility between the
Zionist claim for recognition of Jewish nationality and the claim of
the individual Jew, wherever he may be, to be allowed the privileges,
as he is ready to fulfil the duties, of citizenship. There is, in fact,
unconscious humour in the attempt to reduce the problem to a sort
of alternative formula: “Either rights or Palestine,” and therefore
choose for yourself! “_Hic Rhodus, hic salta!_” This is surely the
very height of _naivete_. Such a dilemma is a senseless invention.
Every student of Jewish history knows that if there has been and if
there is persecution of the Jews or any limitation of their rights,
this has not been, and is not because the Jews were or are Zionists or
non-Zionists, Orthodox or Reformers, and so on. One might more easily
find some connection between anti-Semitism and the assimilation
of those Jews who endeavoured to amalgamate too quickly. But even
this point is irrelevant. The Jews must not ignore themselves, and
ignoring themselves would not help them to get rights. The more
they respect themselves the more they will be respected. And what is
the self-respect of an ancient nation? Self-respect is faithfulness
to one’s own history and traditions. There is no duality and
no alternative. There is only one Jewish problem that requires
solution. There is only one Justice――to man and to nations. Justice
will consider Jewish needs; injustice will be deaf to any demand.
Weak-minded and nervous people feared that Zionism which recognizes
the Jews as a nationality will allow the anti-Semites to reproach
us triumphantly as having no native land. Weakness of mind and
nervousness are bad counsellors. The anti-Semites did not wait for
Zionism in order to brand us as having no fatherland. The Christian
peoples, however, amongst whom we may presuppose a sense of justice
to exist, will believe us when we speak thus to them: “We Jews are
true citizens of the States to which we belong. All interests of the
country are also ours. We have no single interest which is opposed
to any interest whatsoever of our country. We are strong and of deep
feeling, and are attached therefore with more than ordinary love
to that spot where our cradle stood and where the remains of our
ancestors are buried.”
This self-reliance is of the essence of Zionism. Zionism is a Jewish
programme. It is a Jewish programme because it requires of Jews
courage, initiative, resourcefulness, tenacity, will-power and
sacrifice. For Jewish emancipation the most important condition is
that others should be humane. For Zionism the most important condition
is that Jews should be Jews, adhering with tenacious consistency to
this truly national idea of their own. In the first case the real work
has to be done by others; Jews can do very little, their rôle being
chiefly passive. They may be persecuted or not; they may get rights
or not. Essentially it depends on many factors outside their influence
and their control. But Zionism is essentially an active Jewish
programme. Zionism is real Jewish self-help. Zionism tends to make
the Jews creators, not creatures of conditions and situations.
Zionists, like all Jews, are fundamentally optimists; but theirs is
no mere “wait and see” optimism. Confidence in the Future has been
the curse of the Jew. Confidence in “Progress” as an idol has been
blindness. Away with idols! Jews have to take their cause into their
own hands, for God helps those who help themselves. First of all,
they have to look on the general situation of the world and on that
of their own people as it is. They have also to read the signs of the
time. Time does not stand still. We are no longer at the end of the
eighteenth century. The fundamental character of the present age is
clear. This is a Nationalist age.
Zionism looks at the 2000 years of the Jewish tragedy in the
perspective of national justice. The Jewish problem is essentially
(and independently of the necessity of human rights for the Jews
everywhere) a question of national homelessness.
* * * * *
The world has been passing through a period which sometimes seems like
a nightmare of blood and ruin, and sometimes like one of the greatest
eras in which man can be called upon to live. All over Europe, almost
all over the world, the storm of the greatest and most terrible war
in history has burst with the fury of a thousand volcanic eruptions
and a thousand hells. Flourishing countries have been reduced to heaps
of smoking ruins. Vast fields have been saturated with the blood of
millions of men. Large masses of population, almost whole peoples,
have been ruined or driven out of their countries.
But, after all, peace will return to the troubled world, that peace
which will be peace indeed――the peace of security, of justice for
great and small nations everywhere. The present _Armageddon_ is
succeeded by new problems and their solutions. We are facing political,
economic, and, above all, national problems. It is plain common sense,
and needs no argument, that all present developments tend inevitably
to accentuate afresh and emphatically historic traditions, claims
and distinctions. There will be difficulties in settling all these
questions, but all such difficulties will be overcome by determination
and necessity. Plenty of work will have to be done, for it may be
long before the set-back which the war has given to the progress
of the world is made good and the effects of this cruel destruction
are obliterated. But this work will be achieved sooner or later. The
whole energy of Governments and nations will have to be devoted to
reconstruction. At last the ploughman will return from the battlefield
to the cornfield, the tradesman from the camp to the market, and
everybody to his old home and business. Every nation which possesses
a country of its own will be restored. They will make a slow or rapid
recovery from the ills and losses of the war. Finally, the shattered
agricultural, domestic, industrial and spiritual lives of the people
will be re-established.
Now, among all the battlefields and graveyards of the war, there is
not one to be compared with the battlefield of the Jewish _Ghetto_ in
Eastern Europe. Millions of Jews have waded through seas of blood and
tears. Towns and villages have been dyed with their blood. The Jews
have sacrificed their trade, their fortunes and themselves. The flower
of their manhood has been lost or mutilated. The sources of life have
been cut off, every link of the chain of existence has been broken.
Their schools and spiritual centres are no more. The sword of Damocles
is suspended over the heads of the survivors. Starving and ruined
communities are trembling on the edge of the precipice.
And what has the future in store for these millions? What will be
the outcome of this terrible crisis for the disinherited and homeless
masses? Where are the fields to be cultivated by them again? Where
will they be able to convert spears into pruning-hooks? They are in
the air. Have all their sufferings been for naught? Will the Jewish
masses have to migrate again to England and to America and elsewhere,
to face the world again as mendicants and “undesirable aliens”? Much
Jewish benevolence is uselessly diffused, losing itself in the sands
of vain or ill-directed effort, and most runs to absolute waste. With
all these diverse floods of unutilized kindness and brotherly love
that yearns to help but lacks the means and knows not how to put an
end to the suffering, the situation remains unchanged.
There is a solution for this
problem. This solution is Zionism. Give to the Jews a footing on their
own soil, house and home of their own! Palestine (and gradually the
thinly populated neighbouring districts) can become a great outlet
for Jewish population: Palestine can again be made to “blossom like
a rose,” and be capable of supporting a great population as in the
glorious days of _David_ and _Solomon_. Vast tracts of the so-called
Syrian Desert are only regions deforested, and wherever the hum of men
comes peacefully, the arid soil bursts into life. The plains of the
_Hauran_, the villages of the _Jordan_, and the land of _Gilead_ would
form one of the richest and largest food-producing areas in the world.
Palestine can again become a centre. Napoleon I. and Alexander the
Great, in their days, recognized this country as the key to the
gate between West and East. The latter won it and penetrated to the
Punjab; the former failed and had to go home again. But whatever
value Palestine possessed in those days is immensely enhanced now by
the vast extension of European civilization and industry over Africa,
Australia, India and all the East, and by steam power, railways, the
telegraph and the Suez Canal, which have shortened distances, and made
the world so very small in comparison with what it was before; so that
Palestine is now ten times more valuable and is suited by her position
to become a blessed and happy country.
Now the present situation is full of possibilities and significance.
Great developments have taken place in connection with the old home of
the Jewish nation. This is the hour of the Zionist. The time has come
to act. History will condemn the Zionists if they do not use their
present opportunity. But what can their activity be? The reply has
been given by the Programme of Zionism, the Basle Programme, adopted
at the First Congress, in 1897:――
“_The object of Zionism is to establish for the Jewish people a
home in Palestine secured by public law._
“_The Congress contemplates the following means to the
attainment of this end:――_
“1. _The promotion, on suitable lines, of the colonization of
Palestine by Jewish agricultural and industrial workers._
“2. _The organization and binding together of the whole of
Jewry by means of appropriate institutions, local and
international, in accordance with the laws of each country._
“3. _The strengthening and fostering of Jewish national
sentiment and consciousness._
“4. _Preparatory steps towards obtaining government consent,
where necessary, to the attainment of the aim of Zionism._”
In constituting the organization for the purpose of carrying out
this work Zionists are animated by one desire, namely, to establish a
centre in the home of their fathers, where Jews shall earn their bread,
and where the soul of the nation can be active in its own way. They
wish to combine a judicious use of Jewish energies with the forces of
Jewish capital and Jewish emigration. By means of these efforts they
will lift some of the masses out of the Jewish homelessness of the
Diaspora to a new level of material contentment and moral dignity in
Palestine.
Zionists have started this work, and it has proved to be good work.
The _Chovevé Zion_ and Zionists have created the new colonization
of Palestine. They are engaged in selecting suitable elements, in
conveying them, in helping them to establish themselves, in supplying
them with all kinds of information and encouragement. It has been said,
and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and
again, that Zionism aims at the creation of an independent “Jewish
State.” But this is wholly fallacious. The “Jewish State” was never
a part of the Zionist programme. The “Jewish State” was the title of
Herzl’s first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people
to think. This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress,
which accepted the Basle Programme――the only programme in existence.
The opposition, driven from one point of vantage to another, has
made a certain confusion of ideas, arising from the term “political
Zionism,” a pretext for decrying Zionism as a “political” movement.
Zionism, it is true, is a political as well as a practical and a
cultural movement. But wherein lies the political character of the
movement? The term “political” covers two different conceptions. One
is connected with the idea of adventure, intrigue, rivalry, antagonism
or revolt; the other is that of a system which takes into account
political conditions. A political movement in the first sense aims at
carrying out its undertaking on the lines of political speculation;
but a political movement in the second sense, like Zionism, aims at
carrying on its work under all circumstances, and at the same time at
convincing those in power of the utility of the work, in order to get
the best possible conditions. The Basle Programme and the whole of
Zionist activity bear witness to the fact that Zionism has nothing in
common with political adventure. Zionists have never been influenced
by any political aggressive spirit, nor have they in any way proposed
to place themselves in antagonism to any Government or any other
nation. Zionists have always desired to be supported (§ 4 of the Basle
Programme) by all Governments on the merits of their object, and by
all nations who know that Zionist work can only advance the interests
of Justice and Freedom.
Zionism has the following objects in view:――
A home for Jews who are materially or morally suffering.
A home for Jewish education, learning and literature.
A source of idealism for Jews all over the world.
A place in which Jews can live a healthy Jewish life.
A revival of the language of the Bible.
The resurrection by civilization and industry of the old home
of our fathers, long neglected and ruined.
The creation of a sound, strong Jewish agricultural class.
In this way Zionism will establish a Jewish society, bound together
by similarity of feeling and unity of common ideas, working out
its destiny in its own way. Zionists want a commonwealth of Jewish
colonization and labour, a settlement of Jewish pioneers and workers
who will be able to create and to develop a civilization of their own,
undisturbed by any restrictions. This is possible only in Palestine,
and is the paramount necessity of the whole Jewish people all over the
world.
The creation of a settlement of this kind will help the Jews
economically, but how much and how quickly it will help depends on the
intensity of the work. It may be slow work, but it will be fundamental
work. It is the foundation-stone for a great structure. Palestine may
even become the home of considerable masses of Jews. But in any case
the creation of a national home for the Jews will raise their prestige
among the nations. It will never be an obstacle in the way of rights;
on the contrary, it will help in this direction also.
On the spiritual and intellectual side this work will undoubtedly
bring about a great revival of Judaism. Judaism will be no mere
abstraction, but something real and living. “Jewish science” or
_Hebrew_ studies will not be merely a careful _post-mortem_ analysis,
to be undertaken exclusively by scholars and specialists. These
studies will appear as the unbroken chain of the common cultural
heritage of a living nation.
Zionists are under no misapprehension as to the gravity of the
difficulties which may confront them. But they will meet these
difficulties as serious men inspired by a great ideal and with a just
cause. With a clear and distinct purpose in view, Zionists desire
to work in full harmony with all the friends of Justice and Liberty
and Truth, and while striving for the rescue of their own people
they would not only not interfere with any just principle or cause
injury to any patriotic aspiration of any other nation; they would
accommodate and co-ordinate their cause with others. It is in this
sense that we speak of “political Zionism.”
History shows that the Zionist idea and the continual renewal of
efforts in this direction have been a tradition with the English
people for centuries. English Christians taught the undying principles
of Jewish nationality. Zionism was thus permanently connected with
England. The Jewish national idea has always particularly appealed
to English feeling, has touched the heart of the English nation. The
facts and records disprove the absurd yet deeply rooted idea that
Zionism is only a vision of sectarians or a hallucination of dreamers.
The documents cited in this volume give ample and convincing proof
of the high moral dignity and political value of the Zionist cause
as championed by prominent English thinkers, men of letters and poets
throughout many generations. For nearly three centuries Zionism was a
religious as well as a political idea which great Christians and Jews,
chiefly in England but to some extent also in France, handed down
to posterity. And moreover, all the available evidence points to the
fact that whenever the attention of the world has been invited to the
question of Palestine and to measures for improving the development
of the Near East, English opinion has given the most careful and
sympathetic consideration to the Zionist idea. Thus the present
Zionist movement is essentially a logical conclusion of all the
premises which have been accepted from different points of view,
not only by a considerable number of Jewish authorities, but also
by public opinion in great civilized countries of Western Europe.
Zionists, therefore, hope that English Christians will be worthy heirs
and successors to the Earl of Shaftesbury, George Eliot, and many
others; English Jews to Sir Moses Montefiore, French Christians to
Henri Dunant, and French Jews to Joseph Salvador, Bernard Lazare,
and others. One may also hope that as Zionism is not a source of
conflicting element but a source of peace and unity, all the nations
of the world will be open to conviction and will give strong support
to its aims.
Zionism has started its work in Palestine, and will pursue it.
Recognising the aspirations of the Jewish people with regard to
Palestine and their historic rights, the British Government on November
2nd, 1917, made the well-known Declaration. This Declaration had been
anticipated by the letter from the French Government of 4th June, 1917,
and was fully endorsed in the letter from _M._ Stephen Pichon, Minister
for Foreign Affairs, to myself, dated 14th February, 1918, and the
letter to me communicating the concurrence of the Italian Government
with these declarations, dated 9th May, 1918. (See Volume II., pp.
1 ff.) It will be the task of Zionism to accumulate by every effort the
resources, material and moral, required for this purpose. Those Jews
who are not yet in the movement will be brought into it by time and
experience, because there is indeed no argument against this peaceful
idea of national justice, except pure and unscrupulous prejudice, which
must disappear. But Zionism is anxious to have also the moral support
of the nations, and particularly in this country it is impossible
for any Jew with a historic consciousness to forget the noble Zionist
tradition of England during many centuries. Some of the most glorious
pages in British history have been those in which she took a part, and
an honourable and leading part, in the revival of ancient nations. The
friends of Greece, of Italy, cannot forget this record.
Zionists can define only what they need. They need not only to
continue their work, but to develop it on the largest possible
scale. They want to do the peaceful work of agriculturists, craftsmen
and intellectuals. They are ready to invest capital, energy and
intelligence in order to establish a home for the Jews. Palestine is
to be re-made. To this end national autonomy safeguarding the welfare
of a Jewish Palestine is needed.
Let humanity do for Palestine only a small part of what has been
done so liberally for the most exotic colony――nay, less than that,
because Zionists ask for no material support, and for no embarrassing
responsibility. They ask only for sympathetic consideration and
help, for recognition and protection. And let humanity be sure of
the loyalty of a people which, although sorely tried, has never grown
cold in its affections, a people which by its resurrection will become
again what it was in very ancient times, not a military power but
a spiritual and peaceful power. Then the time will come when this
people’s gratitude will recognize its indebtedness to the world for
the co-operation which will assist its great and just cause.
INTRODUCTION
BY THE RT. HON. A. J. BALFOUR, M.P.
WHETHER it be helpful for one who is not a Jew, either by race or
religion, to say even the briefest word by way of introduction to
a book on Zionism is, in my own opinion, doubtful. But my friend,
M. Nahum Sokolow, tells me that I long ago gave him reason to expect
that, when the time came, I would render him this small measure of
assistance; and if he attaches value to it, I cannot allow my personal
doubts as to its value to stand in his way.
The only qualification I possess is that I have always been greatly
interested in the Jewish question, and that in the early years of this
century, when anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe was in an acute stage,
I did my best to support a scheme devised by Mr. Chamberlain, then
Colonial Secretary, for creating a Jewish settlement in East Africa,
under the British flag. There it was hoped that Jews flying from
persecution might found a community where, in harmony with their
own religion, development on traditional lines might (we thought)
peacefully proceed without external interruption, and free from any
fears of violence.
The scheme was certainly well-intentioned, and had, I think, many
merits. But it had one serious defect. It was not Zionism. It
attempted to find a home for men of Jewish religion and Jewish race in
a region far removed from the country where that race was nurtured and
that religion came into being. Conversations I held with Dr. Weizmann
in January, 1906, convinced me that history could not thus be ignored,
and that if a home was to be found for the Jewish people, homeless now
for nearly nineteen hundred years, it was vain to seek it anywhere but
in Palestine.
But why, it may be asked, is local sentiment to be more considered
in the case of the Jew than (say) in that of the Christian or the
Buddhist? All historic religions rouse feelings which cluster round
the places made memorable by the words and deeds, the lives and deaths,
of those who brought them into being.
Doubtless these feelings should always be treated with respect; but
no one suggests that the regions where these venerable sites are to
be found should, of set purpose and with much anxious contrivance, be
colonized by the spiritual descendants of those who originally made
them famous. If the centuries have brought no change of ownership
or occupancy we are well content. But if it be otherwise, we make
no effort to reverse the course of history. None suggest that we
should plant Buddhist colonies in India, the ancient home of Buddhism,
or renew in favour of Christendom the crusading adventures of our
mediæval ancestors. Yet, if this be wisdom when we are dealing with
Buddhism and Christianity, why, it may be asked, is it not also wisdom
when we are dealing with Judaism and the Jews?
The answer is, that the cases are not parallel. The position of the
Jews is unique. For them race, religion and country are inter-related,
as they are inter-related in the case of no other race, no other
religion, and no other country on earth. In no other case are the
believers in one of the greatest religions of the world to be found
(speaking broadly) only among the members of a single small people;
in the case of no other religion is its past development so intimately
bound up with the long political history of a petty territory wedged
in between States more powerful far than it could ever be; in the
case of no other religion are its aspirations and hopes expressed in
language and imagery so utterly dependent for their meaning on the
conviction that only from this one land, only through this one history,
only by this one people, is full religious knowledge to spread through
all the world. By a strange and most unhappy fate it is this people of
all others which, retaining to the full its racial self-consciousness,
has been severed from its home, has wandered into all lands, and
has nowhere been able to create for itself an organized social
commonwealth. Only Zionism――so at least Zionists believe――can provide
some mitigation of this great tragedy.
Doubtless there are difficulties, doubtless there are objections
――great difficulties, very real objections. And it is, I suspect,
among the Jews themselves that these are most acutely felt. Yet no one
can reasonably doubt that if, as I believe, Zionism can be developed
into a working scheme, the benefit it would bring to the Jewish people,
especially perhaps to that section of it which most deserves our pity,
would be great and lasting. It is not merely that large numbers of
them would thus find a refuge from religious and social persecution;
but that they would bear corporate responsibilities and enjoy
corporate opportunities of a kind which, from the nature of the case,
they can never possess as citizens of any non-Jewish State. It is
charged against them by their critics that they now employ their great
gifts to exploit for personal ends a civilization which they have not
created, in communities they do little to maintain. The accusation
thus formulated is manifestly false. But it is no doubt true that in
large parts of Europe their loyalty to the State in which they dwell
is (to put it mildly) feeble compared with their loyalty to their
religion and their race. How indeed could it be otherwise? In none
of the regions of which I speak have they been given the advantage
of equal citizenship, in some they have been given no right of
citizenship at all. Great suffering is the inevitable result; but
not suffering alone. Other evils follow which aggravate the original
mischief. Constant oppression, with occasional outbursts of violent
persecution, are apt either to crush their victims, or to develop
in them self-protecting qualities which do not always assume an
attractive shape. The Jews have never been crushed. Neither cruelty
nor contempt, neither unequal laws nor illegal oppression, have ever
broken their spirit, or shattered their unconquerable hopes. But it
may well be true that, where they have been compelled to live among
their neighbours as if these were their enemies, they have often
obtained, and sometimes deserved, the reputation of being undesirable
citizens. Nor is this surprising. If you oblige many men to be
money-lenders, some will assuredly be usurers. If you treat an
important section of the community as outcasts, they will hardly
shine as patriots. Thus does intolerance blindly labour to create the
justification for its own excesses.
It seems evident that, for these and other reasons, Zionism will
mitigate the lot and elevate the status of no negligible fraction of
the Jewish race. Those who go to Palestine will not be like those who
now migrate to London or New York. They will not be animated merely
by the desire to lead in happier surroundings the kind of life they
formerly led in Eastern Europe. They will go in order to join a
civil community which completely harmonizes with their historical
and religious sentiments: a community bound to the land it inhabits
by something deeper even than custom: a community whose members will
suffer from no divided loyalty, nor any temptation to hate the laws
under which they are forced to live. To them the material gain should
be great; but surely the spiritual gain will be greater still.
But these, it will be said, are not the only Jews whose welfare we
have to consider. Granting, if only for argument’s sake, that Zionism
will on them confer a benefit, will it not inflict an injury upon
others who, though Jews by descent, and often by religion, desire
wholly to identify themselves with the life of the country wherein
they have made their home. Among these are to be found some of the
most gifted members of a gifted race. Their ranks contain (at least,
so I think) more than their proportionate share of the world’s supply
of men distinguished in science and philosophy, literature and art,
medicine, politics and law. (Of finance and business I need say
nothing.)
Now there is no doubt that many of this class look with a certain
measure of suspicion and even dislike upon the Zionist movement. They
fear that it will adversely affect their position in the country of
their adoption. The great majority of them have no desire to settle
in Palestine. Even supposing a Zionist community were established,
they would not join it. But they seem to think (if I understand them
rightly) that so soon as such a community came into being men of
Jewish blood, still more men of Jewish religion, would be regarded by
unkindly critics as out of place elsewhere. Their ancient home having
been restored to them, they would be expected to reside there.
I cannot share these fears. I do not deny that, in some countries
where legal equality is firmly established, Jews may still be regarded
with a certain measure of prejudice. But this prejudice, where it
exists, is not due to Zionism, nor will Zionism embitter it. The
tendency should surely be the other way. Everything which assimilates
the national and international status of the Jews to that of other
races ought to mitigate what remains of ancient antipathies: and
evidently this assimilation would be promoted by giving them that
which all other nations possess: a local habitation and a national
home.
On this aspect of the subject I need perhaps say no more. The future
of Zionism depends on deeper causes than these. That it will settle
the “Jewish question” I dare not hope. But that it will tend to
promote that mutual sympathy and comprehension which is the only sure
basis of toleration I firmly believe. Few, I think, of M. Sokolow’s
readers, be they Jew or be they Christian, will rise from the
perusal of the impressive story which he has told so fully and so
well, without feeling that Zionism differs in kind from ordinary
philanthropic efforts and that it appeals to different motives. If it
succeeds, it will do a great spiritual and material work for the Jews,
but not for them alone. For as I read its meaning it is, among other
things, a serious endeavour to mitigate the age-long miseries created
for Western civilization by the presence in its midst of a Body which
it too long regarded as alien and even hostile, but which it was
equally unable to expel or to absorb. Surely, for this if for no other
reason, it should receive our support.
A. J. B.
_Friday, 20 September, 1918_
LETTERS TO THE AUTHOR
_From the Rt. Hon. Viscount Bryce._
3, BUCKINGHAM GATE,
S.W. 1,
_January 30th, 1918_.
DEAR SIR,
In response to your request for some observations by me on the value
which your treatise may have for students of history, I send you these
few lines. The pressure of heavy and urgent work forbids me to deal in
any but the briefest way with the subject of your book, great as its
interest is.
The history of Israel presents some of the most striking phenomena
in world history. No other nation (with the exception of the two very
ancient nations of the Far East) has annals so long as are those of
the descendants of Abraham. Those annals go back, dim as are their
earlier outlines, to a time long anterior to the earliest records of
the Hellenic and Italic peoples. The records of the old civilization
of Assyria and Egypt are, no doubt, even more remote in time, but
the nations that created those civilizations have been so changed
by conquest and the admixture of new elements that we can no longer
recognise them as the same. But Israel has preserved its identity
through all vicissitudes. It was carried into captivity in a far land,
and returned thence after seventy years. It was, after the destruction
of Jerusalem by the Emperor Hadrian, scattered over the face of the
earth, and now counts its children everywhere, from Singapore to
San Francisco. Its numbers have grown to be fifteen or twenty times
greater than they were before the Great Dispersion. It has been kept
in existence as a nation through many centuries of oppression and
suffering by its Faith and its Literature, a faith embodied in a law
which included both a moral and a ceremonial code, a Literature small
in bulk but splendid in content, which has formed the mind of the
people, sharpening their intelligence and intensifying their national
self-consciousness. It is one of those three great literatures of the
ancient world which still rule the thought and still help to form the
character of mankind. This is a unique phenomenon, and perhaps the
most striking testimony that history can show to the vivifying power
of ideas.
This consciousness of an enduring national life has been constantly
associated in the thoughts of Israel with the ancient home in
Palestine, a little country, no bigger than Wales in Britain or
Connecticut in North America. To its rocky hills and green valleys,
its cities and its battlefields, its heroes and its prophets, the
hearts of the people have turned in days of sorrow. The memories of
these things have maintained the sense of national life. The flame has
often burnt low, but it has never been extinguished. Quite recently
it has leapt up with a brilliant glow. The idea that a part of the
dispersed people should be gathered from the regions where their lot
was worst and be re-settled in their ancient home, long desolated
by the tyranny of the cruel and rapacious Turk, has gained strength,
and the capture of Jerusalem by the British arms has now made it seem
attainable. The sympathy of many thoughtful and sympathetic Christians
has been gained, and the British Government has given clear expression
to that sympathy. It is to the history of this idea of re-settlement,
to which the name of Zionism is now given, that your book is devoted.
There are, I am aware, some differences of opinion among Jews
themselves as to the form in which this idea might be practically
realized, and as to the way in which that form might affect the
position of Jews in the countries where they now dwell and of which
they wish to remain citizens, though I gather that these differences
do not touch the question of the desirability of a large Jewish
immigration into Palestine. Upon these differences of opinion I must
not pronounce any judgment, though personally inclined to believe
that the existence of a national home at the eastern end of the
Mediterranean will not affect the loyalty to the other countries where
they dwell of the Jews settled in those countries, nor expose them
to any suspicion of disloyalty. It is as a student of history, and in
that capacity only, that on this particular occasion I desire to speak,
expressing my sense of the high interest of the subject of your book,
and feeling that the rapid growth of the Zionist movement, the forces
that have produced it, and the enthusiasm it has excited, well deserve
to be fully, accurately, and impartially described.
I am,
Faithfully yours,
BRYCE.
MR. N. SOKOLOW.
_From Colonel Sir Mark Sykes, M.P._
9, BUCKINGHAM GATE,
S.W. 1,
_May 27th, 1918_.
MY DEAR MR. SOKOLOW,
After many days’ delay, I write to you my message of goodwill and good
hope for the success of this your great work on the cause which you
have at heart and for which you have laboured so long.
It is an odd thought which crosses my mind at this moment――if it
be egotistical I cannot help it――nevertheless I will set it down.
I foresee myself handed down to posterity as one of those enduring
obscurities, who did nothing in any way remarkable, yet whose names
last for all time, because they scratched their fleeting impressions
on the Memnon at Luxor.
In languages yet unknown, and in States unborn, this your work will be
read by people who will know perhaps as little of the details of life
in these days as we do of those of the times of the first dispersion
of the Jews.
Your cause has about it an enduring quality which mocks at time; if
a generation is but a breath in the life of a nation, an epoch is but
the space ’twixt a dawn and a sunrise in the history of Zionism.
When all the temporal things this world now holds are as dead and
forgotten as the curled and scented Kings of Babylon who dragged your
forefathers into captivity, there will still be Jews, and so long as
there are Jews there must be Zionism.
We live in an age when mankind is reaping the whirlwind of its
wickedness and folly. Wherein the past men have sown those dragons’
teeth of intolerance, tyranny, injustice, and race hatred, legions of
armed men now spring up to destroy and shatter the husbanded resources
of progress.
The War of to-day is the logical result of the “peace” of yesterday.
The grand problem which we have to consider is whether or no the
peace of to-morrow is to be the precursor of a future war which will
overwhelm civilization for ever. Unless forces different to those
which have counted in the direction of the affairs of men hitherto
are in the ascendant, I feel no doubt that what is called Civilization
is predestined to suicide, and that in the real meaning of the words
“_felo de se_.” The blind genius which people call “science” wrests
mechanical discoveries and chemical formulæ from the accumulated
experience of the past and gives men hygiene, transit, and commerce
with one hand, and explosives and military organization with the other.
You, my dear Mr. Sokolow, represent a people who have watched this
process of constructive destruction in the course of evolution, and
have seen the higher men climb in pride and vanity the more deplorable
is their fall.
If the peace which is to follow the War is to be a real peace, and not
a pause in war, then you and your people must be watchers no longer.
In Zionism lies your people’s opportunity. In alliance with those
other forces of regeneration and illumination which are centred on
Jerusalem and which radiate through the world, it may be that you and
your successors will play a part in establishing a moral order which
will enable mankind to combine universal material progress with mutual
subjection and charity.
Yours very sincerely,
MARK SYKES.
THE ILLUSTRATOR TO THE READER
THE privilege afforded me by my friend the Author of participating in
the production of a work on so epoch-marking a question as Zionism,
has more than compensated me for any time and trouble I have expended
on the particular section allotted to me. There are eighty-nine
illustrations in the book, to which I have fortunately been able to
contribute thirty, dealing mainly with the earlier period. For the
portraits, _etc._, of many of our contemporaries, I must accord my
sincere thanks to those whose courtesy and kindness have enabled me
to carry out my purpose.
I am indebted for the lithograph of Elim H. _d’_Avigdor¹ to his
recently deceased widow. Mr. Semi Tolkowsky obtained for me an
unpublished photograph of Colonel C. R. Conder from his daughter,
Mrs. Julian G. Lousada. That venerable lady, Mrs. Finn, lent me a
photograph of her late husband, “The British Consul of Jerusalem and
Palestine.” Mr. Joseph Cohen Lask granted me the loan of the Hebrew
periodical, _Keneseth Israel_, containing a woodcut of David Gordon,
the editor. The celebrated artist, Leopold Pilichowski, entrusted me
with the negative of his famous painting of Theodor Herzl, known as
the “Congress” portrait. It was done from sketches taken from life
during the Uganda Congress, and finished in 1906 to the order of
the late President, David Wolffsohn, for the Actions Committee,
to be exhibited at Zionist congresses. The illustration of _Grand
Rabbin_ Zadok Kahn is taken from a pastel by the Jewish artist,
J. F. Aktuaryus, in the collection of Mr. Elkan N. Adler. Dr. Hartwig
Hirschfeld lent me a lithograph of his father-in-law, Dr. Louis
Loewe; and Professor Dr. Arnold Netter sent from Paris a lithograph
of his uncle, Charles Netter. The portrait of Laurence Oliphant was
reproduced from an unpublished photograph in the possession of his
relative, Mr. Lancelot Oliphant. To procure a likeness of Dr. M. J.
Raphall I had some difficulty. The Birmingham congregation to whom
he ministered from 1841‒1849 knew nothing of any portrait. From an
advertisement in the _Jewish Chronicle_, 27 July, 1849, it appears
that the learned _Rabbi_ possessed a painting done of him by W. H.
Vernon, from which Mosely Levi of Birmingham produced a lithograph,
but I failed to discover the whereabouts of either. Knowing that on
leaving this country he settled in the United States, I communicated
with Mr. Albert M. Friedenberg, the corresponding secretary of
the American Jewish Historical Society, to whom my particular
acknowledgments are due for discovering a small oil painting of the
Doctor, copied from a photograph taken in his later years, in the
possession of the _B’nai Jeshurun_ congregation of New York, whose
_Rabbi_ he was from his arrival in America until 1866, two years
before his demise. With the consent of the Trustees, and by the
courtesy of Mr. Herman Levy, the President, an excellent reproduction
was placed at my disposal.
¹ From a pencil drawing by his second daughter, Estelle,
Mrs. George E. Nathan.
The frontispiece to the second volume, “Edmond _de_ Rothschild,” is a
facsimile of a photograph¹ from the painting by _M._ Aimé Morot. From
_M._ A. Salvador, Mdme. L. J. Raynall and _M._ André Spire of Paris
were instrumental in procuring a photograph of his uncle _M._ Joseph
Salvador, whose portrait has hitherto never been published.
¹ Autograph presentation copy from the Baron to the Author.
Miss Marian O. Wilson came to my assistance in permitting me to take
a copy of a photograph of her father, Sir Charles W. Wilson, and Mr.
Joseph Cowen lent J. H. Kann’s _Erez Israel_, containing a likeness
of President David Wolffsohn. The illustration, “Members of the
_Maccabean_ Pilgrimage,” I have been enabled to reproduce, thanks
to the kindness of Mr. Herbert Bentwich, its organizer, who also
furnished me with the names of the pilgrims. The President and Council
of the Jews’ College were pleased to grant me the privilege of having
a photograph taken of the historical painting, “The Conference between
Menasseh Ben-Israel and Oliver Cromwell,” by Solomon Alexander Hart,
R.A., formerly in the collection of Sir Julian Goldsmid, Bart., and
subsequently presented to the College by Frederic David Mocatta in
1896.
My thanks must also be accorded to the proprietors of the _Century_
for the use of the portrait of Emma Lazarus; to the _Graphic_ for the
sketch from life of Bernard Lazare taken by Paul Renouard during the
Dreyfus trial; to the _Illustrated London News_ for the likeness of
Baron Hirsch; to the _Jewish Encyclopedia_ for the portraits of Samuel
Joseph Fuenn, _R._ Zebi Hirsch Kalischer, Samuel David Luzzatto, and
Mordecai Manuel Noah; and to the _Jewish World_ for that of Dr. Israel
Hildesheimer.
There are many eminent Zionists whose lineaments I should like to have
seen in this work, but owing to present conditions the portraits were
not procurable.
The following portraits and illustrations may not be reproduced
without authority:――Col. C. R. Conder, James Finn, Theodor Herzl by
Pilichowski, _R._ Zadok Kahn, Laurence Oliphant, Dr. M. J. Raphall,
Edmond _de_ Rothschild, Joseph Salvador, Sir Charles W. Wilson, “The
Conference between Manasseh Ben-Israel and Oliver Cromwell,” and the
“Members of the _Maccabean_ Pilgrimage.”
ISRAEL SOLOMONS.
CONTENTS
PREFACE
THE AUTHOR’S INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION BY THE RT. HON. A. J. BALFOUR, M.P.
LETTERS TO THE AUTHOR
THE ILLUSTRATOR TO THE READER
CHAPTER I. ENGLAND AND THE BIBLE
Hellas, Rome and _Israel_――The Englishman’s Bible――Its
influence upon English Literature――Rev. Paul Knell, Matthew
Arnold, Sir H. Havelock, Gordon, Livingstone, Ruskin,
Carlyle, Taine, Sir L. T. Dibdin, Huxley, and J. R. Green
――The Puritans――The Pilgrim Fathers――James I.――Cromwell.
CHAPTER II. THE _HEBREW_ LANGUAGE
Its survival and revival――Its influence upon the English mind
――De Quincey――Bacon――Shakespeare――Milton――Cowley――Taylor
――Tillotson――Barrow――Dryden――Parnell――Pope――Addison――Young
――Akenside――Gray――Warton――Cowper――Byron――Shelley――Southey
――Moore――Sir Thomas Brown[e]――Earl of Clarendon――John Pym
――Viscount Falkland――Sir Henry Vane――Earl of Chatham――Browning
――Tennyson――John Bright.
CHAPTER III. THE RE-ADMISSION OF THE JEWS INTO ENGLAND
Manasseh Ben-Israel――Aaron Levi _alias_ Antony Montezinos
――Moses Wall――Leonard Busher――David Abrabanel [Manuel Martinez
Dormido]――Oliver St. John.
CHAPTER IV. MANASSEH BEN-ISRAEL
Manasseh as a Jewish _Rabbi_ and as a _Hebrew_ writer――His
activity as a publisher and corrector of _Hebrew_ books――The
Bible editions, the Psalms and the _Mishnah_――Manasseh’s
connection with _Safed_ in Palestine――_Enseña a Pecadores_
――The influence of _Rabbi_ Isaiah _ben_ Abraham Horwitz
――Solomon _de_ Oliveyra――Manasseh’s _De Termino Vitae_――The
influence of _Don_ Isaac Abrabanel――The Lost Ten Tribes and
the _Marranos_.
CHAPTER V. MANASSEH’S _NISHMATH CHAYYIM_
Quotations from Gebirol, Bedersi, _R._ Kalonymus, _R._
Zerahiah Ha’levi, and others――Plato, Aristotle, and Philo
――_Cabbalistic_ ideas――_R._ Isaac Luria――Miracles and
Christian Saints――Manasseh’s Jewish Nationalism――“The Jewish
Soul”――The _Zohar_――_R._ Jehudah Ha’levi――The holiness of the
Land of _Israel_――_R._ David Carcassone, the messenger from
Constantinople.
CHAPTER VI. SOME OF MANASSEH’S VIEWS
The massacres of Podolia――The _Marrano_ tragedy――Manasseh’s
views on the mission of _Israel_――Dispersion and Restoration
――_R._ Jacob Emden’s annotations――Manasseh’s theory of the
Jewish race.
CHAPTER VII. MANASSEH’S CONTEMPORARIES
The Renaissance and the Reformation――John Sadler――Milton’s
belief in the Return――Edmund Bunny――Isaac _de_ La Peyrère
――Leibnitz――Thomas Brightman――James Durham――The pamphlet
“Doomes-Day”――Thomas Burnet――The pamphlet “The New _Jerusalem_”
――Thomas Drake――Edward Nicholas, John Sadler, Hugh Peters,
Henry Jesse, Isaac Vossius, Hugo Grotius, Rembrandt, Isaac
_da_ Fonseca Aboab, Dr. Ephraim Hezekiah Bueno, Dr. Abraham
Zacuto Lusitano, _H. H. R._ Yahacob Sasportas, _Haham_ Jacob
Jehudah Aryeh _de_ Leon [Templo]――Manasseh’s origin.
CHAPTER VIII. PURITAN FRIENDS OF THE JEWS
Newes from Rome――Rev. Dr. William Gouge――Sir Henry Finch,
Sergeant-at-law――King James I.――Archbishop Laud――Archbishop
Abbot――Roger Williams――Johanna Cartwright and her son Ebenezer
――John Harrison――Rev. John Dury――Rev. Henry Jessey――Rev.
Thomas Fuller――Re-admission and Restoration――Manasseh and the
Puritans.
CHAPTER IX. RESTORATION SCHEMES
Dr. John Jortin――Thomas Newton, Bishop of Bristol――Edward King
――Samuel Horsley, Bishop of Rochester and St. Asaph――Jewish
Colonies in South America――Marshal de Saxe’s scheme――Anecdote
by Margravine of Anspach――Earl of Egmont’s project――Proposed
settlement of German Jews in Pennsylvania――Viscount
Kingsborough’s Mexican colony――John Adams, President of the
United States.
CHAPTER X. PALESTINE
The Love and Knowledge of the Holy Land――The Land of the
Bible――The Bible Societies and the Institutions for the
Investigation of the Holy Land――The Palestine Exploration Fund
――Colonel Conder――Sir Charles Wilson――Sir Charles Warren――Lord
Kitchener.
CHAPTER XI. NAPOLEON’S CAMPAIGN IN THE EAST
The Appeal of Bonaparte to the Jews of Asia and Africa――Haim
Mu’allim Farhi――The Fortress of Acre――Jewish opinion in
Palestine――El-Arish――_Gaza_――_Jerusalem_――Moses Mordecai
Joseph Meyuchas――“A Letter addressed by a French Jew to his
Brethren”――France and England――The real motives of Bonaparte’s
Appeal.
CHAPTER XII. HAIM FARHI
Saul Farhi――Ahmad Jazzár――Saul Farhi’s sons: Haim, Solomon,
Raphael and Moses Farhi――Jewish communities in Palestine and
Syria――The importance of Palestine in the struggle between
Bonaparte and the Ottoman Empire――Haim Farhi’s martyrdom.
CHAPTER XIII. NAPOLEON IN PALESTINE
Bonaparte approaching _Jerusalem_――Anti-Jewish accusations
――Bonaparte and the Christians――Suleiman _Pasha_――Abdallah
_Pasha_――Haim Farhi’s martyr death――The Farhi family
――Generations of martyrs.
CHAPTER XIV. TWO _JERUSALEM RABBIS_
_Rabbi_ Moses Mordecai Joseph Meyuchas――The Spanish Jewish
traditions――_Rabbi_ Israel Jacob Algazi――The importance of the
Jewish settlement in Palestine――Zionist aspirations.
CHAPTER XV. NAPOLEON’S _SANHEDRIN_
The “_Sanhedrin_”――_R._ David Sintzheim――M. S. Asser――Moses
Leman――Juda Litvak――Michael Berr――Lipman Cerf-Berr――The
Decisions and Declarations――Napoleon I. and the Jews.
CHAPTER XVI. ENGLISH OPINION ON THE _SANHEDRIN_
F. D. Kirwan――Abraham Furtado――Rev. James Bicheno――The
Declaration of the _Sanhedrin_ and English comment――M. Diogène
Tama――The Prince _de_ Ligne.
CHAPTER XVII. THE ZIONIST IDEA IN ENGLAND
The spirit of the time――Different currents――Thomas Witherby
――Dr. Joseph Priestley――Anti-Socinus, _alias_ Anselm Bayly
――John Hadley Swain――William Whiston――Bishop Robert Lowth
――Dr. Philip Doddridge――David Levi.
CHAPTER XVIII. LORD BYRON
The Biblical drama “Cain”――Byron and the Bible――The _Hebrew
Melodies_――A poet and a hero――The Hon. Douglas Kinnaird――Isaac
Nathan――John Braham――Lady Caroline Lamb――Sir Walter Scott
――Dr. John Gill――Dr. Henry Hunter――The Rev. John Scott――Mr.
Joseph Eyre.
CHAPTER XIX. THE PALMERSTON PERIOD
The conflict between Turkey and Egypt――Mahmud II., _Sultan_ of
Turkey――Mehemet Ali, Pasha of Egypt――The victory of Nezib――The
Turkish Fleet――Wellington’s policy――The Eastern Question
――Wellington’s opinion――The London Conference, 1840――The
Insurrection in Syria and the Lebanon――An Ultimatum――The
capture of Acre by the British Fleet, 1840――Schemes of
annexation.
CHAPTER XX. THE SYRIAN PROBLEM
The conflicting interests of the Powers――Was the conflict
irreconcilable?――Public opinion――A new principle――The
independence of Syria――A neutral position――The Zionist idea
as the only solution――A practical proposition.
CHAPTER XXI. ENGLAND AND THE JEWS IN THE EAST
Damascus and Rhodes, 1840――The anti-Jewish accusations――Jewish
opinion in England and France――Two views――The persecutions and
the Zionist idea――The difficulties of a Jewish initiative――Sir
W. R. W. Wilde.
CHAPTER XXII. SIR MOSES MONTEFIORE
The project “for Cultivation of the Land in Palestine”
――Abraham Shoshana and Samuel Aboo――Sir Moses and Lord
Palmerston――Great Britain’s protection of the Jews in the East
――Lord Aberdeen――Sir Stratford Canning――Dr. Edward Robinson
――Burghas _Bey_――A new journey to the East.
CHAPTER XXIII. EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
Diaries of 1830‒40――The first English Vice-Consul for
_Jerusalem_――Lord Lindsay’s travels in Egypt and the Holy Land
――A guarantee of five Powers――Lord Shaftesbury’s conception of
a spiritual centre for the Jewish nation.
CHAPTER XXIV. MEMORANDUM OF THE PROTESTANT MONARCHS
The London Convention of 1840――The new Treaty of London for
the pacification of the Levant――Viscount Ponsonby――Reschid
_Pasha_――Lord Shaftesbury’s “Exposé” addressed to Lord
Palmerston――The articles in _The Times_――A Memorandum to the
European Monarchs――“Enquiries about the Jews”――The _Allgemeine
Zeitung des Judentums_.
CHAPTER XXV. RESTORATION AND PROTECTION
A new Memorandum――The “Balance of Power”――Palestine and
“Rights” in other countries――A “Memorial of the Church of
Scotland”――Protection for the Jews in the East.
CHAPTER XXVI. PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
The _Don_ Pacifico case――Admiral Sir William Parker――Lord
Stanley――Mr. J. A. Roebuck――Lord Palmerston’s policy attacked
――Peel and the Opposition――Plans for colonization of Palestine
――Mordecai Manuel Noah――Warder Cresson――Rev. A. G. H.
Hollingsworth――Colonel George Gawler――“The Final Exodus”――Dr.
Thomas Clarke.
CHAPTER XXVII. EARL OF BEACONSFIELD
Christianity and Judaism――Disraeli’s character――Jewish
features――_Alroy_――_Tancred_――The defence of Jewish rights
――Oriental policy.
CHAPTER XXVIII. THE CRIMEAN WAR
Russia and Turkey――A protectorate over the Greek Christians
――The question of the “Holy Places”――The Greek Church
――_Sultan_ Mahmud II. and the _Tsar_ Nicholas I.――Jurisdiction
in Turkey――_Prince_ Menschikoff――The Alliance between France,
Great Britain and Turkey――Sardinia――Alexander II.――The
fall of Sebastopol――The conclusion of peace in Paris――The
question of reforms――The Jewish point of view――The Crimean
War and Palestine――Dr. Benisch in the _Jewish Chronicle_――The
Christian Zionist propaganda――Rev. W. H. Johnstone――Mr. Robert
Young.
CHAPTER XXIX. BRITAIN’S MISSION IN THE EAST
Colonel Charles Henry Churchill――Sir Austen Henry Layard――“The
Key to the East”――European Consuls in Palestine――The _Hatti
Sheerif_ of Gulharch――Lord Palmerston’s Circular of April,
1841――Mr. James Finn.
CHAPTER XXX. BRITISH INTEREST AND WORK IN PALESTINE
Mr. Rogers――Mr. Finzi――Agricultural work in Palestine under
the auspices of the British Consul――W. Holman Hunt――Thomas
Seddon――A new Appeal――Prof. D. Brown――Rev. John Fry――Rev.
Capel Molyneux――Prof. C. A. Auberlen――Dr. W. Urwick――Dr. E.
Henderson――Prof. Joseph A. Alexander――Dr. Patrick Fairbairn
――Dr. Thomas Arnold.
CHAPTER XXXI. _THE LEBANON_ QUESTION
Selim I.――The _Emir_ Beshir of _The Lebanon_――A Conference of
five Powers――Druses and Maronites――Massacres in Damascus――A
Military Expedition――The Protocol of August 3rd, 1860
――_General_ Beaufort _d_’Hautpoul――Achmet _Pasha_――David
_Pasha_――Joseph Karan――The Constitution of _The Lebanon_――The
boundaries――The alterations from 1861 to 1902――The Earl of
Carnarvon’s views――Jewish charity――Anti-Jewish accusations and
riots――M. E. A. Thouvenal――Lord John Russell――George Gawler’s
letter.
CHAPTER XXXII. ZIONISM IN FRANCE
Joseph Salvador――L. Lévy-Bing――Maurice [Moses] Hess――D. Nathan
――Benoît Levy――Dr. A.-F. Pétavel――Ernest Laharanne――Crémieux
――The “Alliance Israélite Universelle”――Albert Cohn――Charles
Netter.
CHAPTER XXXIII. JEWISH COLONIZATION
New developments――Two tendencies――Societies in London for
supporting Jewish colonization of Palestine――_Rabbi_ Chayyim
Zebi Sneersohn――Sir Moses ♦Montefiore’s further journey to
Palestine.
♦ “Montifiore’s” replaced with “Montefiore’s”
CHAPTER XXXIV. ZIONISM _VERSUS_ ASSIMILATION
The first difficulties――The traditions of Anglo-Jewry――The
influence of the English people on the Jews――Assimilation and
the Jewish National idea――The Zionist conception of the Jewish
problem――The tragedy of a minority.
CHAPTER XXXV. COLONIZATION AND RESTORATION
Henry Wentworth Monk――Zionism in France――Jean Henri Dunant’s
“Le Renouvellement de l’Orient”――Napoleon III.――Bishop Stephen
Watson――“L’Orient” in Brussels.
CHAPTER XXXVI. APPEALS FOR COLONIZATION
A _Rabbinical_ appeal――_Rabbi_ Elias Gutmacher――_Rabbi_ Hirsch
Kalischer――Correspondence with Sir Moses Montefiore――Servian
Jews ready for Palestine――_Rabbi_ Sneersohn――Another appeal of
Henri Dunant――A Committee in Paris under the patronage of the
Empress of the French――Zionism in French fiction.
CHAPTER XXXVII. CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA IN ENGLAND
A new Appeal――Earl of Shaftesbury in 1876――Edward Cazalet
――Laurence Oliphant――Zionism in English fiction――George Eliot
――“Daniel Deronda”――The Jewish nationalism of Mordecai Cohen
――A quotation from Dr. Joseph Jacobs.
CHAPTER XXXVIII. THE RUSSIAN POGROMS OF 1881‒1882
The new period of Jewish martyrdom――Public opinion in England
――Mass meetings, questions in Parliament and collections
――Protests from France, Holland, America and other countries
――An instructive lesson――Emigration of Jewish masses――The
problem――The “Lovers of _Zion_.”
CHAPTER XXXIX. DR. LEO PINSKER
His life and experiences――His _Auto-emancipation_――The old
idea of self-help in Jewish teaching――Individual and national
self-help――The revival of an old doctrine――An analysis of
_Auto-emancipation_――The results of Pinsker’s idea.
CHAPTER XL. THE COLONIZATION OF PALESTINE
Jewish immigration into England――A meeting for the
establishment of Jewish colonies in Palestine――The foundation
of the Society “_Kadima_”――The Opposition――The opinions of
English authorities on Palestine――Col. Conder――General Sir
Charles Warren――Lord Swaythling――Earl of Rosebery――A petition
to Abdul Hamid, _Sultan_ of Turkey.
CHAPTER XLI. THE “LOVERS OF _ZION_” IN FRANCE AND ENGLAND
The work in France――Baron Edmond _de_ Rothschild and his
activity in the colonization of Palestine――The effects in
England――Colonel A. E. W. Goldsmid――Elim _d_’Avigdor.
CHAPTER XLII. THE MOVEMENT IN ENGLAND
William Ewart Gladstone――_Father_ Ignatius――Gladstone’s ideas
on Judaism――Concessions of the Jewish opposition――Goldsmid’s
and _d_’Avigdor’s nationalistic replies.
CHAPTER XLIII. THE MOVEMENT IN AMERICA
Zionism echoed in America――Emma Lazarus――A call――Emma Lazarus
and George Eliot――Mrs. Rose Sonnenshein――The Opposition――A
Tour to Palestine――The Colonies.
CHAPTER XLIV. BARON _DE_ HIRSCH
His philanthropic activity――The Oriental Jews and the
“Alliance”――Emanuel Felix Veneziani――Lord Swaythling――Dr.
A. Asher――Laurence Oliphant.
CHAPTER XLV. AN ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THE JEWISH PROBLEM
The “Jewish Colonization Association” (1891)――Statutes and
shareholders――Baron _de_ Hirsch’s letter to the Russian Jews
――His articles in the _Forum_ and the _North American Review_
――Baroness Clara _de_ Hirsch.
CHAPTER XLVI. THE ARGENTINE _VERSUS_ PALESTINE
Expeditions and investigations in various countries――The
decision in favour of The Argentine――Dr. G. Löwenthal――Colonel
A. E. W. Goldsmid――The “Lovers of _Zion_” and Baron _de_
Hirsch in 1891――Baron and Baroness _de_ Hirsch’s charitable
works.
CHAPTER XLVII. MODERN ZIONISM
Theodor Herzl――The first conception and the acceptance of
Palestine――Max Nordau――The ideas of Modern Zionism.
CHAPTER XLVIII. THE FIRST ZIONIST CONGRESS
The general impression――The proclamation of the Jewish
national idea――The Basle Programme――The first Executive
Central Committee――Prof. ♦Hermann Schapira――Christian visitors
at the first Congress――Letters of the _Grand Rabbin_ of
France, _M._ Zadoc Kahn, and of the _Haham_ of the Spanish
and Portuguese Jewish community of London, Dr. Moses Gaster.
♦ “Herman” replaced with “Hermann”
CHAPTER XLIX. THE MOTIVE FORCES OF ZIONISM
Modern _Hebrew_ literature――The _Chovevé Zion_――The pioneers
in Palestine.
CHAPTER L. ZIONISM IN FRANCE
David Wolffsohn――France――_M._ Léon Bourgeois――Michel Erlanger
――Zadoc Kahn――Baron Edmond _de_ Rothschild――Professor Joseph
Halévy――Dr. Emil Meyersohn――Dr. Waldemar Haffkine――The
brothers Marmorek――Bernard Lazare.
CHAPTER LI. ZIONISM IN ENGLAND
The first leaders――Herzl before the Royal Commission on
Immigration――The East Africa offer――Death of Herzl――Holman
Hunt――Report of United States Consul at Beirut on Zionism
――Lord Robert Cecil――The Palestine Exploration Fund――Colonel
Conder――Lord Gwydyr――Zionism and the Arab question.
CHAPTER LII. BRITISH POLICY IN THE NEAR EAST
The Russo-Turkish War, 1877‒78――The Turkish Revolution
――Disappointed hopes――Jewish colonization and British
commercial interests in Palestine.
CHAPTER LIII. THE PRINCIPLES OF ZIONISM
Palestine as the Homeland――The rebirth of Jewish civilization
――The security of public law――The aims of Political Zionism
――A modern Commonwealth for the Jewish people.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO VOL. I.
⭘ THEODOR HERZL
⭘ CONFERENCE BETWEEN MANASSEH BEN-ISRAEL AND OLIVER CROMWELL
⭘ H.H.R. YAHACOB SASPORTAS
⭘ DR. EPHRAIM H. BONUS
⭘ DR. ABRAHAM ZACUT
⭘ H.H.R. MANASSEH BEN-ISRAEL
⭘ H.R. J. J. A. _DE_ LEON (TEMPLO)
⭘ H.H.R. ISAAC ABOAB _DA_ FONSECA
⭘ SIR OLIVER ST. JOHN
⭘ THOS. BRIGHTMAN
⭘ REV. DR. WILLIAM GOUGE
⭘ HUGO GROTIUS
⭘ REV. HENRY JESSEY
⭘ GEN. SIR CHARLES WARREN
⭘ MAJ.-GEN. SIR CHARLES W. WILSON
⭘ EARL KITCHENER
⭘ DR. EDWARD ROBINSON
⭘ COL. CLAUDE R. CONDER
⭘ GRAND SANHÉDRIN, 1807
⭘ ABRAHAM FURTADO
⭘ RABBI ABRAHAM DE COLOGNA
⭘ RABBI BARUCH GOUGUENHEIM
⭘ RABBI EMMANUEL DEUTZ
⭘ RABBI JACOB MEYER
⭘ RABBI J. DAVID SINZHEIM
⭘ NAPOLEON LE GRAND RÉTABLIT LE CULTE DES ISRAÉLITES, 1806
⭘ REV. JAMES BICHENO
⭘ DAVID LEVI
⭘ REV. WILLIAM WHISTON
⭘ DR. JOSEPH PRIESTLEY
⭘ PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS
⭘ SIR MOSES MONTEFIORE, BART.
⭘ JOSEPH SALVADOR
⭘ BENJAMIN DISRAELI
⭘ SAMUEL DAVID LUZZATTO
⭘ BERNARD LAZARE
⭘ ALBERT COHN
⭘ CHARLES NETTER
⭘ ISAAC M. A. CRÉMIEUX
⭘ RABBI ZADOK KAHN
⭘ SALOMON MUNK
⭘ RABBI ZEBI HIRSCH KALISCHER
⭘ RABBI ISAAC JACOB REINES
⭘ RABBI MORDECAI ELIASBERG
⭘ RABBI SAMUEL MOHILEWER
⭘ RABBI DR. ISRAEL HILDESHEIMER
⭘ RABBI ISAAC RÜLF
⭘ RT. HON. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN
⭘ EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
⭘ GEORGE ELIOT
⭘ JAMES FINN
⭘ LAURENCE OLIPHANT
⭘ DAVID GORDON
⭘ SAMUEL J. FUENN
⭘ DR. LEON PINSKER
⭘ MOSES L. LILIENBLUM
⭘ PEREZ SMOLENSKIN
⭘ ELIM H. D’AVIGDOR
⭘ COL. A. E. W. GOLDSMID
⭘ JEAN HENRI DUNANT
⭘ FATHER IGNATIUS
⭘ DR. E. W. TSCHLENOW
⭘ DR. MAX MANDELSTAMM
⭘ JUDAH TOURO
⭘ EMMA LAZARUS
⭘ MORDECAI MANUEL NOAH
⭘ RABBI DR. MORRIS J. RAPHALL
⭘ THE MACCABEAN PILGRIMAGE, 5657 = 1897
⭘ THEODOR HERZL
⭘ DR. MAX S. NORDAU
⭘ DR. LOUIS LOEWE
⭘ RABBI DR. N. M. ADLER
⭘ BARON MAURICE DE HIRSCH
⭘ PROF. DR. HERMANN SCHAPIRA
⭘ MOSES HESS
⭘ DAVID WOLFFSOHN
THE HISTORY OF ZIONISM
CHAPTER I.
ENGLAND AND THE BIBLE
Hellas, Rome and _Israel_――The Englishman’s Bible――Its
influence upon English Literature――Rev. Paul Knell, Matthew
Arnold, Sir H. Havelock, Gordon, Livingstone, Ruskin, Carlyle,
Taine, Sir L. T. Dibdin, Huxley, and J. R. Green――The Puritans
――The Pilgrim Fathers――James I.――Cromwell.
NO great idea, once proclaimed, has ever yet perished from the earth.
An idea may assume new forms, may change its mere outward semblance
――for all great ideas are plastic in their attributes and immutable in
their essentials――but, once it has been enunciated, human life absorbs
it within itself for ever.
The Greek spirit of freedom, and the order, discipline and law of
Rome survive in Anglo-Saxon institutions, not by mere enforcement of
victorious arms, but because men have recognized them as the happiest
approximation to the independence of each and the subordination of all
that has ever yet been conceived.
To Greece was entrusted the cultivation of reason and taste. Her gift
to mankind has been science and art. To the Greeks we owe the science
of logic, which has dominated the minds of all modern thinkers. Much
of the spirit of modern politics, too, comes from Greece. On the other
hand, the sentiments and the organizing force behind all States and
Governments, which are absolutely indispensable to their vigour, are
to a great extent Roman. Justinian’s¹ laws have penetrated into all
modern legislation. Thus Greece may be said to have disciplined human
reason and taste, and Rome human organization and power.
¹ Flavius Anicius Julianus Justinian I. [The Great] (483‒565).
But England has been influenced by _Israel_ even more than by Hellas
and Latium; by the power and the light of the _Hebrew_ genius――by the
Bible.
The mission of the _Hebrew_ race was to lay the foundation of morality
and religion on earth. Their works and their Book are great facts
in the history of man; the influence of their mind upon the rest
of mankind has been immense and peculiar. The _Hebrews_ may be said
to have disciplined the human conscience; and to the pages of their
sacred books humanity has turned again and again for new inspiration.
No people has been so devotedly attached to the Bible as the English,
and the effect may be traced in all the great movements of English
history. The Bible has dominated the whole domestic and political life
of the English people for some centuries, and has provided the basis
of the English conception of personal and political liberty.
The education of a large number of Englishmen has consisted mainly in
the reading of the Scriptures. There is indeed no book, or collection
of books, so rich in teaching or capable of appealing so forcibly
to the unlearned and the learned alike. That the growth and gradual
diffusion of religious and moral thinking is due to the supreme
influence of the Bible is a fact which can be recognized throughout
the whole of English history. As a single instance, we may take two
writers who lived at different periods, and dealt with this subject
from dissimilar points of view――the Rev. Paul Knell (1615‒1664) and
Matthew Arnold (1822‒1888). Knell compared England with _Israel_. The
name “_Israel_” was used by writers of his age with so much laxity,
that it is impossible to define the sense which it was generally
intended to convey. It often meant the Religion of _Israel_; at other
times it was used as if it was a synonym of the word “Church.” But
Knell used the word in its plain meaning: for him “_Israel_” meant
simply the People of _Israel_ in the Land of _Israel_ (Appendix ii).
If we compare the general tone and attitude of Christian preachers
in those times in other countries with the attitude taken up by
the English clergy, we must acknowledge that the latter have a much
greater appreciation of the value and dignity of the Jewish people
and of its great influence on the character of the English nation.
In spite of all modern developments, and notwithstanding the fact that
modern science has undermined some of the old beliefs, the fundamental
attitude of Englishmen to the Bible remains unchanged. There is no
need to quote many writers; it is sufficient to refer to Matthew
Arnold, who insists that Righteousness is the burden of Old Testament
teaching, and that this idea has greatly influenced the formation of
the English character (Appendix iii).
The indebtedness of English literature to the Bible is immeasurable.
The Bible has inspired the highest and most ennobling books in the
English language. No other book has been so universally read or so
carefully studied. The Bible has been an active force in English
literature for over twelve hundred years, and during that whole period
it has been moulding the diction of representative English thinkers
and literary men. The Bible is “the book upon which they have been
brought up,” says Thomas Carlyle (1795‒1881), Nor has its influence on
men of action been less marked. Englishmen picture Sir Henry Havelock
(1795‒1857) sustaining himself upon the promises of the Bible through
the darkest hours of the Mutiny; Charles George (Chinese) Gordon
(1833‒1885) writing with his Bible in front of him at Khartoum; and
David Livingstone (1813‒1873) in the loneliness of Central Africa
reading it four times through from beginning to end, drawing from
it patience, fortitude and perseverance. One of the mightiest moral
forces of the last century in England, John Ruskin (1819‒1900),
acknowledges his great indebtedness to the Bible. “In religion,” he
says, “which with me pervaded all the hours of life, I had been moved
by the Jewish ideal, and as the perfect colour and sound gradually
asserted their power on me they seemed finally to agree in the old
article of Jewish faith that things done delightfully and rightfully
were always done by the help and spirit of God.”
“I have before me one of those great old folios in black letter in
which the pages, worn by horny fingers, have been patched together,”
writes Hippolyte Adolphe Taine (1828‒1893), in his _Histoire de la
Littérature Anglaise_ (Paris, 1863‒4).¹... “Hence have sprung much
of the English language and half of the English manners. To this day
the country is Biblical; it was these big books which had transformed
Shakespeare’s England. To understand this great change, try to picture
these yeomen, these shopkeepers, who in the evening placed this Bible
on their table and bareheaded, with veneration, heard or read one
of its chapters. Think that they had no other books, that theirs was
a virgin mind, that every impression would make a furrow, that they
opened this book not for amusement but to discover in it their doom of
life and death.”
¹ _History of English Literature_, by H. A. Taine. Translated
by H. Van Laun,... Edinburgh:... 1871.... (2 vols.).
“The Bible stands for so much in England: it is the foundation of
our laws,” said Sir Lewis Tonna Dibdin, “for when you get back behind
judicial decisions and Acts of Parliament you come at the bottom to
the moral laws, of which the Ten Commandments were the first written
summary.”
“The Bible,” says Thomas Henry Huxley (1825‒1895), in his _Essays on
Controverted Questions_, “has been the ‘Magna Charta’ of the poor and
the oppressed.”
There is no Christian people even among the Protestant nations which
could be compared with the English in knowledge of the Old Testament
and in devotion to its teachings. This was the avowed object and the
undeniable result of the English Reformation.
“Elizabeth (1533‒1603) might silence or tune the pulpits,” says John
Richard Green (1837‒1883), “but it was impossible for her to silence
or tune the great preachers of justice and mercy and truth who spoke
from the Book.... The whole temper of the nation was changed. A new
conception of life and of man superseded the old. A new moral and
religious impulse spread through every class.”
This Biblical influence was felt long before the translation of the
Bible into English. When King James I. (1566‒1625) in 1604 sanctioned
a new translation of the Bible, he let loose moral and spiritual
forces which transformed English life and thought. But before this
the Renaissance, or revival of learning, had led to the study of the
Scriptures and so had helped to make men Puritans.
The Pilgrim Fathers crossed the ocean with little more than this
sacred volume in their hands and its spirit in their hearts. The men
who founded new Commonwealths built up their constitutions upon the
teachings of the Bible; and tradition has long asserted that every
soldier in Cromwell’s army was provided with a pocket edition, which
consisted of appropriate quotations from the Scriptures, mostly from
the Bible of the Jews.¹
¹ Cromwell’s Soldiers’ Bible, London, 1895.
A close parallel can be drawn between the Puritans, of whom Oliver
Cromwell (1599‒1658) was the principal type, and the enthusiasts who
shared with _Judas Maccabæus_ (_ob._ 3628 _a.m._) the dangers and
glories of his illustrious career. Both were stern warriors forced
into battle by the stress of great principles, and by the strongest
sense of obligation to a sacred cause. Both fought for liberty against
tyranny, against religious persecution and unrighteousness. The
spirit which inspired them all was the secret of the world’s greatest
achievements. The parallel can be traced even further. Cromwell’s life
was shaped by the influence of the Bible. For a figure to compare with
Cromwell we must turn neither to ancient history nor to early English
history, but to the pages of Jewish national history in the Bible.
Cromwell’s examples were _Joshua_ (2406‒2516 _a.m._), _Gideon_ (_fl._
2676 _a.m._) and _Samuel_ (_ob._ 2882 _a.m._). _Hebrew_ warriors
and prophets were his ideals. And that is not to be wondered at, for
Cromwell studied the Bible every day with attention and reverence and
with a desire to be guided by it. He was an intellectual and spiritual
child of the Old Testament, and he “imagined himself to be a second
_Phineas_, raised up by Providence to be the scourge of idolatry and
superstition.”¹
¹ Daniel Neal (1678‒1743): _History of the Puritans_, vol. iv.
(1738), p. 187.
CHAPTER II.
THE _HEBREW_ LANGUAGE
Its survival and revival――Its influence upon the English
mind――De Quincey――Bacon――Shakespeare――Milton――Cowley――Taylor
――Tillotson――Barrow――Dryden――Parnell――Pope――Addison――Young
――Akenside――Gray――Warton――Cowper――Byron――Shelley――Southey
――Moore――Sir Thomas Brown[e]――Earl of Clarendon――John Pym
――Viscount Falkland――Sir Henry Vane――Earl of Chatham――Browning
――Tennyson――John Bright.
THE _Hebrew_ language, mysteriously preserved like _Israel_, the
people after whom it is called, through the tempests of many centuries,
politically annihilated, but spiritually full of vigour, has never
ceased to be a vehicle for the expression of sublime thoughts and
sentiments. Not only in the brilliant epoch of _Hebrew_ literature
in Spain, from the tenth to the fifteenth centuries, but since then,
_Hebrew_ has been written in prose and in poetry with power and effect
unattainable in any of the languages that have ceased to live. It
is entirely wrong to consider _Hebrew_ a dead language. _Hebrew_
has never been dead. At no time in its long history has it ceased
to be employed by the Jewish people, as a medium for the expression,
whether in speech or in writing, of the living thoughts and the
living feelings of the Jew. Its use as a national medium of everyday
speech came, indeed, to an end with the destruction of the political
organization of the Jewish people. But that catastrophe did not
destroy the life of the language any more than it destroyed the life
of the nation. The marvellous revival of the _Hebrew_ language in our
times in Palestine, which is one of the greatest achievements of the
Zionist movement, shows that the language was only neglected, and that
it was essentially a living language.
The _Hebrew_ language, with its naturalness and noble simplicity, has
exerted an influence not less powerful than that of Biblical ideas on
the English mind. Knowing little of artificial forms, it has a natural
sublimity of its own, and a great logical clearness in discriminating
between nice shades of meaning. It appeals strongly to the English
mind, because it is the holy language, bringing the Divine Word and
coming from the sanctuary of that ancient covenant, whose faithful
guardians are the people of _Israel_. The Semitic word has within
historic times exercised on the civilisation of the whole human race
an influence to which no parallel can be found, and which, if the
future may be measured by the past, is destined triumphantly to extend,
for the incalculable benefit of mankind, to the uttermost bounds of
the earth. The poetry of the Bible has no rival.
“The _Hebrew_ language,” says Thomas De Quincey (1785‒1859), “by
introducing himself to the secret places of the human heart, and
sitting there as incubator over the awful germs of the spiritualities
that connect man with unseen worlds, has perpetuated himself as a
power in the human system: _he_ is co-enduring with man’s race, and
careless of all revolutions in literature or in the composition of
society....”¹
¹ De Quincey’s _Works_, vol. ix. _Leaders in Literature_....
By Thomas De Quincey.... London:... MDCCCLVIII. _Language_,
p. 81.
The _Hebrew_ language deals best with concrete things, and is
essentially personal. In poetry it is best adapted to re-echo the
poet’s own thoughts, and to set forth the various phases of his
intimate experience.
“Now, this poetry derives its excellence from its great outward
simplicity: it acknowledges no rule of metrical art. Its poesy is
esoteric, not exoteric. The outward characteristic of _Hebrew_ poetic
style is its _parallelism_, or the logical _symmetry_ between two
distichs of the same verse. The graceful execution of this difficult
problem――unity of design under a diversity of forms――constitutes the
incomparable charm of _Hebrew_ poetic diction. Parallelism is the law
of perfection. Thought and speech, body and spirit, here and hereafter,
are divinely conceived parallelisms.”¹
¹ _Study of Arabic and Hebrew_, by Tobias Theodores
(1808‒1886), London, 1860, _p. 23_.
The _Hebrew_ language is pre-eminently intuitive, and adapted for
teaching morality and expressing with authority religious and ethical
truths in brief, pregnant utterances.
The best of English literature has been inspired by the _Hebrew_
language of the Bible. Throughout the entire works of Francis Bacon
(1561‒1626)¹ Scriptural influence is sufficiently apparent: but in his
Essays――his favourite work――which he so carefully revised and re-wrote
in the ripeness of his age and experience, and which, therefore,
may be considered the very cream and essence of his genius, this
characteristic element obtains a prominence that cannot fail to strike
every reader. So natural was it――to borrow a figure of speech from
Bacon himself――for his great mind “to turn upon the poles of truth,”
and to revert to its great fountain-head, in support and confirmation
of his own profound conclusions.
¹ 1st Baron Verulam and Viscount St. Albans.
But by far the most prominent example of the deference and homage
paid to the Bible will be found in the works of William Shakespeare
(1564‒1616). As he excels in nearly all other points, so also is he
greatest in this respect. His works are so perfectly impregnated with
the Bible that we can scarcely open them without encountering one
or other of the Bible’s great truths, assimilated by Shakespeare and
reproduced in words that renew the Bible’s authority and strengthen
its claim upon men’s attention. The influence of the Bible is apparent
not only in the tone of Shakespeare’s poetry but also in the shape and
character of it.¹ Both the spirit and the letter bear witness to this
fact. The Bible has left its impression not only on Shakespeare’s mind
but on his idiom, on the exquisite simplicity of his diction, while
his innumerable allusions, direct and indirect, to Scripture history,
persons, places, events, doctrines, parables, precepts, and even
phrases show a great familiarity with the Bible.² The Reformation
introduced the same spirit into all the English literature of the
Elizabethan era. It was the distinguishing feature of the period, and
naturally enough culminated in the greatest genius of the time.
¹ It is interesting to note that some of Shakespeare’s plays
have been rendered in _Hebrew_:――
Othello, The Moor of Venice אִיתִּיאֵל הַכּוּשִׁי מִוִינֶעצְיָא Translated into
_Hebrew_ by J. E. S.... Edited by P. Smolensky ... Vienna....
1874. (8º. xxv. + 298 _pp._ + 1 _l._)
The editor remarks in the preface: “The English people took
our _Hebrew_ Bible and translated it into all the languages
of the world; we in revenge have taken their Shakespeare and
translated it into our _Hebrew_ language.”
J. E. S., _i.e._ Isaac Eliezer (_ob._ 1883) [ben? Solomon
(_ob._ 1868) Salkind] Salkinson, also translated Romeo and
Juliet רם ויעל ... Wien, 1878. (8º. xii. + 167 _pp._)
Hamlet has also been done into _Hebrew_ by Chaim Jechiel
Bornstein [born at Koznitz, Poland, in 1845].
Macbeth מקבט חזות קשה has been rendered into _Hebrew_ by Isaac
Barb from the German version of J. C. F. _von_ Schiller
(1759‒1805). ♦Drohobycz, 1883. (8º. 123 _pp._ + 2 _ll._)
King Lear המלך ליר חזון־תוגה has been translated by Samuel Löb
Gordon. Warsaw, 5659. (8º. 176 _pp._)
Incidentally may be noted that:――
Julius Cæsar יוליוס צעזאר איינע איסטארישע טראהעדישע דראמא has been
translated into _Yiddish_ by Bezalel Vishnepolski. Warsaw,
5646. (8º. 148 _pp._)
The title of “The Merchant of Venice” in Yiddish: שאילאק אדער
דער קויפמאן פון ווענעדיג by י. באוושאווער Basil Dahl. New York, 1899. (8º.
Portrait of W. S. + 116 _pp._)
♦ “Drohobyez” replaced with “Drohobycz”
² _Bible Truths with Shakespearean Parallels._ [James Brown.]
London, 1862. Preface, _pp._ xv.‒xvii.
The influence of this _Hebrew_ spirit is clearly visible in John
Milton’s (1608‒1674) poetry. “Paradise Lost,”¹ the most glorious
cosmological epic of the world’s literature, could have been written
only by a man who knew the Bible by heart, and whose verse, when he so
chose, could consist simply and solely of combinations of texts from
the Bible or images influenced by Biblical ideas. The way in which he
tells his stories, the elevation of his style, the music of his verse,
changing from the roar of the hurricane and the tramp of bannered
hosts to the hum of bees and the song of birds, the numerous gem-like
phrases and passages which are sure to be quoted for all time――all
these wonderful qualities are Biblical. Milton knew _Hebrew_, and his
verse is throughout inspired by the genius of that language. And the
spirit which found voice in Milton caused England to take the lead in
bringing about religious liberty. This recognition of righteousness
and fair play among the nations of the world benefited not only the
Jewish nation: some months before Manasseh Ben Israel visited England,
the Commonwealth had made a most vigorous protest against the outrage
on humanity perpetrated by the persecutors of Protestants in Piedmont.
¹ Paradise Lost. | A | Poem | Written in | Ten Books | By
John Milton | Licensed and Entered according | to Order.
London | Printed, and are to be sold by _Peter Parker_ |
under _Creed_ Church neer _Aldgate_; And by | _Robert
Boulter_ at the _Turks Head_ in _Bishopsgate-street_;
| And _Matthias Walker_, under St. _Dunstons_ Church
| in Fleet-street, 1667. (_4to._ Title page + A‒Z + AA‒V
in 4 _s._)
In 1871 a version in the Holy Language was issued:――
Milton’s Paradise Lost In _Hebrew_ Blank Verse. Translator
J. E. S....
שיר יסודתו בכתוב ויגרש את האדם נחלק לשנים עשר ספרים ... ומתורגם יהודית בשפה
ברורה ובחרט כתבי הקודש י,ע,ס ...
(8º. 4 _ll._ + 351 _pp._). “The second English edition,
1674, was divided in _twelve_ books.”
Twenty-one years later a free _Hebrew_ rendering was
published, under the following title:――
תולדות אדם וחוה ... נעתק חפשי לשפת עבר ... ע״י שמואל בן משה ראפאלאוויץ נדפס
פעה״ק ירושלים תובב״ה בשנת תרנ״ב לפ״ק
Milton’s Paradise Lost. Translated in _Hebrew_ by Samuel
Raffalovich, _Jerusalem_, 1892. (8º. 63 _pp._)
“We shall conclude our account of this period by ... [referring to]
the ‘♦Davideis¹ of the melancholy [Abraham] Cowley (1618‒1667) in
which he seems to have borne in mind the language of the Bible....’
‘It will be in the recollection of every person, that there flourished
in the latter half of the seventeenth century three churchmen, whose
works are still regarded as models of style and mines of learning
and thought――[Bishop Jeremy] Taylor (1613‒1667), [Archbishop John]
Tillotson (1630‒1694) and [Dr. Isaac] Barrow (1630‒1677); whose
writings, if they have ever been equalled, have certainly never been
surpassed. The familiarity with the pages of Holy Writ which these
illustrious men must infallibly have acquired during the course of
that severe education which made them what they were, could not but
have exercised a very great influence upon their works....’”
♦ “Davidies” replaced with “Davideis”
¹ Poems: ... IV. Davideis, Or, A Sacred Poem Of The Troubles
Of David. Written by A. Cowley.... London, Printed for
_Humphrey Moseley_, at the Prince’s Arms in St. _Paul’s_
Church-yard, M.DC.LVI.
“There are many allusions to Sacred Writ in the works of [John] Dryden
(1631‒1700), particularly in his polemical works,... In the _Hind and
Panther_....¹
¹ The | Hind | And The | Panther. | A | Poem,| In Three Parts.
| ... London, | Printed for _Jacob Tonson_, at the _Judges
Head_ in | _Chancery_ Lane near _Fleet-street_, 1687.
(_4to._ 4 _ll._ + 145 _pp._ [B. M.]) Licensed April the
11th, 1687.
“In [Thomas] Parnell’s (1679‒1718) beautiful poem of the ‘Hermit’¹
there are several traces of Biblical influence:...
¹ Poems On Several Occasions. Written by Dr. Thomas Parnell,
Late Arch-Deacon of _Clogher_: And _Published_ by Mr.
Pope.... London: Printed for B. Lintot, at the _Cross-Keys_,
between the _Temple Gates_ in _Fleet-street_, 1722. (8º.
4 _ll._ + 221 _pp._ + 1 _l._)
“The Hermit,” _pp._ 164‒180.
“A perusal of [Alexander] Pope’s (1688‒1744) Messiah,¹ in which
many of the expressions are taken, word for word, from the book of
Holy Writ, will convince any reader of the influence which has been
exercised by it upon this poet. We have the authority of Mr. [Joseph]
Addison (1672‒1719) himself for the assertion, that he was fully
sensible of the beauties of the English translation. ‘Our language,’
says the writer, in the 405th Number of the _Spectator_, ‘has received
innumerable elegancies and improvements from the infusion of Hebraisms
which are derived to it out of the poetical passages of Holy Writ;
――they give a force and energy to our expression, warm and animate our
language, and convey our thought in more ardent and intense phrases
than any that are to be met with in our own tongue.’ Addison was the
founder of that pure, classical, and polished style which has, ever
since the publication of the _Spectator_, been considered as the _ne
plus ultra_ of that manner of writing. Knowing then, as we do, the
sentiments of this accomplished writer, it is not to be supposed
that he would, in the formation of his own style, have neglected to
borrow largely from that which he praised so much; and thus it appears
probable that the translation, throughout in this case itself a direct
agent, has yet exercised a beneficial influence upon the prose even of
modern writers....”
¹ A sacred pastoral first published in the _Spectator_, May
14th, 1712. It has also been translated into _Hebrew_:――
Messiah. A Sacred Eclogue. By Pope. הַמָּשִׁיחַ שִׁירַת הָרֹעִים׃ By
Stanilaus Hoga. London:... MDCCCXXXVII. (Sm. 8º. 8 _ll._,
in printed wrapper.)
The translator had been a Government Censor of the _Hebrew_
press in Russia. On coming to London, he came under the
influence of the Rev. Alexander McCaul (Father-in-law
of James Finn, the British Consul at _Jerusalem_), who
induced him to become an apostate. They co-operated in the
production of “The Old Paths” ... London:... 1836‒1837,
which Hoga translated into _Hebrew_. He died repentant about
the end of the year 1849. The _Hebrew_ translation he had
made of “The Old Paths,” entitled נתיבות עולם was not published
until 1851. (“The evil that men do lives after them;...”)
“In the poems of [James] Thomson (1700‒1748) there are a few passages
for which he was, probably, in some measure, indebted to the Bible
Translation――....”
“In the writings of [Edward] Young (1683‒1765), many expressions may
be found indebted for the idea or manner of expression to Scripture.
In his paraphrase of the Book of Job, one of his earlier works, first
published in 1719.”
“In the _Night Thoughts_,¹ traces of Biblical influence are not so
traceable, but it is probable that they exist....”
¹ The Complaint: or, Night-Thoughts on Life, Death, and
Immortality.... London:... 1742.... (Fol. 20 _pp._)
“[Dr. Mark] Akenside (1721‒1770), in one of his poems;¹ [Thomas] Gray
(1716‒1771), in his admirable lines on Milton,² and [Thomas] Warton
[the Elder] (1688?‒1745), in his Address to Night,³ had clearly in
mind some of the passages in the Psalms.”
¹ The Pleasures of Imagination. A Poem. In Three Books....
London:... M.DCC.XLIV. (_4to._ 125 _pp._)
² Odes By Mr. Gray.... Printed at Strawberry Hill, For R.
and J. Dodsley in Pall-Mall, MDCCLVII. (_4to._ 21 _pp._)
[_p._ 10, III., 2. “Progress of Poesy”: A Pindaric Ode
written in Cambridge in 1754.]
³ The Pleasures of Melancholy: A Poem.... London:... 1747....
(_4to._ 24 _pp._)
“There is a real strain of religious feeling, of the very strongest
description, which breathes through the poetry of [William] Cowper
(1731‒1800); but though he no doubt felt that admiration for the
translation with which a person of his great taste and love of
religious writings especially must have been imbued, there is no
very perceptible evidence of its having exercised more than a general
influence upon his language....”
“The mind of [George Gordon] Byron [Sixth Baron Byron] (1788‒1824) had
been early tinctured by a love of the poetical parts of the Bible; ...
and there are several traces to be found in his works of the influence
which this book exercised upon his mind....”
“There are some expressions in the _Revolt of Islam_¹ that would seem
to indicate that the author of that poem had kept in memory some of
the descriptive and mystical passages of Ezekiel....”
¹ The Revolt of Islam; A Poem, In Twelve Cantos. By Percy
Bysshe Shelley. [1792‒1822.] London:... 1818.
“In [Robert] Southey (1774‒1843) there are several Biblical
expressions and ideas....”¹
¹ The Curse of Kehama: By Robert Southey.... London:... 1810.
(_4to._ 16 + 376 _pp._)
“In the beautiful songs of a justly celebrated ... writer, Mr.
[Thomas] Moore (1779‒1852), there is much that can be traced to a
scriptural origin.”¹
¹ “Fallen is thy Throne, O Israel!”――“Sound the loud Timbrel,
Miriam’s Song”――“War against Babylon.”
“It can now be seen, we hope, satisfactorily demonstrated, that the
translation of the Bible into English has exercised a considerable
influence upon the poetry of the last two centuries; it is now time
to speak of the effects which it has produced upon our prose.... There
are, ... to be found in the writings of many of the most distinguished
prose authors in our language, passages which, from the general
character of their style, or the form of the ideas they express, may
be concluded to have been suggested, or at least modified, by the
influence of the Bible Translation ... in the writings of Sir Thomas
Brown[e] (1535?‒1585), an author who enjoyed a considerable degree
of fame in the days of Queen Elizabeth (1533‒1603), great traces
are to be discovered of Biblical influence;――while at a much later
period [Edward] Hyde (1609‒1674), Earl of Clarendon (particularly
the introduction, and part of the first volume)¹ will convince the
most sceptical reader, that the translation of the Bible has not been
disregarded by that writer....”
¹ The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England,
Begun in the Year 1641.... Written by the Right Honourable
Edward, Earl of Clarendon, Late Lord High Chancellor of
_England_,... Oxford,... MDCCIV.
“It may, perhaps, ... seem paradoxical to affirm, that the art of
public speaking, ... can have been indebted to so remote an event as
the translation of the Bible; but this supposition will nevertheless
be found to be correct:... The speeches of [John] Pym (1584‒1643) and
others upon the Earl of Strafford’s (1593‒1641) impeachment [1640],
of Viscount Falkland (1610?‒1643), Sir Henry Vane (1589‒1655), etc.,
upon the Episcopacy Reformation question, will suffice as instances
of discourses in which many proofs may be found, upon perusal, of
Biblical influence.”
“It is well known that [William Pitt] the [First] Earl of Chatham
(1708‒1778), the most eloquent orator that England has ever produced,
recommended to every person who wished to become acquainted with the
force of the English language, and to acquire the power of expressing
himself with facility, to study the writings of the copious Barrow.
Now we know that Barrow was deeply read in the Holy Scriptures; we
know that his style is greatly tinctured by the influence which they
exerted upon him; will it, then, be too much to assert that English
speaking, in general, ... has been considerably influenced by the
Bible translation?...”
“It may be concluded from the foregoing observations, that the
translation of the Bible into our language is a most remarkable event
in the history of English literature:... Those who have compared most
of the European translations with the original have not scrupled to
say that the English translation is the most accurate and faithful of
the whole.... Besides, our translators have not only made a standard
translation, but they have made their translation a standard of our
language. The English tongue of their day was not equal to such a
work; but God enabled them to stand as upon Mount Sinai; and _crane_
up their country’s language to the dignity of the originals, so that
after the lapse of two hundred years, the English Bible is still with
a very few exceptions the standard of the purity and excellence of the
English tongue.”¹
¹ An Essay upon The Influence of the Translation of the Bible
upon English Literature,... By [William Thomas Petty
(1811‒1836) _afterwards_ Fitz-Maurice, Earl of Kerry] Lord
Kerry.... Cambridge:... 1830. (8º. 1 _l._ + 82 _pp._)
This influence of the _Hebrew_ language can be traced not only in
the masterpieces of great poets; it was also of a general and popular
character. The study of the _Hebrew_ language among Christians,
which had only casually and at intervals occupied the attention of
ecclesiastics during the Middle Ages, received an immense impulse from
the revived interest in the Bible caused by the Reformation.
Scientific progress in _Hebrew_ was perhaps more considerable in
other countries where the Reformation was gaining ground, but while
in other countries this influence was felt chiefly among scholars, in
England the influence has been popular and has been felt in the daily
life of the nation. The process of enrichment and ennoblement of the
English language has been going on for centuries among all classes
of the population, and one of the chief agencies by which it has
been effected is certainly the influence, direct and indirect, of the
_Hebrew_ Bible.
To penetrate into the history, prophecy, and poetry of the _Hebrew_
Bible, to revere them as the effusion of Divine inspiration, to live
in them with all the emotions of the heart, and yet not to consider
_Israel_, who had originated all this glory and greatness, as the
“Chosen People,” was impossible.¹
¹ Among modern English poets and writers, Robert Browning
(1812‒1889) was a great friend of the Jews and a good
_Hebraist_, and very often quoted _Hebrew_ sentences. In a
letter to a friend Browning wrote:
“The _Hebrew_ quotations are put in for a purpose as a
direct acknowledgment that certain doctrines may be found
in the Old Book, which the concocters of Novel Schemes of
Morality put forth as discoveries of their own.”
In _Jewish Fancies_ there are many _Hebrew_ phrases, also
in the _Melon Seller_ and in the _Two Camels_. In _Rabbi
Ben Ezra_ and _The Doctor_ the reader will find essentially
Jewish thoughts.
Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809‒1892) also read the Bible in the
original _Hebrew_. Lady Tennyson (1813‒1896) writes in her
journal in 1867:
“A.” (meaning her husband Alfred) “is reading _Hebrew_
(_Job_ and the Song of _Solomon_ and _Genesis_). He talked
much of his _Hebrew_. He brought down to me his psalm-like
poem ‘Higher Pantheism.’”
John Bright’s (1811‒1889) sublime oratory was avowedly based
on the Bible; from it, not from the classics of Paganism,
came the inspiration of his highest eloquence. The memorable
party nickname, “_The Adullamites_,” which he conferred
on the Liberal seceders on the Franchise Bill in 1866,
shows his familiarity with the details of Bible history
and the readiness with which he could adapt his knowledge
to political illustrations. How minutely he knew the Old
Testament is apparent to any reader of his speeches.
Hence among the Puritans there were many earnest admirers of “God’s
Ancient People,” and Cromwell himself joined in this admiration.
It was by this Biblical _Hebrew_ movement that public opinion in
England had been prepared for a sympathetic treatment of the idea of
a readmission of the Jews into England.
Illustration: THE CONFERENCE BETWEEN MANASSEH BEN-ISRAEL
AND OLIVER CROMWELL (1655)
_From the painting at the Jews’ College,
Queen Square House, London_
CHAPTER III.
THE RE-ADMISSION OF THE JEWS INTO ENGLAND
Manasseh Ben-Israel――Aaron Levi _alias_ Antony Montezinos
――Moses Wall――Leonard Busher――David Abrabanel [Manuel Martinez
Dormido]――Oliver St. John.
MANASSEH BEN-ISRAEL (1606‒1657), the Amsterdam Jewish preacher and
_Hebrew_-Spanish author, was the chief promoter of the readmission
of the Jews to England and the leading figure in the history of that
great event. He had all the virtues and accomplishments of a leader.
He was a man of fine intellect and high moral character, unselfish in
thought, word and deed, straightforward and sincere, extraordinarily
endowed and irresistibly attractive, at the same time a faithful
religious believer and a practical man of action. All the sorrows and
all the hopes of the old Jewish nation were in him, and all the beauty
of the Bible was in his visions.
Manasseh was neither a first-rate _Talmudical_ authority, nor the
principal of a great _Rabbinical_ school, nor a celebrated and
officially recognized leader of _Rabbis_. He achieved nothing striking
in the field of _Halachah_,¹ where alone, according to traditional
views, authority can be won among learned _Rabbis_ and their followers.
In high _Rabbinical_ quarters he may have been considered a dilettante
or an eclectic, perhaps a sort of dreamer; and not without justice.
The “practical” people of the period, again, may have pointed out that
there was plenty of immediate “practical” work for Manasseh to do in
congregations, in societies, in charities and in schools among the
Portuguese Jews of the “_Jodenbreestraat_” in Amsterdam, and that he
would do better if he devoted himself to ordinary local work, instead
of chasing chimeras and planning Utopian schemes in close agreement
with the Puritan Saints and _Marrano_ travellers. And yet, in spite
of all the immediate needs of the hour, this remarkable man, inspired
by a vision of the lost Ten Tribes of _Israel_, wrote one book after
another; not the traditional commonplace _Rabbinical_ books dealing
with questions and details of the conduct of everyday Jewish religious
life, but books about the past and the future, about the Ten Tribes
and about _Israel_ as a nation――and with an inimitable touch of
mysticism and poetry. He thought that Judaism required something
more than local activities, that it needed clear-sighted and fearless
self-defence, emancipated from routine, and not localized within the
boundaries of one country. And he not only wrote books in _Hebrew_,
Spanish, and Latin on this subject, but had several of them translated
into other languages; he also entered into personal relations with
non-Jewish “dreamers” who had proved by their ideas their intellectual
kinship with him, although they challenged him to controversy on some
essential points. He wrote petitions and proposals, and interfered
to a certain extent with what should, according to some other rabbis,
be confidingly left to Providence. It had dawned upon him that the
Jews should resettle in England, to pave the way for their final
resettlement in Palestine.
¹ Jewish Jurisprudence.
Manasseh was nothing if not a Zionist, if we look upon Zionism in
the light of his time. He was undoubtedly a dreamer, but one of those
dreamers to whom the word of the Psalmist applies, “... We were like
unto them that dream.”¹ He combined worldly wisdom with the prophetic
spirit. There was some ancient magic about him; there was a deep sense
of religion in all his writings. This religious character enabled
Manasseh to stir up Christian England at a time when there was a great
rekindling of the religious consciousness. No wealthy Jew could have
influenced England as did this poor _Hebrew_ scholar; no powerful
Jewish community could have produced an impression equal to that
produced by this Jewish dreamer, not only by his boundless activity,
determination and persistence, but chiefly because he was an inspired
man. He brought to his task deep religious feeling, and a mind
ripened by Jewish historical studies. He thus set himself to perform
with energy and moral courage an exceedingly responsible service
to the Jewish people, which he carried out with singular fidelity,
inspiration and enthusiasm, as well as with discretion and tact.
¹ Psalms, _chap._ cxxvi., _v._ 1.
He sent his brother-in-law, David Abrabanel [Manuel Martinez Dormido]¹
to England in 1654, to present to the Council a petition for the
readmission of the Jews, and followed up this visit by his own journey
to England, in order to support this petition.
¹ He was a native of Andalusia, Spain, and was imprisoned for
five years (1627‒1632) by the Inquisition, and tortured,
together with his wife and her sister. On being released he
went to Bordeaux, and in 1640 to Amsterdam.
In the preliminary leaves of _Thesouro dos Dinim_, by
Manasseh Ben-Israel, Amsterdam, 5405 (1645), his name
appears as one of the dedicatees and is described as
the _Parnas da Sedaká e Talmud Tora_. In 1663 he settled
here, and in the following year “David ABrabanel dormido”
appears as one of the signatories to the first _Ascamot_
of the _Sephardi Kahal_ in London in the year 5424. He died
2 _Nisan_ 5427, and was interred in the second _carera_ at
the _Beth Haim_ in the rear of the _Beth Holim_ at Mile End.
There were undoubtedly several auxiliary causes which made the
readmission of the Jews possible, and the general conditions of
the time and the country were assuredly favourable. Still, the fact
remains that Manasseh’s powerful imaginative impulse and his emotional
Messianic conception were the most important driving force in the
wonderful story of the resettlement of the Jews in England.¹ It is
true that he did not succeed in obtaining that formal permission for
the resettlement which he wanted, but by the publicity of his appeal
he brought the subject prominently before the ruling minds of England,
and thus indirectly led to the recognition of the fact that there was
nothing in English law against the readmission of the Jews.²
¹ Not that there had not been Jews in England since the
expulsion. The researches of Sir Sidney Lee and Mr.
Lucien Wolf have shown that hardly for a single year was
English soil without Jewish inhabitants, some of them of
considerable distinction: Dr. Rodrigo Lopez (_ob._ 1594),
Antonio Fernandez Carvajal (1590?‒1659), Manuel Martinez
Dormido [David Abrabanel] (_ob._ 1667); but they were
tolerated only as privileged individuals.
² Mr. Lucien Wolf, to whose researches our knowledge of the
secret services of Carvajal and his friends to Cromwell and
the Commonwealth is due, is inclined to give them all the
credit for the readmission. But it is clear that had not
public opinion been aroused on the side of Jewish rights,
nothing could have been done.
One can say, without exaggeration, that there was a Biblical and
Messianic idea at the very root of this great event. In effect,
Zionism stood at the cradle of the resettlement of the Jews in England.
This is clear to everybody who has studied Manasseh’s writings,
particularly in the original _Hebrew_, the language in which he can
best be understood and appreciated. His favourite idea was that the
return of the Jews to their ancient land must be preceded by their
general dispersion. The Dispersion, according to the words of the
Bible, was to be from one end of the earth to the other, and must
therefore include the British Isles, which lay in the extreme north
of the inhabited world. Manasseh made no secret of his Messianic
hopes, because he could and did reckon upon the fact that the “Saints”
or Puritans wished for the “assembling of God’s people” in their
ancestral home and were inclined to help and promote it.
What was the difference between Manasseh and other _Rabbis_? No
_Rabbi_ could fail to be well acquainted with the familiar prophecies
of the Bible, and to know that the Dispersion was to be from one end
of the earth to the other. Are not these prophecies quoted in the
Jewish daily prayers, prayers that have been lost unheard, as it seems,
in the dark depths of 2000 years of dispersion, and are known to every
Jewish child? Or did not the _Rabbis_ cherish those Messianic hopes
which inspired Manasseh? There was only one difference: the difference
between passivity and activity, between purely spiritual impulses and
impulses which lead to action. If the dispersion has to be complete,
let Providence make it complete――this was the usual point of view.
Those who merely believed declined to do anything, as they did not
wish to face the danger of failure. They lived on that, of which other
nations die――on sorrow. Their melancholy had much of majesty in it,
but it led to nothing and ended in nothing. They dared not attempt
to penetrate into the secrets of the Almighty; for God alone can see
what will happen, and no man can avoid his destiny. They refused to
undertake any effort for the readmission of their brethren not only
into Palestine, but even into England. They were believers, not men of
action. Manasseh took matters into his own hands. He not only believed,
he acted in accordance with his belief. He collected evidence with
judicious care, weighing and measuring difficulties, keeping facts
calmly before his mind, studying the facts of the dispersion with
interest and zeal. He occupied himself with Messianism more than any
Jewish scholar since _Don_ Isaac _de_ Judah Abrabanel (1437‒1508), and
more effectively than the latter, because of the active character of
his plans.
In his מקוה ישראל, _Esperança de Israel_ (Appendix iv), Manasseh relates
how the _Marrano_ traveller, Aaron Levi, _alias_ Antony Montezinos,
while travelling in South America, had met a race of natives in the
Cordilleras, who recited the _Shema_, practised Jewish ceremonies, and
were, in short, Israelites of the tribe of _Reuben_. Montezinos had
related his story to Manasseh, and had even embodied it in a sworn
affidavit before the heads of the Amsterdam Synagogue. Montezinos’
story seemed to be a proof of the increasing dispersion of _Israel_.
_Daniel_ (xii. 7) had foretold in his prophecies that the dispersion
of the Jewish people would be the forerunner of their restoration.
“And the Lord shall scatter thee among all peoples, from the one end
of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;...” (Deuteronomy
xxviii. 64).
It was clear from Montezinos’ and other travellers’ reports that the
Jews had already reached one end of the earth. “Let them enter England
and the other end would be reached.” In this sense Manasseh wrote
his book, which, at the instigation of John Dury (1596‒1680) was
translated into English by the Puritan Moses Wall,¹ from the Latin
version (Appendix v), of the original Spanish under the title of _The
Hope of Israel_ (Appendix vi), which produced a profound impression
throughout England. It was followed in the next few years by two other
tracts by Manasseh, _The Humble Addresses_ [1655] (Appendix vii) and
_Vindiciæ Judæorum_ [1656] (Appendix viii).
¹ “... Moses Wall, of Causham or Caversham in Oxfordshire, a
scholar and Republican opinionist, of whom there are traces
in Hartlib’s correspondence and elsewhere.” (_Life of John
Milton_, by David Masson (1822‒1907), vol. v., 1877, _pp._
601‒2).
See also _The Diary and Correspondence of Dr. John
Worthington_ (1618‒1671). Edited by James Crossley
(1800‒1883).... 1847, _pp._ 355 and 365.
These tracts followed the remarkable evolution of English religious
ideas which occurred in the seventeenth century. It is a well-known
fact that the recognition of religious liberty in England was
due chiefly to the struggle between the True Believers and other
Nonconformists. The Reformation had granted only a limited form of
religious liberty: when the True Believers themselves began to be
persecuted the demand for religious liberty became very strong. The
earliest pamphlet on this subject, by Leonard Busher, published in
1614,¹ had already demanded religious liberty for the Jews as well.
¹ Religious | Peace: | Or, | A Plea for Liberty of |
Conscience. | Long since presented to King _James_, | and
the High Court of Parliament then | sitting, by _Leonard
Busher_ Citizen of _London_, and Printed in the Yeare 1614.
| Wherein is contained certain Reasons against | Persecution
for Religion, Also a designe for | peaceable reconciling of
those that differ in opinion. | ... London, | Printed for
John Sweeting at the Angel in Popes-head-alley, | 1646. |
(_4to._ 4 _ll._ + 38 _pp._ [B. M.]
Imprimatur:――This usefull Treatise (Entituled _Religious
Peace_), long since Presented by a Citizen of _London_ to
King James, and the High Court of Parliament then sitting;
I allow to be Reprinted.
_Aprill 1._ JOHN BACHILER.
A copy of the first edition, published in 1614, has not yet
been discovered.
_p._ 28: “... but shall offend also the Jews, ... who
account it tyrrany to have their consciences forced to
religion by persecution.”
_p._ 71: “Then shall the Jews inhabit and dwell under his
majesty’s dominion, to the great profit of his realms....”
The English refugees in Amsterdam came into contact with the Jews
of that town, and above all with Manasseh, whom they admitted to
the innermost circle of friendship. The intercourse was continuous,
and did much to dispel the mutual prejudices which old enmities had
created and ignorance had nourished. Intimacies were formed which
proved salutary to both, particularly to the Saints. Manasseh was also
on terms of intimacy with Oliver St. John (1598?‒1673), the English
Ambassador in Holland (1651), who was afterwards a member of the
Committee selected to consider the readmission of the Jews into
England.
CHAPTER IV.
MANASSEH BEN-ISRAEL
Manasseh as a Jewish _Rabbi_ and as a _Hebrew_ writer――His
activity as a publisher and corrector of _Hebrew_ books――The
Bible editions, the Psalms and the _Mishnah_――Manasseh’s
connection with _Safed_ in Palestine――_Enseña a Pecadores_
――The influence of _Rabbi_ Isaiah _ben_ Abraham Horwitz
――Solomon _de_ Oliveyra――Manasseh’s _De Termino Vitae_――The
Influence of _Don_ Isaac Abrabanel――The Lost Ten Tribes and
the_Marranos_.
THE literature concerning Manasseh, which is chiefly in English, but
partly also in Dutch, German, _Hebrew_ and Spanish, is very rich in
detail and affords an accurate and thorough insight into Manasseh’s
intellectual relationship to contemporary Christian scholars and
statesmen, and extensive information as to his writings in defence
of Judaism, his missions, _etc._ The Jewish Historical Society of
England has played a prominent part in the researches on the subject
by arranging lectures and publishing excellent papers, and the ground
has been covered on the whole very thoroughly. There is, however,
one point which has not yet been sufficiently elucidated, _viz._,
Manasseh’s attitude as a Jewish _Rabbi_ and as a _Hebrew_ writer.
His literary communications with Christian divines, his apologetic
writings in Spanish and Latin, and his Spanish translations present
after all only one view of his individuality and activity, the view
seen by the outside world. If, however, we wish to describe Manasseh
in his private, inner life, and to understand his particular views and
methods, we have to leave the apologist and the polyglot translator
and to discover the author when he writes for his nation in the
national language. Here, and only here, we discover the Jewish scholar
in his originality.
In this connection we meet Manasseh as publisher or corrector
(proof reader) of his three partial and complete Bible editions:
(1) _Chamisha Chumshé Thora_, Amsterdam, 1631; (2) _Sefer T’hillim_
(Psalterium Hebraicum ex recens. Manasseh, _etc._), Amsterdam, 1634;
(3) _Esrim V’arba_ (Biblia Hebraica), Amsterdam, 1639.
These books were edited by Manasseh with great care and fine judgment.
Heer J. M. Hillesum, the scholarly librarian of the Bibliotheca
Rosenthaliana (Universiteits――Bibliotheek, Amsterdam), supposes that
the first _Hebrew_ book printed in Amsterdam¹ was the “Daily Prayers”
according to the Spanish rite dated January, 1627, and edited by
Manasseh.² Whatever view may be taken of this assumption, it is,
at all events, certain that Manasseh was one of the pioneers of
Amsterdam _Hebrew_ printing, which will for ever have a distinguished
place in the annals of _Hebrew_ publications. He not only displayed
artistic taste worthy of the friend of Rembrandt in creating the first
specimens of beautiful _Hebrew_ books, but by the precision of his
corrections he proved himself an excellent _Hebrew_ grammarian. It
must be borne in mind that _Hebrew_ grammarians among the _Rabbis_
of his time were seldom met with, and found only among scholars of a
somewhat progressive type.
¹ Het eerste te Amsterdam gedrukte Hebreeuwsche Boek.
Verbeterde overdruk uit maanblad “_Achawah_” van 1 Februari
_en_ 1 Maart 1910 (No. 185 _en_ 186) by Heer J. M. Hillesum.
² סדר תפלות כמנהג קהל קדש ספרד ... נדפס עתה במצות הגבירים אפרים בואינו ואברהם צרפתי
באמשטילרדאם בבית מנשה בן ישראל שנת וישכן ישראל בטח
(_16mo._ 1 _l._ + 360 _pp._ (paginated, 2‒361) + 1 _l._
[Bodleian.])
The only other copy known is in the library of Elkan N.
Adler.
He showed his competence also in the _Mishnah_, three volumes,
Amsterdam, 5404, corrected with great care by Manasseh Ben-Israel,
Teacher of the Law and Preacher, and published by Eliahu Aboab.¹
In this edition we see mere corrector’s work. As we gather from the
preface, manuscripts of the _Mishnah_ were brought from “the town
which is full of Scholars and writers, _Safed_ in the Land of _Israel_,
may God rebuild it soon!”
¹ יעקב ספיר איש ירושלים is inscribed on the preliminary leaves of the
British Museum copy. He was known as _Eben Sappir_, _Rabbi_,
Author and Traveller. Born in Russia 1822 and died in
_Jerusalem_ 1886.
In the course of our inquiry we shall show that Manasseh was in close
touch with the Holy Land; here attention is called only to the fact
that in this editorial work Manasseh was actuated by a desire to
compare the various manuscripts. These _Mishnaioth_ are a wonderful
pocket edition, containing the text without any commentary, and
evidently destined for repetition. _Talmud_ students will find here
a good many instructive variants.
Another book edited by Manasseh, though it is merely a translation,
throws some light on the tendencies of the time and on Manasseh’s
Jewish connections. This is the _Libro Yntitulado Enseña a
Pecadores_.¹ (Appendix ix). This little book contains, in addition
to a translation of a prayer composed by _Rabbi_ Isaac (1534‒1572)
_ben_ Solomon [Ashkenazi] Luria, a translation of a section of
_Rabbi_ Isaiah (1555‒1630) _ben_ Abraham Horwitz’s _Sepher Shné Luchot
Ha’brith_ ... Amsterdam ... 5409. The author’s name has come down
to posterity by the initials of his great work “S. L. H.”² with
the attribute _Hakadosh_.³ He was _Rabbi_ in Frankfort-on-the-Main,
Prague, Posen, and Cracow, and then went to the Holy Land, where
he was called מרא דארץ ישראל⁴ His _Shné Luchot Ha’brith_ is a work of
admirable erudition in the _Agadah_ (Legend, Saga) of the _Talmud_,
as well as in homiletics and _Cabbalah_. _Rabbi_ Isaiah Horwitz was a
religiously inspired Zionist. His enthusiasm in expounding the glory
of the Holy Land (_Shné Luchot Ha’brith_, _p._ 275, sermon to _Lech
L’cha_, and _p._ 389, sermon to _Va’etchanan_) was almost unique in
the literature of that time. He combined moreover a rare religious
ecstasy and _Cabbalistic_ visions with progressive ideas on education,
in which he recommended a systematic method, contrary to the customs
of that time――a tendency also found in Manasseh. _Rabbi_ Isaiah lived
to an advanced age, and his activities came to an end in the Holy
Land. His manuscript was brought to Amsterdam and published there,
with additions by his son David, who was also a distinguished scholar.
This book seems to have impressed Manasseh so much that he published
a translation of a part of it, containing prayers and contemplations
for repentant sinners, evidently for _Marranos_, for whom a great
many prayer-books and religious tracts were published at that time in
Spanish and Portuguese.
¹ Instruction for Sinners.
² Pronounced “_Shloh_.”
³ The Saint.
⁴ Lord of the Land of _Israel_.
This book, while proving the fact of Manasseh’s connection with a
great Palestinian authority, shows also that he was in touch with
the _Hebrew_ poet and grammarian, _Haham Ribi_ Solomon¹ _de_ David
_de_ Israel _d_’Oliveyra, the author of _Sharshot Gabluth_――_Ayeleth
Ahabim_, which were both published in Amsterdam in the year 5425
[1665], and many other books and treatises on _Hebrew_ poetry. He
is considered to be one of the precursors of the revival of modern
_Hebrew_ literature in Holland, and wrote poems and compositions of
a didactic character. In the course of our inquiry we shall discover
that Manasseh himself had a great predilection for _Hebrew_ poetry.
Embodied in the _Enseña a Pecadores_ is a “Confession of Penitence”
composed by _Haham d_’Oliveyra in _Hebrew_ וידוי כפרה and Portuguese
[_♦Viduy Penetencial_], which includes a prayer for the rebuilding of
the “Holy City,” using the Biblical phrase:――תבנה חומות ירושלים _Fabricarás
murallas de Yerusalaim_.
¹ _Ob._ 23 May, 1708, at Amsterdam.
♦ “Vidvy” replaced with “Viduy”
Another work of Manasseh in Latin, _De Termino Vitae_, Amsterdam,
1639 (Appendix x), was written with the object of answering a question
which was addressed by his friend the Christian scholar Jan _van_
Beverwijck [Johannes Beverovicius] (1594‒1647) to various divines
and scholars, and is, consequently, apologetic in character. But
two passages throw some light on Manasseh’s views as to the Land of
_Israel_ and Messianism. In one of them he emphasizes the fact that
the Jews frequently collect alms for those who live in the Holy Land;¹
and in the other he says that “if anyone desires to know all the
controversies of the Jews concerning the explanation of _Daniel’s_
(_fl._ 3389 _a.m._) Prophecies, he may read Abrabanel’s Treatise,
which the learned Johannes Buxtorf II. (1599‒1664) has translated into
Latin.”² In this way he identifies himself with the ideas expounded
by Abrabanel in his _Mayy’neh Hayeshuah_, which showed that Abrabanel
was not only Messianistic in the usual sense, but was firmly convinced
that the end of the Captivity might be expected in the near future.
¹ “_Hinc etiam in Synagogis Hebraeorum ... vel eorum qui
terram sanctum incolunt...._” (De Termino Vitae, _p._ 103).
² _Ibid._, _p._ 184.
Manasseh was a _Hebrew_ grammarian concerned with the correctness of
ancient sacred texts, and an editor of keen discrimination. In his
scholarly work he kept in close touch with the scholars of _Safed_;
he was moreover influenced by the religious Zionistic enthusiasm
of _Rabbi_ Isaiah Horwitz. In his Messianic hopes he was a disciple
of Abrabanel, and he highly appreciated the modern though religious
_Hebrew_ poetry of his time, which poetry he introduced in his
devotional book as a _Viduy_, concluding with an apotheosis of _Zion_
and _Jerusalem_.
Regarded from the point of view of these ideas, Manasseh of the
“_Conciliador_” appears to us in his proper light. Broad-minded,
highly accomplished, interested in all the discoveries of his time――an
important period for discoveries――he sincerely believed in Montezinos’
report concerning his distant brethren, while, on the other hand, his
great devotion to Palestine and his belief in Abrabanel’s predictions
made the question of the Lost Ten Tribes for him not one of curiosity
but one of vital importance for the national salvation. _Judah
and Israel_ are to return――where, then, is _Israel_? Is the Return
thinkable so long as _Israel_ is lost? All the legends concerning the
_Sambatyon_ and the various reports of Eldad _ben_ Mahli Ha’dani (_fl._
9th century) concerning the tribe of Dan and the “Sons of Moses” who
live somewhere as an independent, strong nation, were essentially the
reflex of a powerful national aspiration. The descendants of _Judah_,
_Benjamin_ and half of the tribe of _Manasseh_ felt themselves too
weak, too humiliated and too few in number to achieve the great
work of Restoration, but believing as they did in the impossibility
of the disappearance of the ancient nation, they were sure that
the descendants of _Israel_, uniting with and absorbed by other
nations though they might be at present, would one day be awakened
to consciousness as to their origin and join _Judah_ in repopulating
the ♦Holy Land. This is the reason why they were so fascinated by the
reports respecting the Lost Ten Tribes. Is it to be wondered at that
_Marranos_ were particularly ready to believe in this miracle? Were
they not themselves like one of the Lost Ten Tribes in that, after
all the tortures of the Inquisition, and after having apparently been
ultimately denationalized, converted and absorbed, they had reasserted
themselves and were now awakening to a new Jewish revival? Considering
that these aspirations happened to coincide with the hope for the
Restoration and the rediscovery of the Lost Ten Tribes, in which
reformed Christianity, and especially the Puritans, believed, we
can fully realize the popularity which Manasseh’s ideas had gained
in these circles, and we can quite understand how they led to the
readmission of the Jews to England.
♦ “Loly” replaced with “Holy”
CHAPTER V.
MANASSEH’S _NISHMATH CHAYYIM_
The most important of his Hebrew writings――Quotations from
Gebirol, Bedersi, _R._ Kalonymus, _R._ Zerahiah Ha’levi, and
others――Plato, Aristotle and Philo――_Cabbalistic_ ideas――_R._
Isaac Luria――Miracles and Christian Saints――Manasseh’s Jewish
Nationalism――“The Jewish Soul”――The _Zohar_――_R._ Jehudah
Ha’levi――The holiness of the Land of _Israel_――_R._ David
Carcassone, the messenger from Constantinople.
THE most important of Manasseh’s _Hebrew_ writings, though it is only
alluded to incidentally, or dismissed with derisive criticism in some
biographies, was his _Nishmath Chayyim..._,¹ Amsterdam, 1651 (Appendix
xi). Sarcastic observations have been made with regard to the legends
and superstitions with which this book abounds. It is true that the
book contains many legends and superstitious beliefs; but that is just
why, from a literary point of view, it contributes far more to a real
knowledge of Manasseh than the writings in which he advocated certain
causes as apologist or translator. In this book we get Manasseh
himself, a national Jew, preaching to his brethren in the national
language. A careful study of the book in the original, with its
peculiar style, its wide range of allusion, and its distinctive spirit,
gives us a clear idea of Manasseh’s religious views, his Jewish
national self-consciousness, or――to use the modern term――his Zionism.
¹ “The Breath of Life”: on the existence of the soul, the
future life, _etc._
The book is a careful compilation, skilfully put together and well
chosen in every part. Though somewhat florid in certain portions, it
is on the whole excellently written. Its style reminds one of that of
Abrabanel, with a touch of _R._ Isaac (1402?‒1494) _ben_ Moses Arama.
The author often quotes poetical sentences of Solomon (1021?‒1058)
_ben_ Judah Ibn Gabirol [Abu Ayyub Sulaiman Ibn Yahya Ibn Jabirul],
known as Avicebron: _R._ Jedaiah (1270?‒1340?) _ben_ Abraham Bedersi
[Bedaresi].¹ Kalonymos (1286‒_post_ 1328) _ben_ Kalonymos _ben_ Meir
[Maestro Calo]; Zerahiah (1131?‒1186?) _ben_ Isaac Ha’levi Gerondi,
and others, and thus shows himself well versed not only in the ancient
texts, but also in the beauties of comparatively recent _Hebrew_
poetry.
¹ He quotes Bedersi also in _De Termino Vitae_: “Quando
aspicis coelum, quod supra te est”――with the _Hebrew_
original (_p._ 17).
Manasseh’s argument aims at proving that the immortality of the
soul is an old _Biblical_ as well as a _Talmudical_, _Rabbinical_
and _Cabbalistic_ principle. He defines the _Nefesh_ (Soul) as the
internal ultimate principle by which man thinks, feels and wills. The
term _Ruach_ (Mind) denotes this principle as the subject of man’s
conscious state, while _Nefesh_ denotes it as the source of man’s
physical activities as well. The question of the reality of the soul
and its separate existence apart from the body is for him one of
the most important problems of religion, for with it is bound up the
doctrine of a future life. He knows Plato (427?‒347? _b.c.e._),
Aristotle (384‒322 _b.c.e._) and Philo (20? _b.c.e._‒_post_ 40
_c.e._). It is well known that Mysticism shares to a great extent
the ideas of the system of Plato, _e.g._ in his theory of the world
of ideas, of the origin of the world-soul and the human soul. The
two standpoints, the cosmological and the epistemological, are
found combined in Plato. In the _Phædo_ the chief argument for
the immortality of the soul is based on the nature of intellectual
knowledge interpreted by the theory of memory; this of course implies
the pre-existence of the soul. This doctrine developed into an extreme
Transcendentalism. Aristotle, on the other hand, emphasized the
intimacy of the union of body and soul. The difficulty in his theory
is to determine what degree of distinctness or separateness from the
matter of the body is to be conceded to the human soul. He fully
recognizes the spiritual element in thought, and describes the “active
intellect” as separate, but the precise relation of this “active
intellect” to the individual mind was an obscure point in his theory.
Philo combined the Platonic theory with the data of the Bible, and
taught that every man, by freeing himself from matter and receiving
illumination from God, may reach the mystic, ecstatic or prophetic
state, where he is absorbed in the Divinity. The Stoics taught that
all existence is material, and described the soul as a breath
pervading the body. They also called it Divine, a particle of God.
Manasseh’s system is a syncretism of the ideas of Plato, Philo and
the Stoics, while he rejects the Aristotelian ideas. He endeavours
to prove that Moses Maimonides (1135‒1204) did not follow the
great Peripatetic, and opposes the commentator of Maimonides’
_Moreh-Nebuchim_ Moses (_fl. 14th cent._) _ben_ Joshua Narboni
[Mestre Vidal], in a somewhat forced dialectical manner.
Accepting on these grounds the pre-existence of the soul, the
continuance of the soul in the world to come, and reincarnation, he
comes to the _Cabbalah_, quotes the _Zohar_, and declares himself
a disciple of _R._ Isaac Luria. According to the _Zohar_, man is
composed of three things: Life, or _Nefesh_, Spirit, which is _Ruach_,
and Soul, which is _Neshamah_. By this man becomes a _Ruach Chajah_
(Living Spirit).¹ Manasseh’s doctrine may be summarized as follows:――
¹ See _p._ 157, _The Secret Doctrine in Israel_, by A. E.
Waite, 1913.
(1) The human soul is endowed with special gifts fitting it for
an intimate union with the Divinity――the Stoic “particle of God,”
corresponding to the _Hebrew_ “_Chelek Eloha Mimaal_”;
(2) The gifts or graces through which every man is equipped for his
perfection form his Life, Spirit and Soul into an organized whole,
whose parts are knit together;
(3) Through contemplation and piety the human soul enters into that
higher heavenly soul, into the mystical cosmos whose parts are united
in divine eternity. This is, to his mind, the meaning of the Biblical
teaching that man is made in the image and likeness of God.
The _Cabbalistic_ ideas once accepted, Manasseh accepts also the
transmigration of souls, physical resurrection, expelling of demons,
and so on. He indulges in theosophical visions and metaphysical
speculations. All these seem strange from a modern point of view,
but he should be considered in the light of his time. He believed
in miracles. Did not the Fathers of the Christian Church believe in
them? Origen (185?‒253(4)) says that he has seen examples of demons
expelled.¹ St. Athanasius (293‒373) writes in the Life of St. Anthony
(251(2)‒356(7)) from what he himself saw and heard from one who had
long been in attendance on the saint. Justin Martyr (100?‒163‒7), in
his second apology to the Roman Senate appeals to miracles wrought
in Rome and well attested. Tertullian (155?‒222?) challenges the
heathen magistrates to work the miracles which the Christians perform²;
St. Augustine (354‒430) gives a long list of extraordinary miracles
wrought before his own eyes, mentioning names and particulars. And
even in the time of the Reformation, did not Johann _von_ Reuchlin
(1455‒1522) adhere to _Cabbalistic_ mysticism in his _De arte
cabalistias_ and _De verbo mirifico_? Paradoxical as it may seem at
first sight, Manasseh even in his metaphysical beliefs was somewhat
of a rationalist, in the sense that he accepted only evidence of
trustworthy authority. The _Safed_ authorities, who were supposed to
have witnessed the miracles of Luria, of course impressed him in the
same way as Montezinos’ reports, because they were in harmony with his
theory. At any rate, it is characteristic of his way of thinking that
he was anxious to build upon facts and evidence.
¹ _c. Celsum_, i. 2.
² _Apol._, xxiii.
We have had to wander to some extent into a domain outside our
province in order to appreciate fully Manasseh’s general ideas.
His Jewish nationalism, which is for us the principal point, can be
understood only in connection with his whole system of ideas. This
nationalism is outspoken in the _Nishmath Chayyim_. What we, in modern
language, call race, national (from _natus_――_natio_) individuality,
_i.e._ what the Jew is by himself, by the fact of being born a Jew,
is termed by Manasseh “the Jewish soul.” His system is rooted in
his faith in the excellency of the Jewish soul, which is a profound
act of homage to the race; that is the point of view from which he
regards Jewish history. History, he thinks――and in this point again
he is guided by the evidence of historical facts――bears witness to
the beneficial influence that the soul of _Israel_, or――more precisely
――the _Israelitish_ soul, has exerted on the intellectual life of
mankind.
On this point he is even carried away by his imagination to make
exaggerated statements of the following kind, again backed up by
authorities: “It is a truth confirmed by innumerable writers, that
all the learning of the Greeks and Egyptians was derived from the
Jews: Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria (150?‒213?) and Theodoret
(386?‒247) assert that all the best philosophers and poets owe their
learning to the Holy Scriptures, for which reason they call Plato the
‘Attic _Moses_’; the ‘Athenian _Moses_.’ Clearchus the Peripatetic
(320 _b.c.e._) writes that Aristotle gained most of his learning from
a Jew with whom he had much conversation; Ambrose (340?‒397) writes
that Pythagoras (_fl._ 540‒510 _b.c.e._) was by origin a Jew, and like
a pilferer robbed them of many things; Cornelius Alexander Polyhistor
(80 _b.c.e._) writes that he was a disciple of the prophet Ezekiel
(_fl._ 3332 _a.m._). Lastly, it is certain that Orpheus (_14th_ or
_13th cent. b.c.e._), Plato, Anaxagoras (500‒428 _b.c.e._) Pythagoras,
the Milesian Thales (640‒546 _b.c.e._), Homer (_fl._ 962‒927 _b.c.e._)
and many other very learned men, derived their knowledge from the wide
ocean of the knowledge of _Moses_ (2368‒2488 _a.m._) and the Sages and
professors of his most Holy Law; for, according to the Psalmist,
“He declareth His word unto Jacob, ...” (Psalm cxlvii. 19).
“He hath not dealt so with any nation; ...” (_Ibid._ 20).
In his preface to _Nishmath Chayyim_ he makes this statement in a
more general form, saying that “wherever he quoted the non-Jewish
authorities, he wanted only to show that most of their teachings were
derived from our ancient sources.” He repeats that “Pythagoras was a
Jew, and all he taught and wrote was copied from our Holy Law and true
Tradition” (_fol. 171a_), and that “Plato had learned the teachings of
our prophet _Jeremiah_” (_fol. 171b_) (_fl._ 3298 _a.m._). Not that he
was lacking in love and consideration for other nations. Far from it:
on the contrary, he lays stress upon the sentence of the _Mishnah_,
that the pious men even of heathen nations have their share in the
future life, inasmuch as they observe the Seven Commandments of the
_Noahides_; and, needless to say, he highly respected Christianity,
and was practically the first _Hebrew_ author who quoted so often and
with such great reverence the authority of the Christian Church. Even
when he speaks of the Spanish Inquisition, of which his father was one
of the tortured victims, no word of contempt or hostility escapes his
pen, although, living in Holland, and dealing almost exclusively with
the adherents of the Reformation, he could have expressed his ideas
on this subject quite frankly. But, nevertheless, he is convinced that
“God gave to the _Israelitish_ soul a very special grace, by which
it is enabled to feel his sensible presence,” that “the _Israelites_
are and have to remain a distinct nation, having essentially the
prerogative of sanctifying life,” and he continually quotes and
illustrates the Biblical verses:――
“... Blessed be ... Israel, Mine inheritance”
(Isaiah xix. 25).
“... Israel is the tribe of his inheritance;...”
(Jeremiah x. 16).
“And who is like Thy people, like Israel, a nation one in the
earth,...” (2 Samuel vii. 23).
as well as several passages of the _Zohar_, which emphasize the
particular dignity of the Jewish soul, and _R._ Judah (1085(6)‒_post_
1140) _ben_ Samuel Ha’levi’s [Abu al-Hasan al-Lawi] well-known views,
expounded in the _Kuzari_ (_chap._ i., _par._ 46):――
“The Israelites are favoured, for God gives them holy souls.”
This sentence from the _Zohar_ is the keynote of Manasseh’s teachings,
and his favourite phrase when he speaks of all _Israel_ is,
“... shall ... surname himself by the name of Israel”
(Isaiah xliv. 5).
Whenever he means to lay stress on Jewish origin, without distinction
of country, party, school, _etc._ (a significant allusion also to
the _Marranos_), he uses this phrase. If we add that he emphasizes
the holiness of Palestine, enumerating the seven degrees of sanctity,
explains the desire of pious men to find their rest after death
in Palestinian soil by the fact that the _Shechina_ will dwell in
the Holy Land, and so on――we can realize the depth of his national
Palestinian enthusiasm. His devoted attachment to the cause of his
persecuted brethren is expressed when he speaks of _Rabbi_ David
Carcassone, the messenger from Constantinople, “who came to our city
to collect funds for the relief of our brethren who had fallen a year
before into the hands of the Cossacks, ... may God send His angel
before him” (_fol. 173b_)――referring to the massacres in Poland, 1648.
The most interesting reference to his propaganda among Christians on
behalf of the Restoration is made in his preface, where he relates
that towards morning he had a vision: “And I raised my eyes and I saw
behold an Angel touched me and said unto me ... I have given thee for
a light to the Nations in the book which thou hast written about the
Ten Tribes to possess desolated heritages....”
CHAPTER VI.
SOME OF MANASSEH’S VIEWS
The massacres of Podolia――The _Marrano_ Tragedy――Manasseh’s
views on the mission of _Israel_――Dispersion and Restoration
――_R._ Jacob Emden’s annotations――Manasseh’s theory of the
Jewish race.
THE frightful massacres of the Jewish communities in Podolia, Volhynia,
and other provinces of Poland, entirely startled and horrified Jewry
all over the world. For months and years the murder of the Jews went
on. No language can describe the cruelties and sufferings inflicted
upon this unfortunate people from the Dnieper to the Vistula. There
was “a kind of chase taking place within an enclosed area.” Some of
the aged and prominent Jews were kept as hostages in the hands of
the mob, who demanded heavy ransoms from the Jews of other countries.
This was the purpose of Carcassone’s mission from Constantinople to
Amsterdam. Turkey offered an asylum for the hunted refugees who were
fortunate enough to cross the boundary, but only very few succeeded,
while thousands of those who tried to escape were murdered, or
languished in the galleys and prisons as hostages. Manasseh, himself
the son of a refugee and a martyr, felt this tragedy. On the other
hand, the news concerning the Inquisition in the country of his birth
was still horrifying the world, for Jews were still being burnt alive
there. Putting together the brief note in the _Nishmath Chayyim_
regarding the massacres of 1648 with the remarks in _De Termino Vitae_
on the Inquisition, we obtain a terrible picture. In _De Termino_
Manasseh alludes to the emigration of the _Marranos_.
The _Marranos_! What a splendid record of noble deeds, of spontaneous,
gentle piety, of triumphant suffering, is called to memory at the
mere mention of the word! What powerful endurance is described in
the history of these Jewish martyrs! What an inspiration to attempt
even the impossible in the cause of liberty of conscience! What
a great tragedy theirs was――a tragedy illumined by personal deeds
of self-sacrifice! Their story is a story of thrilling personal
experiences and of sorrow and separation and death.¹
¹ H. H. R. Jacob _de_ Aaron Sasportas gives in his _Ohel Jacob_
(Amsterdam, 1737) a most eloquent and stirring description
of the tragedy of the Marranos (_Respon._ III.).
They flock, says
Manasseh, in thousands to other countries, and it is useless to
attempt to tell in a few words the incalculable loss that Spain and
Portugal have sustained in losing wealth, and inhabitants, by the
inhuman acts of the Inquisition. Apart from their execrable inhumanity,
the utter folly of the atrocities is apparent from the fact that the
Inquisition forces the wealth, trade and skill of the country to leave
it. Here he speaks as a statesman who knows the countries in question.
In _Nishmath Chayyim_ the note is one of sober-minded resignation. He
does not inveigh against the Cossacks as he did against the Portuguese;
he simply expresses the hope that Carcassone may raise the necessary
funds, and that God may send His angel before him. By using this
Biblical phrase¹ Manasseh expresses his high appreciation of the
importance of the mission. The general situation of the Jews in the
Diaspora is described by him in short but plain terms: “If the nations
would ask, Why are you in captivity, exposed to outrage and contempt,
dispersed and scattered...?” Manasseh clearly rejected the idea that
Israel’s mission demands an everlasting dispersion. It seemed to him
that the dispersion ought to be made complete, because it must lead to
the Restoration. In this respect his views were not only in accordance
with Scripture, but the outcome of a train of reasoning. The process
of dispersion has to reach its climax, and then the process of
restoration will begin. The _Hagadic_ sentence:――
²צדקה עשה הקדוש ברוך הוא בישראל שפזרן לבין האומות. פסחים, פז׃
often quoted by the adherents of the dispersion in support of the
_Galuth_, was interpreted by Manasseh to mean that so long as the
Israelites must live dispersed they should live dispersed among
several nations, because in this way their complete destruction is
more difficult than if they were dependent upon one or two nations.
But dispersion is not for him the ideal state of the Jewish nation.
¹ “...He will send His Angel before thee,...”
(Genesis xxiv. 7).
² “The Holy One Blessed be He did justice with Israel by
scattering them among the nations” (_Pesachim_, _fol._ 87).
[The only sentence of this kind, against innumerable others
in the opposite sense.]
The law of Divine providence with regard to the nation of _Israel_ has
ever been that defection is eventually to be followed by dispersion
and reconciliation by restoration.
“Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land
they defiled it....” (Ezekiel xxxvi. 17).
“... and I scattered them among the nations, and they were
dispersed through the countries;...” (_Ibid._ 19).
“... from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols,
will I cleanse you” (_Ibid._ 25).
“And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers;
and ye shall be My people, and I will be your God”
(_Ibid._ 28).
There is not one passage in which the promised restoration is
represented as anything other than a distinct proof of reconciliation
between God and his ancient People, or dispersion as anything other
than a punishment. The People and the Land of _Israel_ are so linked
with one another that whatever continuity is ascribed to the one must,
on all strict principles of interpretation, be also attributed to
the other. In the twenty-sixth chapter of _Leviticus_ we find _Moses_
giving the people, as warning and encouragement, a prophetic outline
of their future history, which forms the real basis, and, in fact,
makes up the substance of all that is found in the later prophets as
regards the people of _Israel_. It is true that both the judgments
there threatened and the mercies there promised are set forth
hypothetically, on the supposition of their wickedly departing from
the Lord and afterwards repenting――“_if ye walk contrary unto Me, and
will not hearken unto Me_,” on the one hand; “_if they shall confess
their iniquity_” on the other. But since the conditional statements
are changed――as they are in other places――into absolute announcements
of what is to take place, the hypothetical forms of expression must be
regarded as merely the appropriate mode of conveying warnings against
defection and an encouragement to repentance:――
“And they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of
their fathers, ... and also that they have walked contrary
to Me” (Leviticus xxvi. 40).
“I also will walk contrary unto them, and bring them into
the land of their enemies; ... and they shall then be paid
the punishment of their iniquity” (_Ibid._ 41).
“then will I remember My covenant with Jacob, and also My
covenant with Isaac, and also My covenant with Abraham will
I remember; and I will remember the land” (_Ibid._ 42).
It is impossible to deny that the “remembrance of the covenant” and
the “remembrance of the land” here go together. If we allegorize the
one, we must allegorize the other as well, and then there is neither
land, people, covenant, prophets nor law――an obvious absurdity which
at once refutes itself. The fundamental Mosaic principle is clear,
plain and positive. The land is to be held in perpetuity by the
Jewish nation, provided the conditions of the covenant are fulfilled.
The infringement of the covenant subjects the rebel to bondage and
makes him an outcast from the land of his inheritance. The promise of
redemption is a rescue from the penalties thus incurred. Therefore,
he explains, the _Agadist_ did not say _heglom_, “He drove them out,”
which is the usual expression, but _pizrom_, “He spread, scattered
them,” because, so long as the _Galuth_ lasts, they have to live
in various countries. Yet it is absurd to think that the state of
_Galuth_, predicted by _Moses_ as a curse, is a blessing. Here we have
in short Manasseh’s ideas as to the _Galuth_ and Restoration. We know
that he also acted in full accord with these ideas.¹
¹ The British Museum has a copy of the _Nishmath Chayyim_,
Amsterdam, 1651, with autograph annotations of _R._ Jacob
Emden [Jacob Israel] (1697‒1776) _ben_ Zebi Hirsch Ashkenazi
(1658‒1718). Two of these annotations are of special
interest. Manasseh writes (_fol. 6b_) about the physical
weakness of the Jews when compared with Gentiles. On this
Emden remarks: I admit this only with regard to the Jews
in the _Galuth_; when the Jews lived in their own land they
amazed the Romans by their great heroes and athletes, and
more so at the time of the First Temple. In another passage
(_fol. 8a_), where Manasseh writes about the shorter life
of those who keep the Law as compared with others, Emden
again remarks: But in Palestine the Jews distinguished
themselves by much greater longevity. (M. Seligsohn, the
author of Emden’s biography in the _Jewish Encyclopedia_,
who enumerates various books with Emden’s autograph
annotations, does not seem to have had any knowledge of
these annotations.)
The constitution established by _Moses_ was a theocracy. The true King
of _Israel_ was God, and the constitution was the Law. The priests
and Levites were God’s ministers; the prophets were God’s ambassadors,
commissioned to convey his instructions not only to the people but to
the King himself. The Kingdom was thus emphatically the Kingdom of God,
and the King was the earthly viceroy of the invisible Sovereign. He
was more limited than a constitutional monarch; he was subject not
only to the Law, but also to those who were entitled to explain the
Law. Such a state of things never existed in any other nation, either
in ancient or in modern times. The Jewish nation regards it as an
Ideal State, and looks forward to a future in which this idea will
be accepted by the whole world, when God will be the King; but this
will take place only after the establishment of this Divine order in
Palestine. Therefore Jews pray to God to give them their judges and
their counsellors as in ancient times, _i.e._ to restore their life
under God’s order, a life of justice and peace and wisdom; they hope
also that this will influence all mankind to recognize the Kingdom of
God, _i.e._ the rule of justice, mercy and love. Then the promise to
_Abraham_ will be fulfilled:――
“... and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed;...” (Genesis xxii. 18).
and the blessings and privileges of God’s Kingdom will be offered
freely to all mankind. Here the influence of Abrabanel is evident.¹
Another interesting point in Manasseh’s theory is his combination of
the idea of the _Nefesh Ha’yisraelith_ with the principle of heredity.
He terms this principle _Mizgé² Ha’aboth_, that is, the particular
character of the nationality inherited from the ancestors. This is
Jewish nationality, which is part of the Jew’s inheritance at birth.³
¹ Abrabanel’s commentary on 1 Samuel viii.
² In Biblical _Hebrew_ “_Mezeg_” means blended, or mingled
[“_Al Yechsar Hamazeg_” (_Cant._ vii. 3)]: in mediæval
_Hebrew_ it signifies “Character,” “Individual Nature,”
“Temperament.”
³ It is worthy of notice that some Christian theologians have
come――from another point of view――to the same conclusion as
to the importance of the Jewish race:
“The question of their National Restoration is one of
blood and not of creed, of race and not of conversion, of
nationality which might include as many sects as in the days
of Christ. One only question can be demanded by the hallowed
soil of that country, and by the Providence of God――_Are
you a Jew?_ In this sense the twelve Apostles were Jews,
and if now on earth their title to their land is as clear,
undoubted, and equitable as that of Nehemiah or any modern
Jew. The Christian creed does not make any of that nation
less a Jew and a descendant of Abraham.... The question of
Jewish nationality, and consequently of restoration, is not
one of creed but of race, and as such it should be kept
before the mind. The isolation of the Jew would be as great,
if all were Christians, as at present. His separation from
amongst the nations has been pronounced by that omnipotent
word, whose truth and will in effecting its purposes are
only equalled by the unalterable character of the Divine
nature. They shall dwell alone. They are not amalgamated
with the nations. In their final return, a peculiarity of
religious rites and laws will keep them apart from other
people. Once a Jew, he is always a Jew, whatever may be
his creed” (Rev. A. G. H. Hollingsworth, Remarks, _etc._,
London, 1852, _p._ 21).
This is more than the religious idea of the _Z’chuth Aboth_ (Merits of
the Fathers); it is, though mixed up with _Cabbalistic_ notions, an
ethnological conception――the real basis of the modern Jewish national
idea.
Manasseh’s conception of the character (or particular blood mingling)
of ancestors, which lives on in the nation, accords entirely with
the mode of thought of a modern national Jew as this finds expression
in the best writings of the new Zionistic literature. When the Jew
feels the pulse-beat of nature in his heart, then the history of his
forefathers comes to life within him. He no longer struggles alone
through life, he is sensible of connections between himself and
millions who have been and of whose spirit and soul he has received
a share in life. The most glorious, invigorating feeling which an old
race can offer; the consciousness of individual transitoriness and
universal constancy, begins only then to be of value for him because
the easily intelligible national future has made comprehensible his
own infinite one. This psychic process is the unconscious aim of
that which he perceives as national longing. The free individual
must become a problematic nature if he cannot force the roots of his
spiritual and physical personality into the soil of a soul-related
community. The unit goes adrift in the chaos of social struggles when
it is not linked by a thousand tender and yet untearable threads with
the ethnical community of a nation. This ethnical community is the
fount of two infinite perceptions which have become the mightiest
supports of human civilization; first of all arises the consciousness
of national control which develops into the unnoticed, yea,
self-evident foundation of the ethnical unit, the moral consciousness
of duty and sense of responsibility. National responsibility finds
its complement in the right of recovery of the individual against
the community. In the wrestle with other morals and conceptions of
life, the individual has often to lean on those who are like-minded
because like-born so as not to lose himself. It has been repeatedly
experienced in Jewish history that many Jews have not only lost
their veriest substance but have voluntarily surrendered it, so that
their culture subsisted only through an ingenious system of exquisite
imitations of foreign nature and foreign customs.
What Manasseh understood under “Character of Ancestors” pertains
as little to atavism as the modern Jewish national idea. Atavism is
something unconscious, it is found even among the dejudaized Jews.
But what with the dejudaized is atavism becomes with nationalist Jews
the historic basis of their whole life tendency. The comprehension
of the past wafts the first breath of life into the present, upon the
wreckage of bygone times dawns the premonition of the greatness of
each lived moment――and new life blossoms upon the ruins. Therein lies
also the power of the national consciousness to create cultural values.
What is based upon heredity and tradition is no longer sacrificed
to thoughtless recession of self――misconstrued as civilization――but
replenished with national love. It is no longer the anarchy of aimless
“culture” which wants to link up with the attainments of unfamiliar
races so as to become like them, and which as an imitation it can
never attain, but it is a strongly rooted culture, which reaches deep
down to the national wells of life, and can thereby become equal to
all other great and deep-rooted cultures.
The individual is the outcome of a nation, its ultimate aim. The
nation is the circuitous way of nature to produce an individual. A
nation is great, not only when great creative minds arise from its
midst, but also when the many live intensively, so that they receive
impulses from the few, and return impulses to the few――and when the
past lives on in the present. It is this idea of Jewish nationality
which Manasseh had forefelt in spite of his mysticism. He was
permeated with religious enthusiasm and, at the same time, all
aglow with intense national feeling. Therefore, his thoughts and
sentiments tended to greatness; he understood that the best means of
strengthening and reaffirming the national consciousness of a people
about to lose the knowledge of its ethnical individuality, is just
that it should be told its history, that its ancestors should be
recalled to memory, their great deeds sung and praised, and that pride
of the past should be instilled. As he poetised so sublimely he could
also accomplish great deeds, because he kept his eye upon Palestine
he was also able to achieve great results in the Diaspora. He was
the father of post-exilic English Judaism, and this Judaism ought to
follow in his footsteps.
To conclude, reference should be made to the _Hebrew_ writer Perez
Smolenskin, himself a pioneer of modern Zionism, who, though he did
not deal with the matter in detail, was guided by a sound intuition
when he characterized Manasseh in his _Am Olam_ (1880) as a great
pioneer of the national idea.
CHAPTER VII.
MANASSEH’S CONTEMPORARIES
The Renaissance and the Reformation――John Sadler――Milton’s
belief in the Return――Edmund Bunny――Isaac _de_ La Peyrère
――Leibnitz――Thomas Brightman――James Durham――The pamphlet
“Doomes-Day”――Thomas Burnet――The pamphlet “The New _Jerusalem_”
――Thomas Drake――Edward Nicholas, John Sadler, Hugh Peters,
Henry Jesse, Isaac Vossius, Hugo Grotius, Rembrandt, Isaac
_da_ Fonseca Aboab, Dr. Ephraim Hezekiah Bueno, Dr. Abraham
Zacuto Lusitano, _H. H. R._ Yahacob Sasportas, _Haham_ Jacob
Jehudah Aryeh _de_ Leon [Templo]――Manasseh’s origin.
AS a result of the impulse given to Letters generally by the
Renaissance in the fifteenth century, and by the Reformation in
the sixteenth century, the knowledge of the _Hebrew_ language and
literature spread rapidly in the literary world, and particularly in
the first half of the seventeenth century. _Hebrew_ was a favourite
study with Puritan ministers, who dwelt much upon the Messianic hopes
and promises of the Scriptures and _Rabbinical_ works. A great stir
was caused among Jews as well as Christians by Montezinos’ report and
other rumours concerning the lost Ten Tribes. John Sadler (1615‒1674)
(Appendix xii), Town Clerk of London, a friend of Cromwell, and
probably also of Milton and Dury, stated that there was an old
prophecy which fixed the time of the Restoration at the year 5408 =
1648 A.D. Puritans and Sectarians began to take the greatest interest
in Jewish Messianic affairs just before King Charles I. (1600‒1649)
was executed, for most of them were looking forward to some new
reformed Commonwealth, some new communion of saints, some republic,
some peaceful kingdom of Truth and Justice, and they connected the
restoration of _Israel_ scripturally with its advent. That was one
reason why Sadler and Cromwell and others were favourably disposed
towards the Jews and inclined to let them come back to England, for
the idea prevailed that the Jews had first to be dispersed throughout
the whole world before the Lord would return to set up His millennial
Kingdom. Milton thought that the whole twelve tribes would return to
_Zion_;¹ and similar sympathetic views are expressed in an anonymous
romance published in London in 1648, entitled _Nova Solyma_ (Appendix
xiii), of which it has been claimed he was the author.
¹ Paradise | Regain’d. | A | Poem. | In iv. Books. | To which
is added | Samson Agonistes. | The Author | John Milton.
| London, | Printed by J. M. for _John Starkey_ at the |
_Mitre_ in _Fleet street_, near _Temple-Bar_ MDCLXXI (8º.
2 _ll._ + 111 + 101 + 1 _l._ ERRATA). “Licensed July 2,
1670.”
[Samson Agonistes was translated into _Hebrew_ by Joseph
Massel and published under the title of שמשון הגבור in
Manchester, in 1890. (8º. 3 _ll._ + 107 _pp._ + 3 _ll._)]
Joannis Miltoni Angli De Doctrina Christiani ...
Cantabrigiæ,... M.DCCC.XXV. (_4to._ 6 _ll._ + 544 _pp._ +
1 _l._)
Edmund Bunny (1540‒1619), a theological writer, devoted himself to
the work of an itinerant preacher, visiting towns and villages. His
doctrine was Calvinistic, but his warm attachment to the ideals of
ancient _Israel_ was a singular feature of his theological views.¹
¹ The | Scepter of | Ivdah: | Or, what maner of Government it
| _was, that unto the Common-wealth_ | or Church of Israel
was | _by the Law of God_ | appointed. | _By Edm. Bunny._ |
... _Imprinted at London by N. Newton,_ | and A. Hatfield,
for | _Iohn Wright._ | 1584. | (_Sm._ 8º. 4 _ll._ + 160
_pp._ + 31 _ll._ [B. M.]
The | Coronation of | _Dauid_: | Wherein out of that part of
the | _Historie of_ David, _that sheweth how_ | he came to
the Kingdome, wee have set | forth unto us what is like to
be the end | of these troubles that daylie arise | for the
Gospels sake. | By _Edm. Bunny._ | ... _Imprinted at London
by_ Thomas Orwin for | Thomas Gubbin and John Perin. | 1588.
| (_4to._ 6 _ll._ + 108 _pp._ [B. M.])
Of The | Head-Corner-Stone: | by Builders still overmuch
| omitted: ... By Edm. Bvnny, Batcheler | of Divinitie. |
... Printed by W. Iaggard, 1611. | (_Sm. Folio._ 11 _ll._
+ 577 _pp._ [B. M.])
The distinguished French-Huguenot scholar Isaac _de_ La Peyrère
(1594‒1676) of Bordeaux, probably of _marrano_ Jewish blood, author
of many works, wrote and published anonymously _Dv Rappel des Ivifs_,
M.DC.XLIII.¹ (Appendix xiv) which was intended to be part of a greater
work on the same subject.² He demands in this book the restoration of
_Israel_ to the Holy Land in an unconverted state, in the belief that
this restoration will lead to the final triumph of Christianity. He
expects France to carry out this idea, and appeals in this sense to
the Royal Dynasty in a somewhat strange homiletical manner.³ In 1644
he was appointed French Ambassador at Copenhagen. Being on intimate
terms with the eminent scholars Isaac [Vos] Vossius (Appendix xv)
(1618‒1689) and Hugo Grotius [Huig _van_ Groot]⁴ (1583‒1645) he became
acquainted with their mutual friend Manasseh and with Manasseh’s
friends, Caspar [_van_ Baerle] Barlaeus (1584‒1648), Simon Episcopius
(1583‒1643), Gerard John [Vos] Vossius (1577‒1649),⁵ Johannes [_van_
Meurs] Meursius (1579‒1639), David Blondel (1591‒1655), [Peter]
Petrus [Serrurier] Serrarius (_fl._ 1650‒1700) and Paulus Felgenhauer
(_circa_ 1625), who all supported similar ideas.
¹ “... the curious will be rather surprised to learn that the
Abbe [Henri] Grégoire (1750‒1831) and others have been under
a mistake in asserting that Peyreyra’s _Rappel des Juifs_
was printed during his life-time, upwards of 120 years: for
this singular book, as it appears from the learned Jesuit,
his friend, he could never obtain a license; but the fair
copy, which he deposited in a public library, only appeared
in print in Paris, after it became the pleasure of the head
of the French government to assemble a Jewish _Sanhedrin_ in
May, 1806, for reasons that are obvious....”
(_Gentleman’s Magazine_, vol. lxxxii.,
November, 1812, _p._ 432.)
² _p._ 373: ADVIS AV LECTEVR. _Ce petit Traittè n’est qu’vn
Essay et un Extraict d’un plus grand Desseing que i’ay
conceu; intitulé_ SYNOPSIS DOCTRINÆ CHRISTIANÆ AD VSVM
IVDÆORVM ET GENTIVM.
³ “Ie fonde cette Cõiecture sur ce que cette grãde Deliurance
des Iuifs fut traittée & concluë dãs la ville Royale de
Susan: Svsan, qui signifie Le Lys. Ville Royale de Susun qui
est donc mesme chose que la ville Royale du Lys: and mesme
chose ville Royale de France.”
This appeal recalls another of a similar kind addressed
in 1672 by Baron G. W. _von_ Leibnitz (1646‒1716) during
his sojourn in Paris (1672‒1676) to Louis XIV. (1638‒1715)
about the conquest of Egypt. “Epistola ad regem Franciæ
de expeditione Egyptiaca.” This interesting appeal, which
contains also some references to _Jerusalem_ and Syria, was
discovered in Hanover during the first occupation by the
French and transmitted to the First Consul Bonaparte, who
wrote from Namur on the 4th August, 1803: “Mortier m’envoie
à l’instant même un manuscrit, en latin, de Leibnitz,
adressé à Louis XIV., pour lui proposer la conquête de
l’Egypte. Cet ouvrage est très-curieux.” M. de Hoffmann
published this document in a pamphlet which appeared in
French in 1840: “Mémoire de Leibnitz à Louis XIV. sur la
conquête de l’Egypte.”
⁴ Swedish Ambassador in Paris, 1635‒1645.
⁵ William Laud, Bishop of London (1628‒1633), presented Gerard
John Vossius to a canonry in Canterbury Cathedral in 1629.
His son, Dionysius Vossius (1612‒1633), translated the
_Conciliador_ (Pentateuch), Francofurti 1632 [I. S.] of
Manasseh Ben Israel into Latin. Francofurti, 1633 [I. S.]
and Amsterdami, 1633 [I. S.].
The Rev. Thomas Draxe¹ (_ob._ 1618), a theologian of great knowledge
and influence, demonstrated that “all the particular promises, such
as the land of Canaan, a certain form of government ... were proper
to the Jews...,” and “that we (Christians) must therefore acknowledge
ourselves debtors unto the Jews, and deeply engaged unto them, we must
be so far off from rendering or returning them evil for good....”²
¹ The History Of The Worthies Of England. Endeavoured by
Thomas Fuller, D.D., London,... MDCLXII., _pp._ 125‒126.
² The Worlde’s Resvrrection, or The gener’all calling of _the
Iewes..._ By Thomas Draxe, _Minister of the word of God_ ...
At London ... Anno 1608. (_4to._ 6 _ll._ + 124 _pp._ [B. M.])
Thomas Brightman (1562‒1607), a Puritan Divine and Bible exegete, in
his comment on:――
Illustration: _H. H. Reby_ YAHACOB ♦SAPORTAS
_P. van Gunst, sculp._
_From a line engraving (proof before all letters)
lent by Israel Solomons_
♦ “Saportas” shown elsewhere as “Sasportas”
“And the sixth [angel] poured out his vial upon the great river
Euphrates; and the water thereof dried up, that the way of
the kings of the east might be prepared” (Revelation xvi. 12).
gives reasons why these “kings of the east” must mean the Jews, and
then says: “What! Shall they return to _Jerusalem_ again? There is
nothing more certain: the prophets do everywhere confirm it.”¹
¹ A Revelation Of Mr. Brightman’s Revelation, Whereon Is
shewed, how all that which Mr. _Brightman_, ... hath
fore-told ... hath beene fulfilled, and is yet a fulfilling,
... whereby it is manifest, that Mr. _Brightman_ was a true
Prophet.... Printed in the yeare of fulfilling it. 1641.
(_4to._ Eng. Front. + 1 _l._ + 37 _pp._ [B. M.]
The Rev. James Durham (1622‒1658) not only upholds, but gives solid
reasons for his belief in the Restoration of the Jews.¹
¹ A Commentary Upon the Book of Revelation.... Delivered in
several Lectures, by ... Mr. James Durham, Late Minister of
the Gospel in _Glasgow_.... Edinburgh.... 1680.
Mr. Vavasor Powel (1617‒1660) expounds with abundant references to
scriptural prophecy, the return and re-establishment of the Jews,
attended with many miracles and peculiar circumstances.¹
¹ A New and Useful Concordance to the Holy Bible.... Also a
Collection of those Scripture-Prophesies which relate to the
Call of the Jews, and the Glory that shall be in the latter
days.
Begun by the industrious Labours of Mr. Vavasor Powel, late
deceased:... London,... 1671.
An anonymous writer relates:――
“... the Jewes ... are ... assembling ... from out of all
countreys ... to regaine the holy land once more out of the
hand of the _Ottaman_:”¹ (Appendix xvi).
¹ Doomes-Day:... The gathering together of the Jews ... for
the conquering of the Holy Land.... London,... 1647.
Thomas Burnet (1635?‒1715), Master of the Charterhouse, a great
scholar and celebrated author in English and Latin, writes:――
_Deum nunquam deserturum esse finaliter populum suum
Israeliticum._
Secundò, _Nondum impleta esse promissa omnia Israelitis
data_.¹
¹ De Statu Mortuorum et Resurgentium Tractatus. Ajicitur
Appendix de Futurà Judærum Restauratione.
Autore Thoma Burnetio, S. T. P. Editio Secunda. Londini:...
M.DCC.XXXIII. (8º VIII. + 432 _pp._ [B. M.])
_p._ vi.: Editoris Præfatio.... Londini, ex Hospitio
Lincolniensi, mense Oct. A.D. 1727: _pp._ 315‒432: “Appendix
de Futura Judæorum Restauratione. Autore Thoma Burnetio,
S. T. P.”
Another anonymous theologian published in 1674, _A Paper, shewing that
the great ... Restauration of all |Israel| and |Judah| will be
fulfilled ... and that the |New Jerusalem| is most probably then to be
set up_ (Appendix xvii).
Among the Christian friends of Manasseh, the following distinguished
persons may be named: Edward Nicholas, the author of _An Apology
for the Honorable Nation of the Jews_, 1648 (Appendix xviii);
the above-mentioned John Sadler, who petitioned Richard Cromwell
(1626‒1712) for a pension for Manasseh’s widow; Hugh Peters
(1598‒1660), one of Oliver Cromwell’s army chaplains, and a strong
advocate for the unrestricted admission of the Jews (Appendix xix),
Isaac Vossius, the scholarly Protestant ecclesiastic, with whom he
was in correspondence.¹ Vossius, at one time a member of the Court
of Queen Christina of Sweden, was instrumental in bringing Manasseh
to her notice.² Dr. Nathanael Homes (1599‒1678), the famous Puritan
divine and author,³ and the great painter Rembrandt Harmenszoon van
Ryn (1606(7)‒1669). The most notable of his Jewish friends were,
Isaac _da_ Fonseca Aboab (1605‒1693) (Appendix xx), _Haham_ of the
_Sephardi_ community at Amsterdam, on whose initiative the Great
Synagogue there was erected. Dr. Ephraim Hezekiah (_ob._ 1665) [_de_
Dr. Joseph⁴ (_ob._ 1641)] Bueno (Bonus), author of several liturgical
works⁵ and the subject of Rembrandt’s famous etching “The Jew Doctor”;
Dr. Abraham Zacuto Lusitano (1580‒1642) (Appendix xxi), one of the
most celebrated physicians of his age; Jacob Jehudah Aryeh _de_ Leon
[Templo] (1603‒1675), chiefly known as having designed models of the
Tabernacle and Temple and was called “Templo” for that reason, which
was assumed as a surname by his descendants. In anticipation of his
visit to England, to exhibit the models before Charles II. (1630‒1685)
and his Court, he published in Amsterdam a pamphlet in English
describing them (Appendix xxii): and _H. H. R._ Yahacob Sasportas
(1610‒1698), who accompanied Manasseh to England in 1655, was
appointed in the month of _Nisan_, 1664, _Haham_ of the _Sephardi_
community in London. He was the author of one of the treatises in
_Sepher Pene Rabah_ edited by Manasseh Ben Israel ... Amsterdam 5388,
and also wrote _Sepher Ohel Ya’acob_ and _Sepher Kizur Zizath Nobel
Zebi_, which were published together at Amsterdam 5497, against
the adherents of _Sabbatai Zebi_ (1626‒1676). His stay here was of
short duration――not quite two years. He left the country to escape
the plague which was then raging, and subsequently, in 1681, became
the Ecclesiastical Head of the _Sephardi_ Jews in Amsterdam. It is
noteworthy that two of these friends of Manasseh, Aboab and Sasportas,
were particularly interested in the Messianic hopes, though from
different points of view. Aboab, a _Cabbalist_, whose religious
poetry is remarkable for chaste diction and wealth of imagination, was
supposed to be a secret _Sabbatian_, while Sasportas, sober-minded and
a strict _Talmudist_, was strongly opposed to the mystical tendencies
of pseudo-Messianism, and hoped for the restoration in the traditional
way.
¹ Two of these letters have been published by _Heer_ J. M.
Hillesum, in his article “Menasseh Ben Israel,” in the
_Amsterdamsch Jaarboekje_, 1899, _pp._ 27‒56.
² Manasseh in her honour published in Portuguese:――Oracion
Panegirica a su Magestad la Reyna de Suedia. Amsterdam,
1642. _4to._
³ The Resurrection――Revealed Raised Above Doubts &
Difficulties. In Ten Exercitations.... By Doctor Nathanael
Homes.... London, Printed for the Author, A.D. 1661.
⁴ Wrote one of the “Aprovaciones” for “La primera parte del
Conciliador enel Pentateucho, 1632.” “Del excelente Señor
Doctor Joseph Bueno, Philosopho, y Medico preclaro.”: and
also a SONETO which appears on the ninth introductory leaf
of “Menasseh Ben Israel De La Resvrreccion De Los Mvertos,
... En Amsterdam, En casa, y à costa del Autor. Ano. 5396.
de la criacion del mundo.” (_12mo._ 12 _ll._ + 187 _pp._
+ 1 _l._ [I. S.]
⁵ At the joint expense of Ephraim Bueno and Jona Abrabanel
(who both contributed SONETOS to De La Resvrreccion De Los
Mvertos) the _Sepher Pene Rabah_ [I. S.] was issued at
Amsterdam in the year 5388. It was edited, re-arranged and
printed by Manasseh Ben Israel. Jona (_ob._ 1667) Abrabanel
was a poet, and son of Dr. Joseph (_ob._ 1620?) Abrabanel,
a physician in Amsterdam, whose sister Rachel was the wife
of Manasseh Ben Israel. Their father, Isaac Abrabanel,
a scientist (_ob._ 1573), lived and died in Ferrara,
Italy, and was on intimate terms with the famous _marrano_
physician, Juan Rodrigo _de_ Castel-Branco [Amatus Lusitanus]
(1511‒1568). He was the son of Joseph Abrabanel (1471‒1552),
a doctor of medicine, born at Lisbon and died at Ferrara,
whose father, _Don_ Isaac, was the illustrious Bible
commentator and statesman.
Illustration:
_Dr._ EPHRAIM H. BONUS _Dr._ ABRAHAM ZACUT
_H. H. R._ MANASSEH BEN-ISRAEL
_Haham_ J. J. A. _de_ LEON _H. H. R._ ISAAC ABOAB
[_Templo_] _da_ FONSECA
_From rare engravings lent by Israel Solomons_
In 1603 Joseph Ben-Israel, the father of Manasseh, and his wife Rachel
Soeiro, secretly left Lisbon. He had been a victim of the Inquisition,
which deprived him of his wealth, and on three distinct occasions had
been subjected to excruciating tortures, which undermined his health.
They apparently fled to La Rochelle, France, for it was here that
Manasseh was shortly afterwards born, in 1604, as is attested by
his marriage certificate, deposited in the Archives of the City of
Amsterdam (Puiboek, No. 669, _fo._ 95 _verso_, 15 Aug. 1623). Here
he was also baptized, as it was not until his parents arrived at
Amsterdam that they dared avow their faith in the God of _Israel_. In
a holograph letter¹ of Manasseh to an unknown correspondent (suggested
by Mr. E. N. Adler, the owner, to be Gerard John Vossius) he writes:
“... and the _Thesoro delos Dinim_ (Appendix xxiii) of our rites
and ceremonies, the last in my Portuguese mother tongue, for I am
a Lisbonian by patrimony....” He did not claim Lisbon as his own
birthplace, but as that of his father. Most of his connections were
with Spanish and Portuguese Jews, though he was opposed to any sort
of separation, condemning it in his writings, and emphasizing the
necessity of Jewish unity and brotherhood. It is noteworthy that
a hundred and twenty-six years later, when the father of Jewish
Rationalism, Moses Mendelssohn (1729‒1786), had to defend Judaism
and the Jewish people, he found no better apology than Manasseh’s
_Vindiciae Judæorum_ (1656), which was translated into German, and
for which he wrote the admirable _Vorrede_ (Appendix xxiv).
¹ AMSTERDAM, ultimo de Janʳᵒ, 1648.
Magᵉᵒ y muy docto Sʳ
_... y el Thesoro de los dinim de nuestros ritos y
ceremonias, este en mi lengua materna lusitana_, porq’ yo
_soy por patria Lixbonense_.... Con esto _me despide, hora
vale amantissimo_ S. EL HAHAM MENASSEH BEN ISRAEL.
_Jewish Quarterly Review_, No. 63, _p._ 569, vol. xvi.,
April, 1904.――_About Hebrew Manuscripts_, by Elkan Nathan
Adler ... London ... 1905, _pp._ 65‒77――_The Jewish
Historical Society of England Transactions_ ... Edinburgh
and London. 1908 ... _pp._ 177‒183.
CHAPTER VIII.
PURITAN FRIENDS OF THE JEWS
Newes from Rome――Rev. Dr. William Gouge――Sir Henry Finch,
Sergeant-at-law――King James I.――Archbishop Laud――Archbishop
Abbot――Roger Williams――Johanna Cartwright and her son Ebenezer
――John Harrison――Rev. John Dury――Rev. Henry Jessey――Rev.
Thomas Fuller――Re-admission and Restoration――Manasseh and the
Puritans.
THE publication of a tract in 1607, entitled:――
“_Newes from Rome ... of an Hebrew people ... who pretend
their warre is to recouer the land of Promise...._”
(Appendix xxv)
is remarkable for the interest evinced at a time when the presence of
a Jew in England was deemed unlawful. It purports to be a translation
from the Italian of a letter dated 1 June, 1606, sent by _Signior_
Valesco to _Don_ Mathias _de_ Rensie of Venice. In it he is informed
of the perturbed state of the world, and that Hungary, Bohemia and
Muscovia are to declare war, seize Constantinople, and drive the
Turk out of Europe. Tunis, Morocco, with the Arabians, and others,
are to expel the Turk entirely out of Africa. The Soffie, the Medes,
the people of Melibar on the border of India are in revolt. The
most alarming news is to the effect than an unknown people, strong,
mighty and swift, from beyond the Caspian mountains, claiming to be
descendants of the lost Ten Tribes, are coming to recover the Land of
Promise from the Turk. This is followed by a detailed account of the
leaders of each tribe, the strength of each army, with the particulars
of its equipment. The letter concludes by a promise of more news in a
few days.
It was, however, a Puritan England that welcomed back the Jews as an
ancient nation and as the “People of the Book.” In 1621 the Rev. Dr.
William Gouge (1578‒1653) published the anonymous work:――
_The World’s Great Restauration. Or, The Calling of the Iewes_
(Appendix xxvi).
In the preliminary leaf, “To the Reader,” signed “Thine in the Lord,
William Gouge. Church-Court in Black-fryers, London 8. Ianuary. 1621.”
he states:――
“_... I haue bin moued to publish this Treatise ... and to
commend it to thy reading. And this is all that I haue done.
The worke it selfe is the worke of one who hath dived deeper
into that mysterie then I can doe. His great understanding of
the Hebrew tongue hath bin a great helpe to him therein. How
great his paines haue beene, not in this onely but also in
other poynts of Diuinitie, his |Sacred doctrine of Diuinitie|,
first published in a little Manuel, after set forth in a
larger volume, his |Old Testament|, or |Promise|, Therein the
mysteries of the Iewish types and ceremonies are opened, his
|Exposition of the song of Salomon|,¹ and this, |The World’s
great restauration|, or |Calling of the Iewes| (workes of his
heretofore and now published) doe witnesse_.”
¹ _The Sacred Doctrine of Divinity_, 1589, 1613; and
_Exposition of the Song of Salomon_, 1615, issued
anonymously, are in the Bodleian Library. Neither Wood’s
_Athenæ_, Bohn’s _Lowndes_, _The Dictionary of National
Biography_, nor The British Museum catalogue mention them.
The writer, Sir Henry Finch (1558‒1625), Serjeant-at-Law (1616), was
a distinguished author of many legal works. Mr. J. M. Rigg, in the
_Dictionary of National Biography_, vol. xix., 1889, tells us, that
in this treatise “he seems to have predicted in the near future the
restoration of temporal dominion to the Jews and the establishment
by them of a world-wide empire.” This caused James I. to treat the
work as a libel, and accordingly Finch was arrested in April, 1621.
He obtained his liberty by disavowing all such portions of the work as
might be construed as derogatory to the sovereign and by apologizing
for having written unadvisedly. William Laud (1573‒1645), Bishop of
St. David’s, 1621,¹ in a sermon preached in July of that year, took
occasion to animadvert on the book. It was suppressed, and is now
extremely rare.
¹ Bishop of Bath and Wells, 1626; Bishop of London, 1628;
Archbishop of Canterbury, 1633.
In spite of the official proceedings, in consequence of which he was
forced to sign his recantation and acknowledge his loyalty to the
sovereign, Finch clearly never renounced the principal idea of his
book. A letter from the pen of a celebrity of the day gives a fair
idea not only of the sensation which Finch’s _Apocryphal Apocalypse_
created at the time, but also of the personal and somewhat strange
motives underlying King James’s indignation (Appendix xxvii).
Dr. Gouge was considered equally culpable. He was imprisoned for
nine weeks, and only released on giving certain explanations, which
[George Abbot (1562‒1633)] the Archbishop of Canterbury (1611) deemed
satisfactory. He was a fellow of King’s College, Cambridge, where
he taught _Hebrew_, having been the only steadfast pupil of a Jew
(Appendix xxviii) who came to Cambridge to give instruction in that
language.
Roger Williams (1604(5)‒1683), the son of James (_ob._ 1621) and Alice
Williams, was a native of London. He was one of the great pioneers of
Religious liberty, his prime contention being that the civil powers
should have no authority over the consciences of men. Ecclesiastical
tyranny induced him to emigrate in 1631 to America. In 1635 he
was banished from the state of Massachusetts for his heretical and
political opinions. The following year he and a few other malcontents,
after many hardships and trials arrived at Rhode Island, and in
gratitude to God’s mercy he named the first settlement “Providence.”
In 1638 he purchased land from the aborigines, and the state of Rhode
Island was founded. In June, 1643, he set sail for his native land to
obtain a charter, which was granted, dated 14 March, 1644, giving the
“Providence Plantations” full power to rule themselves by any form of
government they preferred. During his stay here of but a few months,
he published two tracts advocating religious and political freedom.
In one he writes: “For who knowes not but many ... of the ... Jewish
Religion, may be clear and free from _scandalous offences_ in their
life, and also from _disobedience_ to the Civill Lawes of a State?”¹
¹ The | Blovdy tenent, | of Persecution, for cause of |
Conscience, discussed, in | A Conference _betweene_ | Trvth
and Peace. | Who, In all tender Affection, present to the
High | Court of _Parliament_, (as the _Result_ of | their
_Discourse_) these, (amongst other | Passages) of _highest
consideration_. | Printed in the Year 1644. (_4to_. 12 _ll._
+ 247 _pp._ [B. M.]) Chap. lvi., _p._ 171.
In July, 1644, he left the English shores, and in the following month,
the tract containing this plea for the Jews, was by the order of the
Commons publicly burnt by the common hangman. The author arrived at
Boston on the seventeenth of December following. In 1651 he again
embarked for England, in connection with matters concerning the State
he had founded and remained for two and a half years.
Ecclesiastical affairs here were in an unsettled condition, so a
“Parliamentary Committee,” known as “The Committee for the Propagation
of the Gospel,” was formed, of which Cromwell himself was a member,
to consider certain proposals of some twenty leading divines. Among
the papers, one presented by Major Butler and others, contained the
following clause:――
4. “Whether it be not the duty of the Magistrates to permit
the Jews, ... to live freely and peaceably among us.”
This was accompanied by a comment, signed R.W.,¹ in which he argues at
length under seven different heads why “this wrong”――their exclusion
should not be continued:――
¹ Roger Williams.
“I humbly conceive it to be the _Duty_ of the _Civil
Magistrate_ to break down that superstitious _wall_ of
_separation_ (as to Civil things) between us Gentiles and the
Jews, and freely (without this asking) to make way for their
free and peaceable Habitation amongst us.”
“As other _Nations_, so this especially, and the _Kings_
thereof have had just cause to fear, that the _unchristian
oppressions_, _incivilities_ and _inhumanities_ of this Nation
against the Jews have cried to Heaven against this _Nation_
and the _Kings_ and _Princes_ of it.”
“What horrible _oppressions_ and horrible _slaughters_
have the _Jews_ suffered from the _Kings_ and peoples of
this Nation, in the Reigns of _Henry 2_ (1133‒1189), K.
_John_ (1167‒1216), Richard I. (1157‒1199) and _Edward I._
(1239‒1307), concerning which not only we, but the _Jews_
themselves keep _Chronicles_.”¹
¹ The fourth paper presented by Major Butler to the honourable
Committee of Parliament for the propagating the Gospel....
Also a letter from Mr. Goad, to Major Butler, upon occasion
of the said paper and proposals.
Together with a testimony to the said fourth paper. By R. W.
Unto which is subjoyned the fifteen proposals of the
Ministers.
London, 1652. _4to_.
He returned to Providence in 1654, and in September, shortly after his
arrival, was elected President or Governor of Rhode Island, one of the
thirteen original states of the Union, and the first to accord Jews
rights and privileges similar to other colonists. He held office until
May, 1658, and it is worthy of note that one who took a significant
part in securing the admission of Jews to England in the Old World,
was the founder of a state in New England in the New World, which
was the first to grant equal rights to Jews at a time when he was its
President. He died at Providence in the early part of April, 1683.¹
¹ Roger Williams, The Pioneer of Religious Liberty. By Oscar
S. Straus.... New York.... 1894.
In 1899 a tablet, with the following inscription:――
In Memory of Roger Williams,
Formerly a Scholar of Charterhouse
Founder of the State of Rhode Island, and the
Pioneer of Religious Liberty in America. Placed here by
Oscar S. Straus, United States Minister to Turkey, 1899.
was presented to the Charterhouse, where Williams was a scholar in the
year 1624.
In 1649 two Baptists of Amsterdam, Johanna Cartwright and her son
Ebenezer, presented a petition to Lord Fairfax (1612‒71) and the
“generall Councell of Officers” in favour of the Jews (Appendix xxix).
Religious fervour had been stirred to a high pitch, and there were few
men whose minds had not been influenced by Messianic beliefs and other
religious and mystical ideas.
John Harrison (_fl_. 1630), a famous traveller and diplomatist, envoy
to Barbary, published _The Messiah already come, etc._ (Appendix
xxx). He took a lively interest in the disputes which arose between
partisans of the new Puritan movement and those who adhered to the old
doctrines, besides dwelling on the question of religious liberty, and
he argued that so long as the Jews were not equal in their rights to
others as a nation, “the heart will be filled with violence.”
John Dury (Durie), the ubiquitous Protestant divine, who travelled
much and endeavoured to bring together all sections of Protestantism,
was a great friend of the Jews. He was one of those who drew up the
“Westminster Confession” and “Catechisms.” In 1649‒50 he wrote _An
Epistolicall Discourse of Mr. Iohn Dury, to Mr. Thorowgood, concerning
his conjecture that the Americans are descended from the Israelites_
(Appendix xxxi), and during his stay at Cassel, in Germany, _A Case
of Conscience, Whether it be lawful to admit Jews into a Christian
Commonwealth?_ (Appendix xxxii).¹
¹ The Rev. Walter Begley, in his issue of _Nova Solyma_, 1902,
vol. i. p. 350, refers to the _Commonwealth of Israel_,
1650, as one of Dury’s works. The catalogues of the British
Museum and the Bodleian Libraries do not record a copy.
The _D.N.B._ does not include it in its list of his works,
but mentions 20. _Epistolary Discourse [on Israelitish
origin]_, 1649, and 27. _Epistolary Discourse [on Americans
being Israelites]_, 1650, both equally unknown. The latter,
however, may be “An Epistolicall Discourse Of Mr. Iohn Dury
... that the Americans are descended from the Israelites,”
printed in the preliminary leaves of _Iewes in America ...
Tho: Thorowgood_ ... 1650.
Another great friend of the Jews was Henry Jessey, or Jacie
(1601‒1663), a Baptist divine. He began his studies in 1618 at
Cambridge, where at St. John’s College in ♦1622 he was admitted
Constable’s scholar. _Hebrew_ and _Rabbinical_ literatures were his
favourite studies. He projected a revised translation of the Bible
and made some progress in it. He collected £300 for the poor Jews
of _Jerusalem_, who in consequence of the war between the Swedes and
Poles in 1657 were reduced to great extremity, as the main source
of income derived from their charitable coreligionists in European
countries was thereby cut off. This is, as far as is known, the
earliest instance of English Christians helping the Jews of Palestine
(Appendix xxxiii).
♦ “1662” replaced with “1622”
In 1653 he wrote a treatise for the purpose of reconciling the various
religious opinions of Jews and Gentiles, entitled, _The Glory of
Jehudah and Israel_ (Appendix xxxiv).
His liberality to Jews was memorable on other occasions. He claimed
for them the rights of citizenship and admission to this country which
was then under consideration.
He was one of the members of the Assembly convened by Cromwell
to consider Manasseh Ben Israel’s proposals for the return of his
coreligionists to England. He is supposed to be the author of an
anonymous tract, entitled _A Narrative of the late Proceeds at
White-Hall, concerning the Jews_ (Appendix xxxv).
Thomas Fuller (1608‒1661),¹ Prebendary of Salisbury, delivered several
sermons, in which he argued that the Jewish nation was fulfilling an
important office in the world and was, under the order of Providence,
an instrument in giving the victory to good over evil. This nation
ought not, therefore, to content itself with mere existence, but
should throw its elements, or the best of them, into another mould and
constitute out of them a new society which would become a blessing to
the world.
¹ Author of “A Pisgah-Sight of Palestine” ... London ... MDCL.
He was the elder brother of Francis Fuller (1637‒1701),
at whose obsequies the Rev. Jeremiah White (1629‒1707)
said: “... But I will add no more concerning his Learning,
because it was not only a _Personal_, but _hereditary_
Accomplishment: For I think it did belong to his Family to
be learned....” [_p._ 112: “A _Funeral Sermon_ Preached upon
the Death Of the Reverend Mr. Francis Fuller ... By Jeremiah
White, ... London ... 1702.”] (_Sm._ 8º. 4 _ll._ + 119 _pp._
[B. M.])
Illustration:
_Sir_ OLIVER ST. JOHN THOS. BRIGHTMAN
_Rev. Dr._ WILLIAM GOUGE
HUGO GROTIUS _Rev._ HENRY JESSEY
All these Christian pioneers of religious liberty and Zionism were in
close connection with Manasseh, and helped him to prepare the way for
the re-admission of the Jews into England.
The view held by many Christians, especially in England, was that
the Israelitish race, now scattered over the face of the earth, would
eventually be brought back to its own land. To this was generally
added the belief that the Jews would return in a converted, _i.e._
Christian, state.¹ In conformity with the general spirit of the period,
all these ideas had a religious colouring in the minds both of English
theologians and writers and of the Jews themselves.
¹ The final ingathering of the Jews is taught in both the
Jewish and Christian Bibles.
Why were these considerations particularly important with regard to
England? In seeking an answer to this question we are met at once by
the significant fact dealt with in the first chapter of this book: the
attachment of Englishmen to the Bible.
The men and women who live in the pages of the Bible had long ago
become recognized types for the English nation. As early as the
seventeenth century interest in the restoration of _Israel_ had become
deep and general, England providing the earliest stimulus to Zionism.
The connection between this idea, and the idea of the readmission of
the Jews into England after long years of exclusion, following their
final expulsion under Edward I. in the year 1290, and the steady
progress of the latter idea, supported and determined by the former,
is characteristic not only of Manasseh’s writings, efforts and plans,
but of the whole epoch. Facts prove with what steadfastness of aim and
consistency of thought the problem was attacked and conquered by the
Puritan theologians and writers, and to what an extent their defence
of the Jews formed one comprehensive and consistent scheme, of which
the readmission of the Jews (justice applied to _individuals_) was one
part, and the Restoration of _Israel_ (justice applied to _the nation
as a whole_) was another.
Whoever studies Manasseh’s writings and the Puritan literature of that
epoch will have no difficulty in recognizing that the idea of national
justice to the Jews underlies all the discussions and controversies
and is common to all schools of thought. Thus Zionism has but brought
to light and given practical form and a recognized position to a
principle which had long consciously or unconsciously guided English
opinion. The ideas of Readmission and Restoration originally formed
a single stream in England, before they separated to flow in distinct
but parallel channels. Readmission, however, became an immediate
practical result, whilst Restoration was left for the future.
CHAPTER IX.
RESTORATION SCHEMES
Dr. John Jortin――Thomas Newton, Bishop of Bristol――Edward King
――Samuel Horsley, Bishop of Rochester and St. Asaph――Jewish
Colonies in South America――Marshal de Saxe’s scheme――Anecdote
by Margravine of Anspach――Earl of Egmont’s project――Proposed
settlement of German Jews in Pennsylvania――Viscount
Kingsborough’s Mexican colony――John Adams, President of the
United States.
THE books and pamphlets, consisting largely of interpretations of
the Bible, naturally contain many ideas open to serious criticism on
the part of a modern reader. Inevitably also (seeing that the writers
were theologians) they exhibit a persistent tendency to conversionism.
But one thing that continually impresses one is the earnestness
and sincerity revealed throughout. The readmission of the Jews into
England was likewise connected in some quarters with conversionist
tendencies, but on the whole it was an act of justice, and the Jews
profited by it.
The writers with whom we have been dealing were men trained from
childhood to read the Holy Scriptures, to reflect upon what they read,
and to consider every question from the standpoint of their religious
convictions. A certain weakness will no doubt be found in the
one-sided exegetical tendency shown in the numberless explanations of
the seventh chapter of the Book of _Daniel_, and various Apocalyptic
prophecies. But have not all the different denominations done the
same? Has not each one made use of some part of the Bible in order
to support its ideas? Does not every sect explain the word of God
according to its own way of thinking? Do not the opinions of one sect
conflict with and contradict those of another? It must be remembered
that this method of Scriptural interpretation was in keeping with
the spirit of the time, and that the entire question was still in
its infancy. Be that as it may, one cannot but be grateful for the
devotion of these Christian champions, in spite of the peculiarity of
some of their notions. Although as Jews we often differ from them as
regards the interpretation and application of certain verses, still
we cannot withhold our admiration for the sincere enthusiasm which is
evinced in most of their writings.
Dr. John Jortin (1698‒1770), an ecclesiastical historian and critic,
the author of _The Life of Erasmus_ ... London ... 1758‒1760, and of
many books dealing with the problem of the Jewish people, developed
the idea that the preservation of this people, “under such long,
such signal and such unexampled persecutions and calamities inclines
one to think that they are reserved for some illustrious purpose of
Providence.”
Thomas Newton (1704‒1782), Bishop of Bristol (1761), a divine of great
authority, defended the idea of the Restoration of _Israel_ in words
which no Jewish national enthusiast could excel. The Jews, he believes,
will be restored to their native city and country. At the same time,
he emphasizes the dignity and the necessity of Jewish distinctiveness
all over the world, and condemns anti-Jewish prejudice:――
“We see that the great empires, which in their turns subdued
and oppressed the people of God, are all come to ruin;
because, tho’ they executed the purposes of God, yet that
was more than they understood; all that they intended was to
satiate their own pride and ambition, their own cruelty and
revenge. And if such hath been the fatal end of the enemies
and oppressors of the Jews, let it serve as a warning to all
those, who at any time or upon any occasion are for raising a
clamor and persecution against them”¹ (Appendix xxxvi).
¹ Dissertations on the Prophecies, ... vol. i. ... MDCCLIV.
_pp._ 241‒242.
Edward King (1725‒1807), a miscellaneous writer and essayist, was
a zealous champion of more enlightened theological views than were
approved in his day by the orthodox believers. In one of his books,¹
which is written with intense faith and enthusiasm, and abounds in
beautiful passages that appeal to the imagination and heart, the one
point in which he is particularly emphatic is the return of the Jews
as Jews to the Holy Land.
¹ Remarks on The Signs of the Times; By Edward King, Esq.,
F.R.S.A.S.... London: ... 1798. (_4to._ 40 _pp._ [B. M.])
Samuel Horsley (1733‒1806), Bishop of Rochester (1793‒1802), Bishop
of St. Asaph (1802‒1806), considered King’s book of sufficient
importance to publish another¹ in reply, from which one gathers, that
the opinions expressed by King were not entirely rejected. “I agree
with you,” wrote the Bishop, “that some passages in _Zechariah_ (_fl._
3408 _a.m._) in particular, make strongly for this idea of a previous
settlement ... and so far I can admit....”
¹ Critical Disquisitions on the Eighteenth Chapter of Isaiah,
in A Letter to Edward King, Esq., F.R.S.A.S. By Samuel,
Lord Bishop of Rochester, F.R.S.A.S. London: ... M.DCC.XCIX.
(_4to._ v. + 109 _pp._ [B. M.])
This declaration must have made a profound impression. It was the
declaration of a man who was, as a contemporary biographer says, “an
ornament to the Senate, an honour to the Church of England, and one of
the first characters of the age in which he lived.”
In some tracts written at the beginning of the nineteenth century a
semi-political note is already sounded, as, for instance, in the tract
_A Call to the Christians and the Hebrews, by Theætetus_ (Appendix
xxxvii). This call did not find an immediate response; nevertheless,
the political idea of the Restoration of _Israel_ reappeared at
various epochs in England as well as in the other English-speaking
countries and elsewhere.
The various efforts to establish autonomous Jewish Colonies in America
during the early history of that country are not strictly Zionism, but
are not without interest from the Zionist point of view. “Under the
authority of the Dutch West India Company.... In 1652, a tract of land
... was granted in the island of Curaçao to Joseph Nunez _da_ Fonseca,
and others, to found a colony of Jews in that island ... but it was
not successful....”¹
¹ _The Settlement of the Jews in North America._ By Charles P.
Daly, LL.D. ... New York ... 1893. _p._ 9.
About 1654 a project was formed for a settlement in Surinam, then
a British colony, with Jewish fugitives from Brazil. The scheme is
referred to as “Privileges Granted to the People of the Hebrew Nation
that are to goe to the Wilde Cust” (_Egerton MSS._, _vol._ 2395,
No. 8. [B. M.]).
A grant was made by the French West India Company to David Nasi, a
Portuguese Jew, in 1659, by a charter which authorized him to found a
Jewish colony in Cayenne.
Some of the later projects are even more interesting. About the year
1749 Marshal _de_ Saxe¹ contemplated erecting a Jewish state in South
America of which he would be King. “... We have only meagre accounts
of this scheme; I am unable even to say whether he had abandoned it
prior to his death....”²
¹ Hermann-Maurice (1696‒1750) [Moritz _von_ Sachsen], Comte
_de_ Saxe, Marshal of France, was the illegitimate son of
Friedrich August (1670‒1733) the First, Elector of Saxony
(1694‒1733), who reigned over Poland (1697‒1733) as August
the Second [the Strong]; and Maria Aurora (1668‒1728)
Gräfin _von_ Königsmark. His father’s legitimate son
(1696‒1763), who succeeded to both dignities as Friedrich
August the Second, Elector of Saxony, and as August the
Third, King of Poland (1733‒1763), was the father of Maria
Josepha, the wife of the Dauphin Louis (1729‒1765), and
mother of that unfortunate Monarch, Louis XVI. ♦(1774‒1792)
of France.
♦ “(1774‒1792)” should be “(1754‒1792)”
² _Early American Zionist Projects_, by Max. J. Kohler, A.M.,
LL.B., in Publications of the American Jewish Historical
Society, 1900, No. 8 _pp._ 76‒79.
The Margravine of Anspach¹ tells us in her anecdotes about him, that
“He took a fancy to become a king: and on looking around..., as he
found all the thrones occupied, he cast his eyes upon that nation
which for seventeen hundred years had neither sovereign nor country;
which was everywhere dispersed, and everywhere a stranger.... This
extraordinary project occupied his attention for a considerable time.
It is not known how far the Jews co-operated with him, nor to what
point their negotiations were carried; nor was his plan ever developed:
but the project was well known to the world, and his friends sometimes
even joked with him on the subject.”²
¹ Elizabeth (1750‒1828), youngest daughter of the fourth
Earl of Berkeley, K.T. (1715(6)‒1755), who in 1767 married
William Craven (1738‒1791), afterwards the sixth Baron
Craven. In the month following his death, she espoused the
Margrave of Anspach (_ob._ 1806).
² _Memoirs of the Margravine of Anspach._ Written by Herself
... London: ... 1826. Vol. ii., _pp._ 132‒133.
John Perceval (1711‒1770), the second Earl of Egmont, when scarce a
man, had a scheme of assembling the Jews, and making himself their
King.¹
¹ Note by Lord Holland (1773‒1840) in _Memoirs of the Reign of
King George II._ (1683‒1760), by Horace Walpole (1717‒1797)
... London ... 1847. Vol. i., second edition, _p._ 35.
Hardly was the constitution of Pennsylvania of September 28th, 1776,
adopted.... A German Jew, whose name and domicile are not mentioned,
forwarded a letter to the President of the Continental Congress
... that a number of German Jews had the intention of settling in
America.... Let the conditions be stated to us, gracious President....¹
¹ _A Memorial sent by German Jews to the President of the
Continental Congress._ By Dr. M. Kayserling. (Publications
of the American Jewish Historical Society, No. 6, 1897,
_pp._ 5‒6.)
Edward King (1795‒1837), Viscount Kingsborough, eldest son of George,
third Earl of Kingston (1771‒1839), promoted and edited with copious
notes a magnificent work, entitled _Antiquities of Mexico_ ... 9 vols.
Imperial Folio and 60 _pp._ of a tenth volume. London, 1830‒1848.
The drift of King’s speculations was to establish the colonization of
Mexico by the Israelites.¹
¹ Gordon Goodwin in the _Dictionary of National Biography_.
In this connection special mention should be made of a great American
who was undoubtedly inspired by English Puritanism and displayed
the same broad-mindedness as the Puritans in relation to the Jewish
problem. This was John Adams (1735‒1826), the second President
of the United States of America (1797‒1801), and one of the most
distinguished patriots of the Revolution. He was one of the most
enthusiastic supporters of the Zionist idea. In a letter addressed to
Major Mordecai Manuel Noah (1785‒1851), he says: “I really wish the
Jews again in Judea, an independent nation, for, as I believe, the
most enlightened men of it have participated in the amelioration of
the philosophy of the age; once restored to an independent government,
and no longer persecuted, they would soon wear away some of the
asperities and peculiarities of their character,...” But, anticipating
that he might be wrongly supposed to desire the return of the Jews
to Palestine for the purpose of getting them away from America or
limiting their rights in that country, he continues: “I wish your
nation may be admitted to all the privileges of citizens in every
part of the world. This country (America) has done much; I wish it
may do more, and annul every narrow idea in religion, government and
commerce.”¹
¹ Discourse on The Restoration of the Jews: Delivered at the
Tabernacle, Oct. 28 and Dec. 2, 1844. By M. M. Noah. With a
Map of the Land of _Israel_. New York: ... 1845. (8º. viii.
+ 55 _pp._ + folded map.) _p._ vi.: “I find similar and
stronger sentiments in a letter from President John Adams,
written to me when nearly in his ninetieth year, with all
the fervour, sincerity and zeal he exhibited in the early
scenes of our Revolution,” _etc._
CHAPTER X.
PALESTINE
The Love and Knowledge of the Holy Land――The Land of the
Bible――The Bible Societies and the Institutions for the
Investigation of the Holy Land――The Palestine Exploration Fund
――Colonel Conder――Sir Charles Wilson――Sir Charles Warren――Lord
Kitchener.
THE love and knowledge of the Holy Land were scarcely less valuable
than the influence of the Bible and its language in paving the way
for an understanding of Zionist aspirations. What is more natural
than that the Land of _Israel_ most strongly attracted the Christian
Englishman by its past history and its present condition? He could not
lay his hand upon his Bible without being reminded of the _Jordan_,
of the _Lebanon_, of the _Mount of Olives_. Every Sunday called to
his mind the ancient history and lost prosperity of the “glory of all
lands,” while the existing ruin and desolation of the country gave
testimony to the truth of the Bible and the certainty of the promised
blessings.
While the familiar passages of Scripture concerning the Restoration
were calculated to promote human effort in this great cause――for
in many of these passages the spiritual application is not the most
obvious, and all of them seem inspired by the vision of a real and
natural return to the Land――the Biblical descriptions of the Holy Land
contributed not less to the propaganda of what we may call the Zionist
idea. There is no country whose geography is, if not better known, at
any rate dearer to the heart of man than that of the land of which the
Bible speaks.
Apart from the divine character of the Scriptures, they have handed
down through the centuries the earliest history of which we have any
records, and have preserved for all time records of the economic,
domestic and political life of a people which inhabited one of the
most important provinces of the ancient world. The people and the land
are no allegory, no abstraction; they are realities. They still exist,
and they can be brought together again as they were in their natural
condition. They are both equally typical, almost unique. There is no
other country whose geographical features are so strongly marked as
those of Palestine, the character of whose inhabitants so strikingly
depends on peculiarities of position, soil and climate. And there is
no other people whose character, history and destinies are so peculiar
as those of the Jewish people.
Two kinds of English organizations, without parallel in any other
country――Bible Societies and Palestine Societies――have contributed
particularly to the investigation of Palestine. Apart from their
conversionist tendency, the Bible Societies were founded in order “to
promote the circulation of the Holy Scriptures, both at home and in
foreign lands.” This idea could take deep hold of the minds of the
people only in England. The first Bible Society of Great Britain was
founded in 1802 (Appendix xxxviii). Shortly afterwards――in 1805――a
“Palestine Association”¹ was established for the purpose of promoting
the knowledge of its geography, natural history and antiquities, with
a view to the illustration of the Holy Writings. The inquiries of the
Society were directed in the first place to ascertaining the natural
and political boundaries of the several districts within the limits
of the Land of _Israel_, the topographical situation of the towns and
villages, the courses of streams and rivers, the ranges of mountains,
and the manners and customs of the inhabitants. They extended to
the natural products of the Holy Land and adjacent countries, to
peculiarities of soil, climate and minerals, and to the exploration
for Jewish antiquities. This was, however, by no means the beginning
of the study of Palestine: it was rather a new organization of the
studies in question. But notwithstanding the learned and laborious
compilations of Christianus Adrichomus (1533‒1585), Petrus Ravanellus
(_ob._ 1680), Christophorus Cellarius (1638‒1707), Thomas Fuller
(1608‒1661), John Lightfoot (1602‒1675), and the more recent work of
Dom [Antoine] Augustin Calmet (1672‒1757), Johann Heinrich Michaelis
(1668‒1738), Thomas Harmer (1715‒1788), Willem Albert Bachiene
(1712‒1783), and Ijsbrand _van_ Hamelsveld (1743‒1812), many of the
most important points were still left unexamined. “No country should
be of so much interest to us as Palestine, and at the same time no
country more urgently requires illustration.” With this motto the
“Palestine Association” started its fruitful work, which it continued
during the whole of the last century with growing skill and success.
¹ Palestine Association. 1805. (Proposals.) _p._ 4. _Saville
Row_, _March 31, 1805_. [B. M.]
The Society known as the “Palestine Exploration Fund” was first
formally constituted in 1865. The object of the founders was the
prosecution of systematic and scientific research in all branches
of inquiry connected with the Holy Land, and the principal reason
alleged for conducting this inquiry was the illustration of the Bible
which might be expected to follow such an investigation. The Society
numbered among its first supporters both Christians and Jews. The
War Office granted the services of Royal Engineers for the execution
of excavation work――Colonel Claude Reignier Conder (1848‒1910), Sir
Charles William Wilson (1836‒1905), and Sir Charles Warren. Colonel
Conder devoted his whole life to Palestinian research. Earl Kitchener
(1850‒1916) surveyed _Galilee_ for the Society, and his work aroused
general interest and led to important results (Appendix xxxix).
Hitherto knowledge regarding the country had been very limited;
reconnaissance sketch-maps of parts of the country had been made,
but every successive traveller was able to point out deficiencies,
errors and unexplored tracts. With trained skill, thoroughness and
conscientious work the Society combined a love and enthusiasm for
Palestine which made it possible to obtain the most admirable results.
The progress from the theological character of the first “Palestine
Association” to the scientific methods of the “Palestine Exploration
Fund” typifies the evolution of the whole Palestinian idea from a
traditional belief to a great human and historical aspiration――the
same evolution which can be traced in the development of the Zionist
idea.
Illustration:
_Gen. Sir_ CHARLES WARREN _Maj.-Gen._
_Elliott and Fry, Ltd._ _Sir_ CHARLES W. WILSON
_Earl_ KITCHENER
London Stereoscopic Co.
_Dr._ EDWARD ROBINSON _Col._ CLAUDE R. CONDER
CHAPTER XI.
NAPOLEON’S CAMPAIGN IN THE EAST
The Appeal of Bonaparte to the Jews of Asia and Africa――Haim
Mu’allim Farhi――The Fortress of Acre――Jewish opinion in
Palestine――El-Arish――_Gaza_――_Jerusalem_――Moses Mordecai
Joseph Meyuchas――“A Letter addressed by a French Jew to his
Brethren”――France and England――The real motives of Bonaparte’s
Appeal.
NAPOLEON BONAPARTE (1769‒1821) issued in 1799 a summons to the Asiatic
and African Jews to march under his banner, promising “to give them
the Holy Land,” and “to restore ancient _Jerusalem_ to its pristine
splendour” (Appendix xl). One hardly knows whether this was to be
taken quite seriously. The Jews in _Jerusalem_ appear either not to
have put much trust in Bonaparte’s flattering words, or to have been
utterly ignorant of the proclamation. The question was so important,
and so much confusion prevailed regarding it, that the appeal,
being vague in its terms, could not lead to any practical action.
Some historians suppose that this proclamation was only a trick
which Bonaparte played with the intention of winning over to his
cause the Jewish minister of the Pasha of Acre, Haim Mu’allim Farhi
(1750?‒1820), the soul of the defence of that important sea-fortress.
This supposition, however, is based on no evidence. It is pure
speculation, and is highly improbable.
No Jew seriously believed in the success of Bonaparte’s ambitious
design or in the possibility of his victory, and no attention was paid
to his promises. On the other hand, it would not have been impossible
to suppose that Bonaparte’s plan might succeed after he had conquered
Syria and carried the war into the heart of Turkey. He would then
perhaps have assigned a share in his government to members of the
Jewish nation upon whom the French could rely.
Bonaparte’s idea was simple and his intentions were sincere. He
regarded the Jews――particularly those living in Asia and Africa――as
a nation, and as having indisputable historical claims on the Holy
Land and _Jerusalem_. He was sure that they would help him and hail
his victory as a happy triumph¹ if they knew that their national ideal
was to be realized and “ancient _Jerusalem_” to be restored to its
“pristine splendour.” Was this not the same policy which he applied in
later years in his relations with the small nationalities in Europe?
¹ In an Order, in which he confirms the prerogatives of the
Monks of the Mount _Sinai_ convent, he refers to the Jews.
AU CAIRE, le 29 frimaire au 7 (19 décembre, 1798).
Bonaparte, général en chef, voulant favoriser le convent du
mont _Sinai_: ... 2º Par respect pour _Moise_ et le nation
juive, dont la cosmogonie nous retrace les âgres les plus
reculés; ... Bonaparte.
(_Correspondance inédite officielle et confidentielle de
Napoléon Bonaparte_ ... Egypte. Tome Deuxième. Paris ...
M.DCCC.XIX. _p._ 179.)
In another Appeal, Bonaparte ordered his troops to treat
the natives with tolerance: “Agissez avec eux comme vous
avez agi avec les Juifs, les Italiens; ayez des égards
pour leur mufti et leurs imams, comme vous en avez eu pour
les rabbins et les evêques; ayez pour les cérémonies que
prescrit l’Alcoran, pour les mosquées, la même tolérance
que vous avez eu pour les convents, pour les synagogues,
pour la religion de _Moise_ et de Jésus Christ”
(Proclamation of General Bonaparte of the 22nd June, 1798).
Colonel Sebastiani wrote concerning the Jews in his report
on his mission to Constantinople in 1802 in a somewhat
anti-Semitic spirit: “Les Juifs sont, comme partout ailleurs,
indifférents sur tout changement de gouvernement qui ne
leur offre pas la matière à de nouvelles spéculations”
(_Bibliothèque Diplomatique――Recueil des Traités de la
Porte Ottomane_ ... Par le Baron J. _de_ Testa ... Tome
Premier France. Paris ... MDCCCLXIV. _p._ 513).
Jewish opinion in the East was reserved and somewhat pessimistic,
not with regard to the purpose, but concerning the opportunity and
the means. The Jews were willing to make any sacrifices in order to
restore “ancient _Jerusalem_” in a peaceful way, but not to revolt
against the rulers of the country. Moreover, they knew that this
campaign was bound to be a failure.
The Turks followed the plan of allowing the inadequate forces of
Bonaparte to advance as far as possible from their Egyptian base,
while they massed heavy forces in Syria. El-Arish and _Gaza_ in the
south-west of Palestine fell into the hands of Bonaparte’s army on the
17th and 25th February, 1799. The Jewish community of _Gaza_ had fled.
In _Jerusalem_ the news of victories and atrocities created a general
panic. It was rumoured that Bonaparte was about to enter the Holy
City. At the command of the deputy Governor the inhabitants began to
throw up ramparts, the Jews also taking part in the work. One of the
_Rabbis_, Moses Mordecai Joseph Meyuchas, encouraged and even assisted
them in their operations. After these occurrences the success of
Bonaparte in Egypt and Syria was arrested, chiefly by the arms of
Great Britain, and his schemes in the East were frustrated.
The appearance of Bonaparte in Palestine was like the passing of a
meteor, which, after causing much perturbance, disappears. His dream
of becoming Emperor of the East faded away quickly. Still the fact
remains that the idea of the Restoration of _Israel_ had occupied the
mind of this great conqueror in the prime of his youth, at the very
beginning of his unexampled career. He and his adherents seemed, even
after this failure, to persist in gazing with a wistful eye towards
the same quarter, and their ambitious plans evidently involved the
future fortunes of those Eastern countries which have so long been
the monotonous scenes of isolation and ignorance.
Whatever judgment we may form as to the practical value of Bonaparte’s
scheme in those days, the suggestion of restoring Palestine to the
Jews remains highly significant. It is obvious that had there not
been Jewish aspirations of this kind in France such a suggestion could
not have arisen even as a fantastic plan or as a caprice of military
headquarters in a distant country. Bonaparte had too much political
foresight even in his younger years to run the risk of engaging
himself in an undertaking before he had sounded the competent circles
in his own country. As a matter of fact these aspirations were
expressed, and, imaginary as they were, seem to have been very popular
among French Jews. There is, consequently, reason to conclude that
Bonaparte’s scheme was, in reality, more serious than it might have
seemed at first sight.
A most curious document, almost entirely overlooked or underestimated
by French historians, throws some light on the real tendencies of that
time among French Jews. This is a “Letter addressed to his brethren by
a Jew” in 1798¹――one year before the Bonaparte Proclamation (Appendix
xli). This letter is a sort of Zionist programme. It is a mixture
of different elements, partly Jewish, partly pan-French Imperialist,
expounded in a manner that only a deep Jewish national feeling could
have inspired. The impenetrable political speculations of those days
already contain the germs of some ideas which are developed to full
consciousness and clearness a hundred years later in modern Zionist
speeches, pamphlets and programmes.
¹ Restoration of the Jews ... Second Edition ... By J. Bicheno.
1807. _pp._ 60‒62.
The author of this “Letter” rightly proclaims in the first place the
pre-eminent interest of his theme, “the greatest theme of Jewish
history.” “It is at last time to shake off this insupportable yoke――it
is time to resume our rank among the other nations of the universe.”
The nations of the world――he now hopes――will support the Jewish claim
that the Jewish nation should be treated on the lines of the national
idea. The design of the author, then, is to suggest a solution of
no less a problem than the Jewish Tragedy. He begins with a review
“of the Jewish situation during many ages under the weight of the
cruellest persecutions,” and this review is not less tragic than the
Jewish elegies of the Middle Ages, though it was written a few years
after the great Revolution. He then addresses himself to his main task,
the exposition, based, as far as he is able to base it, on lessons
learnt from contemporary events, of that system of Restoration which
he regards as the most practical.
This author was, no doubt, the agent and mouthpiece of the people
behind him. The fact that this “Letter” was published at the
suggestion of those then in power in France shows that the scheme
suggested in it was in accordance with the views of the Government.
This being the tendency of the Government, the appeal addressed
by Bonaparte to the Jews of Asia and Africa one year after the
publication of the “Letter,” in 1798, appears to be a logical
consequence of prevailing opinions. Moreover, the fact that schemes
of this kind had gained great currency in England, and that the
Restoration of _Israel_ was a favourite idea of the English, could
not be unknown in France. It is scarcely necessary to point out what
was the fundamental idea of the Egyptian and Syrian campaign. The idea
of the Restoration of _Israel_, as suggested in the “Letter of the
French Jew” in 1798 and in Bonaparte’s Appeal of 1799, was merely a
link in the same chain.
To sum up, the situation of affairs, in view of the possibility of
great changes in the East, seemed to afford an opportunity for the
solution of the Jewish problem on national lines. Bonaparte may also
have been anxious to avail himself of the services of the Jews of
Asia and Africa. But the essential point is that many influential
Christians as well as Jews considered the Jewish problem from a
national point of view at the end of the eighteenth century.
CHAPTER XII.
HAIM FARHI
Saul Farhi――Ahmad Jazzár――Saul Farhi’s sons: Haim, Solomon,
Raphael and Moses Farhi――Jewish communities in Palestine and
Syria――The importance of Palestine in the struggle between
Bonaparte and the Ottoman Empire――Haim Farhi’s martyrdom.
IN order to grasp the real importance and meaning of Bonaparte’s idea,
we have to occupy ourselves with the _dramatis personæ_, and first of
all with Haim Farhi. The life of this man was full of romance and of
a devotion which has not yet met with such appreciation from Jewish
historians as it deserves.
Haim Farhi was born at Damascus about the middle of the eighteenth
century. The Farhis were an old Jewish family, whose members for
several generations devoted their energies to the task of defending
their ancient nation, while remaining loyal subjects of the Ottoman
Government. Haim’s father, Saul, was “_Katib_” to Ahmad Jazzár
(1735?‒1808), who was first _Pasha_ of Acre and Sidon, then for a
few years _Pasha_ of Damascus, and afterwards for many years again
_Pasha_ of Acre and Sidon, and exercised a great influence over Syria
and Palestine. Ahmad Jazzár (the Butcher) was a man without morals,
as cruel as he was capricious and impetuous. Instead of using his
influence and great wealth to promote the happiness of his subjects,
he left the large plain near Acre almost a marsh. Pomp and luxury
were greatly encouraged by him, while agriculture was neglected.
His conduct was the exact opposite of that of the Sheikh Daher, his
predecessor, who raised Acre from a village to a large town, and
during whose reign the population of the district increased immensely.
The main source of the riches of Jazzár was the _pashalik_ of Damascus,
which he contrived to add to his former dominion. Till the year 1791
the French had factories at Acre, Sidon and Beyrout. In that year
they were all expelled from the territory of Jazzár by a sudden edict,
which allowed them only three days in which to leave their respective
abodes, under the penalty of death.
Jazzár retained his ill-gotten _pashalik_ of Damascus a few years only.
His government knew no methods but those of oppression and cruelty;
he extorted from his people a considerable part of its fortunes, and
put to death several hundred persons, who were mostly innocent. His
own suspicious conduct, as leader of the caravan to Mecca, combined
with the machinations of his enemies at the Porte, led finally to his
deposition; but he left behind living monuments of his cruelty in the
shape of mutilated subjects who by his orders had had their noses and
ears cut off. Thus driven from Damascus, he returned to his former
_pashalik_ of Acre and Sidon.
Jazzár, who was full of energy and life, and was possessed of
some heroic qualities, but was a monster in human form, and a
true specimen of the Eastern “_satrap_,” addressed himself to his
_Katib_ for assistance and advice. _Katib_ in Arabic, like _Yazgy_
in Turkish, means no more than “writer” or “scribe,” but the office
confers greater power than the name implies. The _Katib_ is often
at once government secretary and treasurer; and, as he is generally
a permanent official in the _pashalik_ for life, while the _pashas_
are often changed, by removal or death, it necessarily happens that
he is master of the business of the _pashalik_, and of its revenues
and resources, while the _pashas_, coming from distant provinces,
enter upon a rule of which the key is in the _Katib’s_ hands, and are
compelled to keep him in their service and to be guided by him. The
_pashalik_ of Damascus was, moreover, singularly placed, in so far as
its _pasha_ and chief officials had to go every year on the pilgrimage
to Mecca, and consequently were more than ever bound to confide
their affairs to the _Katib_. It is said that the order of march,
the ordinances and regulations for the pilgrims, the quantity of
provisions required and various other essential facts connected with
this important occasion, had somehow become secrets in the keeping
of the Jews, and that Saul Farhi was considered a great expert and a
recognized authority in these matters. He had four sons: Haim, Solomon,
Raphael and Moses (_ob._ 1840) and one daughter. Haim, the eldest,
was initiated by his father into all the professional secrets of
his office. He was a young man of excellent abilities and learning.
In the early part of his life, when he was still in Damascus, the
machinations of his enemies prevailed in so far that he was summoned
to Constantinople to answer certain accusations made against him; and,
being mulcted in a fine which he was unable to pay, he was thrown into
prison. His sister, a woman of great energy, undertook the journey
from Syria to Constantinople to petition for her brother’s release.
She succeeded, and brought her brother back to his house. Haim’s
loyalty and integrity were placed beyond doubt, and his experiences in
Constantinople must have helped to give him knowledge of the laws and
insight into the central government, to which he was sincerely devoted.
He was then appointed by Jazzár to the post of _Katib_ or minister
at Acre, where there lived at that time thirty-six Jewish families.
_Jerusalem_ had, besides 9000 Moslem and Christian inhabitants,
about 1000 Jews; and old communities of considerable size existed in
_Tiberias_, _Safed_, _Jaffa_ and _Hebron_. Although not important in
numbers, the Jews, owing to their connection with the communities of
Damascus, Aleppo, Bagdad, Constantinople, Smyrna and Salonica, which
possessed numerous religious schools, and big business enterprises
extending as far as Egypt and India, were justly considered an
important element. The fact that Saul Farhi was _Katib_ at Damascus,
and his son Haim at Acre, and that, according to the general opinion,
the Jews were better acquainted than anyone else with the route
to Mecca, and with the ordinances and regulations, which were not
only of a fiscal and commercial value, but also of great strategic
importance――this fact did not fail to appeal to the imagination
of Bonaparte. From this point of view, and considering all the
circumstances, it would appear that Bonaparte’s appeal to the Jews
was not so fantastic as it might seem at first sight. It was a
well-considered scheme.
Haim Farhi’s activity was twofold. It fell to his lot to look after
the communications with Damascus and the Hedjaz, to remain in touch
with all the distant centres of commerce and resources, and at the
same time to cultivate very carefully relations with Constantinople.
Both these departments of official activity abounded with difficulties
and responsibilities. The roads were bad, the tribes, clans, and
families much divided and continually at feud with one another.
Communications were unsafe, and the danger of being cut off was always
imminent. On the other hand, the maintenance of peaceful relations
between a powerful, capricious _Pasha_ and the _Padishah_ with all his
camarilla was naturally a hard task. Farhi had secured a reputation
for exceptional ability in both directions. Having been brought up
in the atmosphere of the _Katib’s_ profession, he was better informed
than anyone else concerning the communications and the state of
affairs in Damascus and elsewhere, while his dignity of manner, worthy
of the descendant of an old Jewish family, his intellectual gifts and
wonderful knowledge of Eastern languages, enabled him to cope most
successfully with the duties of a diplomatic career. As to the latter
function, there is the testimony of Jazzár, to whom is ascribed the
statement that “Farhi’s notes to the Porte have the wonderful quality
of being polite as well as expressive.”
Needless to say, Farhi’s influence and activity, which would have been
important even in times of peace, proved of exceptional importance at
the eventful period when for the first time since the Crusades East
and West were involved in a struggle for existence. It was one of the
strangest caprices of history that this contest of strength between
the greatest powers of the world――Bonaparte and the Ottoman Empire of
that time, backed up by Great Britain――was to be decided in the Holy
Land, in the neighbourhood of that little port, and that a son of the
nation which had possessed this land and made it a land of glory, and
to which God had promised it as an “everlasting inheritance,” was the
very soul of the defence, frustrating all the plans of the enemy.
Haim’s career, romantic as it was, derives a peculiar interest from
one of its incidents, which makes the _Pasha_ appear as a monster
of barbarity and madness. The story sounds like the invention of a
wild imagination, but is a real, indisputable fact. We mentioned with
regard to Jazzár’s activities in Damascus that living monuments of his
cruelty remained behind in the shape of the noseless faces and earless
heads of the Damascenes. This passion for maiming and mutilating seems
to have grown with him in Acre.
The Rev. John Wilson¹ (1804‒1875) tells us: “Almost every one in his
domestic establishment was maimed. Some wanted a hand, some a foot;
others mourned over the loss of a toe, a finger or an ear, according
as the rage of the tyrant happened to be directed. Haim Farhi was
an able man and withal of fine figure and prepossessing address. He
enjoyed the confidence of the _Pasha_, and grew rich in his employment.
One day Ahmad (Jazzár) said to him: ‘Haim, you have a fine person, you
are very beautiful, you are the most athletic of men; when visitors
come, it is you, not me, they admire; every one seems to say how
happy is the _Pasha_ to have such a man: Now, because of this I had
some thoughts of dismissing you from your office; but my great love
to you prevents that; you cannot, however, have any objection to my
putting out one of your eyes.’ The barber was instantly sent for; and
Haim Farhi lost his eye. He continued in his office, and faithfully
discharged its duties, and the _Pasha_ continued to heap favours
upon him. The Jew, however, was attentive to his appearance, and
dexterously contrived to edge down his turban so skilfully that his
visual defect was not much observed. Jazzár noticed this, and said to
him one day, ‘All I have done has been of no use, you have become as
beautiful and as attractive as ever; I must cut off your nose.’ The
barber was again sent for, and Haim lost his nose. He still continued
in the service of the _Pasha_, and discharged his duties faithfully,
and even presided over the obsequies of his tyrannical benefactor.”
¹ Land of the Bible ... Edinburgh, 1847. Vol. ii., _pp._
341‒342. Note 1.
CHAPTER XIII.
NAPOLEON IN PALESTINE
Bonaparte approaching _Jerusalem_――Anti-Jewish accusations
――Bonaparte and the Christians――Suleiman _Pasha_――Abdallah
_Pasha_――Haim Farhi’s martyr death――The Farhi family
――Generations of martyrs.
THROUGH the primitive but excellent channels of information of the
Eastern caravans, Bedouins and Dervishes, Bonaparte must have heard
of this treatment of the Jewish minister by the “Butcher,” and of the
other atrocities committed by him. The expulsion of the French from
Acre, Sidon and Beyrout by this _Pasha_ in 1791 was still fresh in his
memory as an insult to France.
Haim Farhi continued his services; his popularity suffered no
diminution, and it was evidently he who provided Acre with the
necessary supplies, kept communications open with the hinterland, and
made it possible to offer the stoutest resistance ever recorded in
history. Great Britain helped, the Turks and Arabs were brave, and
Jazzár with all his savage caprices possessed, no doubt, remarkable
abilities as a general; but the soul of the entire organization was
Haim. Winning him over would have meant breaking down the defence;
but it was impossible to win him over.
Under such conditions Bonaparte approached _Jerusalem_. He had reached
_Ramleh_ (between _Jaffa_ and _Jerusalem_) and intended to besiege
the Holy City, but he changed his mind and turned to Acre. Meanwhile
rumours spread that the Jews were helping the French as spies, and
that they sympathized in their hearts with Bonaparte. This is the
familiar story which hatred and calumny set on foot whenever people
are excited, and there is any opportunity of stirring up thoughtless
credulity and brutal instincts against a weak and defenceless minority.
Bonaparte captured _Gaza_ on the 25th December, 1799. The Jews of
that place had to endure brutal treatment at the hands of Bonaparte’s
soldiers, so that many seized the opportunity of escaping. The Jews of
_Jerusalem_ were, meanwhile, in the greatest danger of being massacred
by the Mohammedan inhabitants, who accused them of being in secret
communication with Bonaparte with a view to the surrender of the city.
The Mohammedans actually believed that all the Jews of _Jerusalem_
were spies and traitors, and they secretly resolved among themselves
to kill all the Jewish inhabitants as soon as Napoleon marched on
_Jerusalem_. This resolution, however, got abroad and was communicated
by a Mohammedan, a confidant and friend of the Jews, to two
_Rabbis_ named Algazi and Meyuchas, who saved Palestinian Jewry, and
particularly the _Jerusalem_ Jews, by their presence of mind and wise
precautions, such as arranging public prayers, helping to fortify
the city, _etc._ The sight of the venerable, grey-headed _Haham_
Meyuchas standing with a spade in his hand did not fail to impress the
Mohammedans. The Jewish community was thus saved; still at _Tiberias_
and _Safed_ the Jews were savagely treated by Bonaparte’s soldiers.
It is impossible to know who circulated the accusation against the
Jews. Such accusations are like proverbs; nobody knows their author,
they are in the air, they appeal to the imagination, gain currency and
subsequently become dogmas; nobody has examined their soundness, there
is no evidence, no reason, there is merely a vague generalization,
and yet people believe in them. We cannot know what some Jews may
have thought of Bonaparte’s attempt: oppressed, persecuted, insulted
as they were by the Jazzárs, some of them may have thought that
Bonaparte’s victory would be their salvation, although, on the other
hand, the behaviour of his soldiers caused great suffering. But in
practice the Jews were most loyally devoted to the Ottoman cause.
The Jews were saved, and the outraged Farhi remained in service.
According to the testimony of all his Christian contemporaries, this
Jew, like a real Christian, “loved his enemy.” When Jazzár died,
in 1808, he arranged the ceremonies of the funeral with remarkable
devotion. Jazzár was succeeded by Suleiman _Pasha_, who confirmed Haim
in his dignity. Suleiman, an _ex-mameluk_, ruled with Farhi sixteen
years, and this was the happiest period for Palestine. Suleiman died
in 1824, and Abdallah, the son of Ali _Pasha_ of Tripoli (_ob._ 1815
at Acre), who was educated and looked after with great care by Farhi,
was appointed _Pasha_ of Acre. Very soon after the appointment of
Abdallah _Pasha_ the Jewish minister came to a tragic end. Abdallah
showed himself not an impetuous barbarian of the Jazzár type, but
a miserable and treacherous murderer. Jealous of his benefactor’s
popularity, and seeing that it was impossible to disfigure him further,
he ordered his _Kiaja_ (minister of the police) to assassinate the
old and venerable statesman, and to throw his body into the sea. The
implacable tyrant was deaf to the entreaties of the dead man’s family
and friends, who implored him to allow the body to be buried. It
is said that the body was left floating for several days near the
harbour, and that the _Pasha_ ordered his servants to attach heavy
stones to it and then to throw it into the sea. Farhi’s property,
the personal fortune which he had acquired not as the result of his
official occupation but as a member of an old and wealthy family,
was ransacked and confiscated. His family escaped, and his widow
died, in consequence of hardships, on her way to Damascus. As to the
pretext for the murder of Farhi there are various accounts. According
to Damoiseau, a French renegade, Abdallah (in whose service he
was) proposed the building of some new fortifications. There was no
practical reason for the fortifications; relations with the European
powers being friendly, the measure could only stimulate the suspicions
of the Porte. Moved by these reasons and by considerations of economy,
Farhi objected. He was sentenced to death, and the _Kiaja_ was
authorized to carry out the execution. This he did by attacking the
old man suddenly in his house, and murdering him in the night. But
Abdallah never thought afterwards of building any new fortification.
The version given by _Rabbi_ Joseph Schwarz (1804‒1860) in his
_T’buoth Ha’arez_ (Jerusalem, 1845) is somewhat different in details,
but the facts are essentially the same. Another traveller, Professor
J. M. A. Scholz (1794‒1852), happened to be at that time in the
neighbourhood of Acre, and he confirms the first version. He gives
also the precise date of the assassination: the 24th August, 1824.
Peaceful and loyal as the Jews in the East were, this monstrous crime
seems to have put an end to their great patience. The brothers of Haim
in Damascus arranged to send an expedition of revenge. This was the
first time for several centuries that Jews had gone forth as fighters
in their own cause. The _Pashas_ of Aleppo and Damascus concluded
a treaty, and supported the expedition arranged by the Farhis. They
besieged Acre, and had it not been for a spy sent to the camp of the
Farhis, who succeeded in treacherously poisoning Solomon Farhi, the
expedition would have had an excellent chance of success. The death
of Solomon, however, put an end to the expedition, of which he was the
organizer and leader. The last survivor of Haim’s brothers was Raphael.
He also was a distinguished statesman. He was Minister at Damascus in
1820, and after the restoration of Ottoman rule in Syria was elected
to the Council of that town.
Rev. John Wilson¹ gives a further account of his visits to Damascus
in 1843. “6th June.――Mr. Graham and I visited the house of the chief
_Rabbi_, Haim Maimon Tobhi. He had been eighteen years resident at
Damascus, but is a native of Gibraltar. He had obtained, he said,
an English passport, entitling him to British protection, from Lord
Palmerston (1784‒1865); and he had been elected to office on account
of the privilege which he thus enjoyed, it having been conceived by
the Jews, that the name of an English subject, borne by him, would
give weight to his dealings with the Turkish Government” (_Ib._ 330).
“On the second day of our excursions among the Jews we visited one of
the princely mansions of the Farhis, the richest bankers and merchants
of Damascus.” In a footnote Wilson quotes [Sir John] Bowring’s [F.R.S.]
(1792‒1872) _Report on Syria_, _p._ 94: “As a class, the Jewish
foreign merchants of Damascus are the most wealthy.... The two most
opulent are believed to be Mourad Farhi and (Raphael) Nassim Farhi,
whose wealth in trade exceeds one and a half millions each. Most of
the Jewish foreign houses trade with Great Britain.” In the first of
these mansions Wilson admired the library, containing nearly the whole
of Jewish literature, to which Jewish students had free access for
purposes of study. He met there some of the _Rabbis_, who told him
that the Jews of Damascus were supposed to number 5000 souls, and
those of Aleppo 6000. He and Mr. Graham, who accompanied him, were
then introduced to the female members of the household, who “deported
themselves with a dignity and grace which would have done credit to
the nobility of Europe.” “On the 8th of June we visited the mansion of
Raphael, the chief of the Farhis. On our arrival we were received by
a Jew, who humbly described himself to us as the ‘worthless Jacob
Peretz,’ a quondam tutor to the children of the great man, and who in
acknowledgment of his services is, with his whole family, retained as
part of his household, which, he informed us, consists of from between
sixty to seventy souls.” This establishment was even grander than that
which we visited yesterday.... Mr. Graham expressed his doubts whether
those in our own Royal palaces are superior to them. He then gives
particulars of the principal apartments and reproduces a _Hebrew_
inscription with an English translation (of his own). Of special
interest is Mr. Wilson’s description of the head of the family,
Raphael, the Nasi of the Damascus Jews, an old man who was at that
time seriously indisposed, but received him and his friend with great
kindness, and took them to his library, which was very large.
¹ Land of the Bible. _Ibid._, _pp._ 330‒341.
In 1840, during the riots following the accusation against the Jews,
Raphael and his sons suffered very severely. Raphael died very soon
after Wilson’s visit. This was the end of this Jewish family, whose
history is bound up with the history of Palestine and Bonaparte’s
expedition. They have a twofold claim upon our attention, first as
eminent Jewish statesmen, and secondly as Palestinian martyrs.
CHAPTER XIV.
TWO _JERUSALEM RABBIS_
_Rabbi_ Moses Mordecai Joseph Meyuchas――The Spanish Jewish
traditions――_Rabbi_ Israel Jacob Algazi――The importance of the
Jewish settlement in Palestine――Zionist aspirations.
TO obtain an idea of the views and aspirations of the Jews of
Palestine in that period we may glance at two _Hahamim_ of
_Jerusalem_――Moses Mordecai Joseph Meyuchas and Israel Jacob Algazi.
_Haham_ Samuel Moses Mordecai Joseph _de_ Raphael _de_ Meyuchas was
born in 1738 and died in _Jerusalem_ in 1806. He was the descendant
of a family of _Rabbis_ and _Talmudic_ scholars of great fame in
Palestine and elsewhere. His most valuable contributions to _Talmudic_
literature are his three works: _Mayim Shaal_ (Salonica, 5559), _Shaar
Ha’mayim_ (Salonica, 5528) and _B’rehot Ha’mayim_ (Salonica, 5549),
which show profound scholarship and wide learning. He was on terms
of intimacy with the great _Talmudic_ scholars of his time, who
addressed to him questions on various religious and communal matters.
In the Preface to his _B’rehot Ha’mayim_ he speaks in exalted terms
of his love “of the dear land, the Golden _Jerusalem_,” and of “the
changeable events of his time.” He says that he has had much to suffer,
and that, poverty-stricken as he is, he enjoys his miserable existence
and keeps in good spirits; he expresses his humble gratitude to God
for having allowed him to earn “a piece of dry bread,” and to bear
his share in building up the city; and adds that his only hope and
aspiration is to be able to spend his life there to a very advanced
age. His use of the verse:――
“For He hath made strong the bars of thy gates;...”
(Psalm cxlvii. 13).
in connection with what he describes as the “good idea,” which he
“carried out,” might be taken as an allusion to his remarkable action
in 5559 (1799), when this old _Rabbi_ “stood with spade in hand
labouring on the fortification of _Jerusalem_, digging and working
with the greatest industry to make a new bastion and rampart around
the fort, the Kallai,”¹ were it not for the chronological fact that
his book was published in 5549 (1789). He is said to have practised
medicine, and though this was not uncommon among the _Sephardi
Hahamim_ of the old generation, it probably indicates that he was
a man of wider outlook than that of the usual _Rabbi_ type. It is
a mistake to suppose that all Palestinian _Rabbis_ of the older
generation were superstitious and hostile to science. The _Sephardi
Hahamim_ of that time in particular had preserved something of the
scientific and rationalistic tradition of the Judæo-Spanish school.
Some of them were men of great ability, well versed not only in the
_Talmud_, but also in Oriental languages. They cherished an intense
and sincere love for the Holy Land, and, if the position of the Jewish
people in the country was maintained, through all the horrors and
dangers of war and plague, stress and danger, it was due to the
self-denial and the wonderful moral strength of those noble martyrs
who guided and inspired the down-trodden people. Mostly descendants
of the Spanish-Jewish fugitives who found refuge and shelter in the
dominions of the _Sultan_, their loyalty and gratitude to their rulers
were sincere and deep-rooted. The _Jerusalem Rabbis_ were attached
to their masters and friends in Constantinople, Salonica, Smyrna,
Damascus and Aleppo. The Jewish communities, particularly those in
distant parts of the Ottoman Empire, suffered severe afflictions from
time to time, but they bore their heavy burdens with fortitude and
resignation in order to maintain and to strengthen their foothold in
the country. They trusted in the justice of the Central Government,
and did not expect anything of Bonaparte’s invasion, or of any other
invasion of the kind.
¹ _Sepher T’buoth Ha’arez_, by Joseph _ben_ Menachem Schwarz,
_Jerusalem_, 5605.
_Haham_ Meyuchas was at that time _Dayan_.¹ Another scholar of great
authority was the Chief _Rabbi_ of _Jerusalem_, _H.H.R._ Israel Jacob
Algazi, a great-grandson of _Haham_ Solomon Algazi the Elder (who
was _Rabbi_ in Smyrna and in _Jerusalem_ in the seventeenth century,
wrote on all subjects of _Rabbinic_ literature, and contributed much
to the science of _Talmudic_ methodology). _Haham_ I. J. Algazi wrote
some valuable books on homiletics and _Halachah_, which testify to
his exceptional genius and astonishing industry. He was an excellent
_Rabbi_, possessed of a keen intellect and a high sense of duty.
His books _She’erith Jacob_ (Constantinople, 5511) and _Neoth Jacob_
(Smyrna, 5527) contain many chapters that bear testimony to his ardent
desire for the development of the Jewish community in the Holy Land.
¹ Ecclesiastical Assessor.
We read with special interest the books written by these two rabbis
during that troublous period. These books are distinguished by the
highest intellectual ability. There is nowhere a trace of weariness,
languor or even indifference to be found; on the contrary, freshness,
strength and unsatisfied intellectual impulse are throughout
discernible. Living ideas pervade them all. It is impossible for any
reader who is a _Talmudic_ student not to be touched by their depth
and force of sentiment, and their exceptional vigour and eloquence, in
spite of the usual clumsiness and complexity due to the old _Rabbinic_
language. It is indeed a relief to turn from the intrigues of the
Pashas and the bloodshed of the expeditions to _Haham_ Jacob Israel
Algazi, who writes in a reply to the Leghorn Jews: “We are here
insignificant in numbers, modest in our requirements, and we pray God
that we may become self-supporting. We have to be here for the sake
of our ancestors and our children’s children. This question is not
of appearances, but of realities; not of delights, but of duties; not
of private option, but of divine authority.” Both these _Rabbis_ deal
with Palestinian affairs in an elevating spirit and from an idealistic
point of view. Whatsoever is in Palestine is holy and sublime, and
all Jews are bound to support the _Yishub_.¹ This is the keynote of
all their ideas. _Haham_ M. M. J. Meyuchas writes to Salonica: “We
have in our community some artisans, too few for our nation――because
they should be more numerous here――and too many for the charities
to support them when they are workless; more wealthy people should
come here.” And _Haham_ Algazi discusses the question of the special
_Rabbinical_ rules concerning the right of the community to inherit
the property of rich Jews who die in Palestine leaving relatives in
other countries. “It is not the community,” says the learned _Rabbi_,
“it is the whole of _Israel_ which is the ♦inheritor in this way....
Our people, so long scattered, oppressed, and trodden down, and
wonderful from the beginning till now, should never despair. Israel
is not deserted,” he says in another passage. The aspirations of
an ancient people, as he knew, do not depend on the intrigues and
adventures of _Pashas_, and will outlive all these passing incidents.
¹ A Settlement.
♦ “iheritor” replaced with “inheritor”
CHAPTER XV.
NAPOLEON’S _SANHEDRIN_
The “_Sanhedrin_”――R. David Sintzheim――M. S. Asser――Moses
Leman――Juda Litvak――Michael Berr――Lipman Cerf-Berr――The
Decisions and Declarations――Napoleon I. and the Jews.
MEANWHILE circumstances had undergone a material change, and eight
years after the failure of the Syrian Campaign and the Appeal to the
Jews of Asia and Africa, Bonaparte, now Napoleon I., issued an order
to convene a Jewish “_Sanhedrin_” in Paris (1807).
This came as a joyous surprise to the Jewish nation. The “Great
_Sanhedrin_,” a feature of the ancient Jewish Government which had
perished together with the Second Temple, and which alone had been
endowed with unlimited religious authority in _Israel_, was to be
revived in modern times, in the centre of civilized Europe, for
the purpose of ♦making decisions which would command indisputable
recognition on the part of Jews in all countries and throughout all
centuries. “A great event,” wrote one of the leading Jews of that time,
“is about to take place, one which through a long series of centuries
our fathers, and even we in our own times, never expected to see,
and which has now appeared before the eyes of the astonished world.
The 20th of October (1807) has been fixed as the date of the Great
_Sanhedrin_ in the capital of one of the most powerful Christian
nations, and under the protection of the great Prince who rules over
it. Paris will thus show to the world a remarkable scene, and this
memorable event will open to the dispersed remnants of the descendants
of _Abraham_ a period of deliverance and prosperity.”
♦ “taking” replaced with “making”
Illustration: GRAND SANHÉDRIN
Convoqué à Paris par ordre de Napoléon-le-Grand, 1807
_Damame de Martrait, del. et Sculpt._
_From an aquatint printed in colours lent by Israel Solomons_
On the 9th February, 1807, the Grand _Sanhedrin_ assembled at the
Grand Synagogue in Paris under the Presidency of _Rabbi_ David
Sintzheim (1745‒1812) of Strasburg. Service was read in _Hebrew_,
French and Italian; an excellent discourse was delivered by the
President in the first-named language. After his discourse he took
a scroll of the Law from the Ark and blessed the Assembly, and then
recited a prayer for the Emperor, the glory of his arms, and the
return of peace. From the Synagogue the Assembly adjourned to the
Hôtel de Ville, where, after appropriate speeches from the most
distinguished members, the Committee appointed by the late First
Consul laid before the _Sanhedrin_ a general plan of organization
for Mosaic worship, consisting of twenty-seven articles. According to
this plan a Consistory and Synagogue were to be established in each
Department containing 2000 Jews; those of the persuasion who intended
to reside in France were to announce their intention to the Consistory
within three months of their arrival on French territory; there was to
be a Central Consistory in Paris, consisting of five persons, of whom
three were to be _Rabbis_; and none were to be appointed _Rabbis_ who
were not naturalized in France or in the Kingdom of Italy. The
functions of the _Rabbis_ were to be:――
1. To give instruction in religious matters.
2. To inculcate the precepts contained in the decisions of the Grand
_Sanhedrin_.
3. To preach complete obedience to the laws, and particularly to
those enjoining the defence of the country, and above all, to exert
themselves every year during the time of conscription, from the first
summons to the complete carrying out of the law, in exhorting their
followers to conform to that measure.
4. To impress the need for military service upon the Jews as a sacred
duty, and to explain to them that so long as they devoted themselves
to that service, their religion would give them a dispensation from
such laws and customs as were incompatible with it.
5. To preach in the Synagogues, and to recite the prayers which were
offered up for the Emperor and the Imperial Family.
6. To solemnize marriages and give divorces.
On the 12th February the _Sanhedrin_ met again formally and commenced
its deliberations as to the plan of organization. During the ensuing
March the Deputies from Holland, Moses Solomon Asser (1754‒1826),¹
Moses Leman (1785‒1832), the learned Polish Jew, Juda Litvak
(1760‒1836), and the delegates of Frankfort-on-the-Main were admitted
into the _Sanhedrin_, and declared, in the name of their constituents,
that they would adhere to the doctrinal decisions of the great
_Sanhedrin_ of France and Italy.² The President answered both
delegations in _Hebrew_, congratulating them upon their resolutions,
and also the Assembly on having them in its midst, and himself
on having to answer coreligionists from a community so highly
distinguished for its piety, and now governed by a just and liberal
Prince, from whom the friends of humanity had everything to hope
and expect. In brief, he considered himself fortunate in having to
congratulate the Deputies of a country in which equal participation
in the common rights of men had long since been granted to all the
inhabitants, including the _Israelites_, who were quite as industrious
as the best of the citizens. The President afterwards gave a discourse
in French, which made a most favourable impression on the Assembly,
and offered them the opportunity of expressing their gratitude to
the great man whom Providence had chosen to be the instrument of its
blessings and its miracles. He expressed the most sanguine hopes as
to the salutary influence which that august Assembly and its labours
would have upon the future destiny of the Jews. Having expressed
sentiments of lasting devotion to all his colleagues, who had been
convoked by the voice of this great man, from the Pyrenees to the
borders of the Maine, and from the shores of the Adriatic to the
Zuyder Zee, to form a religious Assembly unparalleled in modern
history, and having done justice to the talents of the two Assessors,
he paid, in the name of the _Sanhedrin_, a tribute of homage to
the Commissaries of the Emperor, _MM._ le Comte Louis Matthieu Molé
(1781‒1855), Etienne Denis, Baron et Duc _de_ Pasquier (1767‒1862), le
Comte Joseph Marie Portalis (1778‒1858), and others, whose assiduity,
zeal and indulgence had so powerfully contributed to the success of
the common cause. _M._ Abraham Furtado (1756‒1816) afterwards proposed
a vote of thanks to the Chief of the Grand _Sanhedrin_, which was
adopted with acclamation. _M._ Michael Berr (1780‒1847) then read
the Procès Verbal, and the President concluded by announcing that the
sittings of the _Sanhedrin_ were closed.³
¹ Great-grandfather of the eminent Dutch Jurist, Tobias
Michael Carel Asser (1838‒1913).
² _The Times_ reported on the 17th January, 1807, from Warsaw,
the capital of Poland: “It is stated, that there are no
less than nine thousand _Jews_ in Warsaw. BUONAPARTE will
very probably confer on them the privilege of sending their
Representatives to the Jewish Sanhedrim, at Paris. At all
events, it is likely that his _Corsican Majesty_ will have
some business to settle with them. [Baron Alexander _de_]
Talleyrand (1776‒1839) is going there, and will want
_beaucoup d’argent_.”
³ Collection des Procès-Verbaux et Décisions du Grand
Sanhedrin,... Publiée par _M._ Diogène Tama. Paris ... 1807.
[B. M.]
Some historians have been inclined to regard the Paris _Sanhedrin_ as
a denial of Jewish nationality. This view is wrong, and no conception
of history could be more contrary to the facts. A careful study of the
literature of that time will show that the _Sanhedrin_ was inspired by
traditional Jewish ideas. One of the most prominent French Jews, who
was the first Jew to practise in France as a barrister, _M._ Michael
Berr, had sent a request to all princes and nations “to release the
Jews from bondage.” Another member of the _Sanhedrin_, _M._ Lipman
Cerf-Berr (1760‒1831), said in his public speech: “Let us forget our
origin! Let us no longer speak of Jews of Alsace, of Portugal, or of
Germany! Though scattered over the face of the earth, we are still
_one people, worshipping the same God_, and as our law commands, we
are to obey the laws of the country in which we live.”¹ This is not
the language of men who aim at assimilation and the disintegration of
their nationality. The ideas of these men are not to be confused with
what modern Jewish assimilation preaches. Modern Jewish assimilation
denies and rejects all Jewish “separatism” except on the religious
side. Consequently, it would not allow the Jew the right to forget
that he was in Alsace, in Portugal, and so on. According to the
assimilation doctrine, a Jew must be merely an Alsatian, or a
Portuguese, “of the Jewish persuasion.” The purpose of the _Sanhedrin_
was evidently quite different. The _Sanhedrin_ intended to reconstruct
European Jewry on French imperial lines, with a religious centre in
Paris. It therefore examined, with great care and minuteness, those
passages in the Bible and the _Talmud_ which showed that the general
laws of the Empire were binding on the Jews. On these premises was
based a declaration of loyalty given by united Jewry, and sanctioned
by the revival of the _Sanhedrin_, an ancient national institution.
¹ Collection des Actes de l’Assemblée des Israélites de France
et du royaume d’Italie,... Publiée par M. Diogène Tama.
Paris,... 1807 [B. M.] _pp._: 71, 124, 157, 158.
For Napoleon, however, the _Sanhedrin_ had another purpose, connected
with his imperial ambitions. He hoped that the Jews, living scattered
all over the world, would contribute to the strengthening of his
world-empire. Two years prior to the edict of 1806‒7 he had conceived
the idea of utilizing the special talents of his _Hebrew_ subjects
to that end. He had probably discovered that their financial skill
was unrivalled, that their commercial correspondence and intercourse
throughout Europe was more speedy and reliable than any other, and
that the ramifications of their business in various countries gave
them a great advantage over all their rivals. He intended to make
them his devoted co-workers in carrying out his universal political
plans, and with that end in view he contemplated granting them many
concessions. As, however, the political and legal position of the Jews
in France, as well as in other countries, was still insufficiently
defined, and numberless accusations were directed against their
religious principles and _Talmudic_ laws, he deemed it necessary to
lay the foundations of a more definite status. As a preliminary step
in this direction he summoned this meeting of the great _Sanhedrin_,
which was to consist of the most eminent and learned _Rabbis_ from
every part of France, as well as from adjacent countries over which
his influence extended. The purpose for which this convention was
avowedly called was to “convert into religious doctrines the answers
given by the assembly, and likewise those which may result from a
continuance of these sittings.” But these statements admit of various
interpretations: they may mean a confirmation as well as a reformation
of the old traditional laws. And while confirmation by a _Sanhedrin_
is unnecessary, reformation would appear impossible. The _Sanhedrin_
had no authority whatever to reform Judaism, and no intention of doing
so. No conservative Jew would accept the _Sanhedrin’s_ opinion in a
matter of religious tradition, and, on the other hand, “reformed” Jews
would not be satisfied with its decisions, or, not being bound by any
tradition, would not require _Rabbinical_ decisions at all.
In reality the patriotic Declaration of the _Sanhedrin_ was intended
to discredit and demolish the dangerous accusations against the
Jewish people and against the teachings of Judaism. It is a mistake
to regard it, as some writers have done, as an indication of a desire
for the reform of Judaism or for assimilation. The statements of the
_Sanhedrin_ were in accordance with the traditional Jewish Law. Its
solemn declaration of loyalty and patriotism was not an innovation.
The fathers and grandfathers of the _Rabbis_ who made this declaration
were not less faithful and loyal to their Governments and to the
countries in which they lived than the _Rabbis_ of the _Sanhedrin_.
The Declaration was practically a new edition of the _Modaa Rabba_
printed as a preface to every treatise of the _Talmud_. This _Modaa_
declares for human solidarity, community of interests with other
nations and loyalty to the Government in the old traditional way;
the _Sanhedrin_ expresses identical views in modern language, in
accordance with the spirit of the new age and environment. The purport
of both is undoubtedly the same.
Illustration: _MEMBERS OF THE PARISIAN SANHEDRIN_
ABRAHAM FURTADO _Rabbi_ ABRAHAM _de_ COLOGNA
_Rabbi_ BARUCH GOUGUENHEIM _Rabbi_ EMMANUEL DEUTZ
_Rabbi_ J. DAVID SINZHEIM _Rabbi_ JACOB MEYER
_From rare engravings lent by Israel Solomons_
Far from being a natural product of internal Jewish development, the
_Sanhedrin_ was a governmental affair intended to organize Jewry in
the new world-empire. But it remained an episode, because Napoleon’s
attitude towards the Jews was, generally speaking, far from consistent.
At one time he offered them _Jerusalem_; at another he was inclined
to transport _Jerusalem_ to Paris. Some time before the _Sanhedrin_
assembled, he seemed to be vexed with the Jews――a feeling of a
temporary character, which was probably the reflex of disappointment
in his far-reaching plans. On other occasions he showed exceptional
kindness to Jewish soldiers and other Jews.¹
¹ See _Napoléon et les soldats juifs, par Petit de Lagare_,
p. 29.
All these facts combined lead to the inference that the Jewish
problem had often engaged his attention. He seems, like his adherents,
to have wavered as to the acceptance of the idea of the Restoration
of _Israel_ or of that of Assimilation, but finally embraced the
doctrines of the Sanhedrin, which could be applied easily to the small
Jewish population in France. The elimination not only of the Jews of
Asia and Africa, but also of the Jews in other European countries,
from the Jewish problem in France, caused by the failure of great
schemes of conquest, necessarily narrowed the scope of the Jewish
problem and deprived it of its former grandeur.
CHAPTER XVI.
ENGLISH OPINION ON THE _SANHEDRIN_
English opinion on the _Sanhedrin_――F. D. Kirwan――Abraham
Furtado――Rev. James Bicheno――The Declaration of the
_Sanhedrin_ and English comment――M. Diogène Tama――The Prince
_de_ Ligne.
COMING back to English history, we now propose to trace the impression
produced in this country by Bonaparte’s Palestine Appeal of 1798 and
the Proclamation of a _Sanhedrin_ in 1807.
English opinion on this point was quite clear. No objections were
ever raised to the restoration of the Jewish nation to Palestine: this
idea had been cherished in England for centuries. But English opinion
was opposed to its becoming a strategic or political instrument in
the hands of an ambitious conqueror. Moreover, that opinion was not
inclined to separate the idea of the Restoration of _Israel_ from that
of the emancipation of the Jews. Thus the _Sanhedrin_ was considered
merely a tentative preliminary step towards Restoration, and the
Declaration made by that body against Jewish national aspirations
produced an impression of surprise and bewilderment. This Declaration
was not, in fact, intended to be a denial of Jewish nationality in its
ethical, historical, cultural or religious aspect: it was rather an
avowal of political loyalty. Yet such a Declaration, expressed as it
was in exaggerated terms, was calculated to surprise and puzzle the
genuine friends of the Jews in England, and give rise to
misunderstanding.
F. D. Kirwan, the English translator of the _Parisian Sanhedrim_,
published in French by the French-Jewish editor, M. Diogène Tama
(Appendix xlii), says, in his preface: “... The ultimate views which
Bonaparte may have on the Jewish nation are, to this day, involved
in obscurity; while the supposed advantages he so pompously conferred
on them may reasonably be called in question. When we consider that
the Jewish population of France and Italy is not calculated, by the
deputies themselves, at more than one hundred thousand souls (a small
number indeed when compared with the population of those countries),
we are at a loss to see what great advantages could immediately result
to Bonaparte from the Jews embracing zealously the profession of arms.
We well know that his gigantic plans of ambition rest on the laws
of conscription; but the Jews are already liable to them; they can
hardly escape their excessive rigour; and even the whole of the Jewish
youth, of the requisite age, would, in point of number, make but a
contemptible reinforcement to the immense armies of France.
“These exhortations to embrace the profession of arms, so zealously
repeated by the leading members of the French-Jews, are besides,
always coupled with strong recommendations to follow mechanical trades
and husbandry; in short, those professions without which _a nation
cannot exist by itself_, but which are not more particularly useful
than any others to a small given number of people, who consider _as
their country_ an Empire in which these professions abound.
“We find these same recommendations strongly inforced in the answer
of M. Furtado to the commercial Jews of Frankfort, who hardly can have
a choice of employment. ‘We have,’ says he, ‘too many merchants and
bankers among us, and too few artificers and husbandmen,――and, above
all, too few soldiers’: but if their _countrymen_ thoroughly fill
these branches of employment, what necessity is there for having
husbandmen, artificers, and soldiers _of their own_?
“The Jewish deputies say that Bonaparte conceived the idea of their
_regeneration_, or their _political redemption_, in the land of
Egypt and on the _banks of the Jordan_. This we doubt not; and though
we are almost ashamed to hazard the extravagant supposition, we
feel a conviction that his gigantic mind entertains the idea of
re-establishing them in Palestine, and that this forms a part of his
plan respecting Egypt, which he is well known never to have abandoned.
“No one will contend that this idea is too wild for his conception;
it is, on the contrary, perfectly consonant with his love for
extraordinary, dazzling enterprises; he acts in this even with more
than his usual foresight, by attempting to prepare the Jews for
the new situation he intends for them. It is with this view that he
encourages them to follow those professions which are necessary for
men forming a distinct nation in a land of their own; for certainly,
a body wholly composed of merchants and traders could never exist as
such....
“The answer to the sixth question, by which the French Jews
acknowledge France as their country, without any restriction whatever,
is a still more heinous dereliction of the tenets of the Mosaic law;
for they give up, by it, the hope of the expected Messiah, and of the
everlasting possession of the promised land of Canaan, which they deem
a part of the sacred covenant between God and His chosen people.
“While we thus inculpate the Jewish deputies, it cannot be expected
that we shall lay too great a stress on the fulsome and frequently
impious flattery which characterizes all their productions....
“But flattery is the opiate of the guilty conscience; it sooths the
pangs of remorse;...”¹
¹ Transactions of the Parisian _Sanhedrim_ ... London, 1807.
_pp._ (iii.), vii.‒ix., xv.
A similar view was expressed with considerable eloquence by the
Rev. James Bicheno (1751‒1831), of Newbury, an ♦Anabaptist minister
who attained some distinction in his day through his works on the
Prophecies, and of others on various subjects (Appendix xliii). He
was the author of _The Restoration Of The Jews: The Crisis Of All
Nations;..._ 1800¹ (Appendix xliv).
♦ “Anapabtist” replaced with “Anabaptist”
¹ A Second Edition, “To which is now prefixed a brief history
of the Jews,” was published in 1807.
This book is a valuable contribution to Christian pro-Zionist
literature. The author is a great believer in the future of _Israel_
and of Palestine, but he looks upon the problem mainly from a
religious point of view, though he does not demand any conversion
of Jews prior to their Restoration. Many of his conclusions are
unacceptable, and others are incapable of proof, but even these
are useful in so far as they may “stimulate the minds of rulers to
meditation, and thus suggest to them new aspects¹ and new ways of
inquiry”; and although there is little thought in his book, and some
of its main themes are not developed with completeness or accuracy,
the ingenuity which leads to so many suggestions, and the elegance
which groups them so artistically, give the book vivacity and
diversity. The author refers to the _Parisian Sanhedrim_, and accepts
the view of the English translator, F. D. Kirwan.
¹ _Ibid._, _pp._ 1‒63.
Illustration: NAPOLEON LE GRAND,
rétablit le culte des Israélites, le 30 Mai 1806.
_From a stipple engraving lent by Israel Solomons_
(‡ ♦text shown below)
_Une antique nation, autrefois l’unique dépositaire
des volontés du_ Très haut, _et gouvernée par la divine
législation de_ Moïse, _est dispersée depuis plus de_
dix-sept Siécles _sur la surface du globe. En rapport avec
tous les Peuples, elle ne se mêle avec aucun, et elle semble
exister pour voir passer devant elle le torrent des siécles
qui les entraîne. Un tel phénomene serait inexplicable, s’il
ne tenait qu’à l’ordre politique, car il était moralement
impossible que les Juifs pûssent longtems exister, malgré
toutes les vicissitudes et les persecutions dont ils furent
les victimes chez les différentes nations de la terre. Dans
combien de proscriptions ne furent-ils pas envelloppés!
Pour ne parler que de la France, qui ne sait les haines, les
mépris, les outrages, les confiscations, les bannissemens,
les supplices même qu’ils y ont endurés? rien de cruel,
rien de deshonorant ne leur a été épargné; de sorte que l’on
serait tenté de croire que nos aïeux ne les comptaient point
au nombre des humains. En vain quelques orateurs éloquens
s’élevèrent contre une si criante injustice, leur voix ne fut
point entendue, et les infortunés_ Israelites _paraissaient
à jamais condamnés à l’avilissement et à l’opprobre. Un
nouveau_ Cyrus _a paru, mais il a fait pour eux plus que
l’ancien. S’il n’a pas reconstruit leur temple, il leur a
donné une patrie et des loix protectrices de leur culte et
de leurs droits civils; en les rendant citoyens et membres de
la grande nation, il leur a rendu l’honneur; en leur donnant
des mœurs, il les a garantis pour jamais du mépris des ses
peuples. Pénétrés de reconnaissance pour de si précieux
bienfaits, les enfans_ d’Israel _se sont prosternés au
pied du trône du_ Grand Napoléon, _et les filles de_ Sion
_ont fait retentir les voûtes des temples de ces cantiques
célébres que répétaient les échos du_ Jourdain, _lors qu’au
retour de sa captivité le peuple_ Hébreu _célébrait les
miséricordes du_ Seigneur. _La gratitude des_ Israëlites
_français ne s’est pas bornée à de simples démonstrations,
ils prouvent chaque jour qu’ils sont dignes des faveurs du
Souverain par leur attachement à son auguste personne et par
leur soumission à ses loix._
_A Paris, au Bureau de l’Auteur des_ Fastes de la Nation
Française, M. Ternisien d’Haudricourt, _Rue de Seine N.º 27
F. Sᵗ. Germain._
♦ Shown as given in illustration without correction
“... If the _Sanhedrim_ were to consult only on what was domestic,
why invite the co-operation of all the Jews in Europe? The time was
not come for the design to be exposed at full length. What grand
scheme is developing, and whether Napoleon is devising the commercial
aggrandizement of France, and the ruin of the English interest in
the East, by the re-settlement of the Jews in their own land, time
will discover. But it needs but little discernment, when, besides
all this, the state of things both in Europe and in the East, and the
character of the extraordinary man who has taken this people under his
protection, are taken into consideration, to perceive, that something
is intended more characteristic of the vast grasp of Napoleon’s
ambition than that of squeezing out of the Jews a few millions of
livres....”
Bicheno concludes thus: “... it must be allowed by all serious minds,
... that the great question relative to the future fortunes of the
Jews, who, for so many ages, have been preserved as by a continued
miracle, possesses considerable interest: . .. that the Jews, after
their present long captivity, will be gathered from all nations, and
be again restored to their own country, and be made a holy and happy
people. That their restoration will be effected at a time of great and
general calamities.... That it is most likely they will be first put
in motion by some foreign power, and that this power is some maritime
one in these western parts of the world.... How long it is to the time
when ‘the dry bones of the House of _Israel_’ will begin to move, it
is impossible to say;... But although no one can say how near, or how
distant, the time may be, when God will fulfil his promises to the
Jewish nation; yet it is certain there never were so many reasons for
concluding it not to be very far off, as at present. We live in awful
times. We and our fathers have seen wars, but, since man learnt to
shed blood, there never was one similar to the present, in which the
nations are dashing each other to pieces.... Events the most alarming
follow each other in quick succession.... Palestine itself is becoming
the scene of contest; and that ferment, which has been productive of
such unexpected and awful catastrophes in Europe, has reached the
shores of Egypt and Syria.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, _pp._ 59‒60: 228‒230.
In conclusion, it may be pointed out that Bonaparte’s idea of the
restoration of the Jews was not quite new in France. Some suggestions
of the kind had been made in French literature before. Thus the Prince
_de_ Ligne¹ wrote, in his _Memoirs upon the Jews_, in 1797:
¹ Charles Joseph, Prince _de_ Ligne, was born in Brussels,
1735, and died in Vienna, 1814. He distinguished himself as
a general during the Seven Years’ War. He was an immensely
wealthy nobleman and a great traveller, and after the war
he settled at Vienna, where he was attached to the Imperial
Court, and became a friend and adviser of the Emperor
Joseph II. (1765‒1790). He addressed to the Emperor――who
was much interested in the reformation of the Jews and
granted them some measure of rights――a “Memorial about the
Jewish problem,” and suggested a scheme of a return of the
Jews to Palestine (Œuvres choisis, Paris et Genève, 1809).
“After having traced to the Christian states their duties and their
interests in regard to the amelioration of the condition of the Jews
of Europe, we may prophesy what will happen in case they ignore this
counsel.... If the Turks have a little common sense they will try
and attract the Jews to them in order to make them their political,
military and financial advisers, their police agents, their merchants,
in short to become initiated by their advisers into all wherein lies
the strength and weakness of the Christian states. Finally, the Sultan
will sell to them the Kingdom of _Judah_, where they would act better
than aforetimes.... The Jews who would have found again their country
would be compelled to make therein flourish the arts, industry,
agriculture and the commerce of Europe. _Jerusalem_, a horrible nest
at present (this was written in 1797), giving a heartache to the
pilgrims who come there now, would become a splendid capital. They
would rebuild the Temple of _Solomon_ upon its ruins. They would fix
the waters of the torrents of _Kidron_, which would supply canals for
circulation and exportation.”
CHAPTER XVII.
THE ZIONIST IDEA IN ENGLAND
The spirit of the time――Different currents――Thomas Witherby
――Dr. Joseph Priestley――Anti-Socinus, _alias_ Anselm Bayly
――John Hadley Swain――William Whiston――Bishop Robert Lowth
――Dr. Philip Doddridge――David Levi.
IN the early years of the nineteenth century religious ideas exercised
considerable influence on the English mind, and penetrated deeply
into the soul of the nation. Public opinion was, therefore, favourably
disposed towards Zionism, and prepared to accept it from the
religious point of view. But that was not the only point of view from
which Zionism was advocated and accepted. Zionism had two aspects,
corresponding to the two meanings expressed by the words “Restoration
of _Israel_.” Those words sometimes denoted simply the tendency
towards a Jewish national revival, an aspiration as elementary and
natural as any other of the kind; at other times the idea of the
“Restoration of _Israel_” was connected with the realization of
religious prophecies, and it was held that Judaism or Christianity
(according to the point of view) was to be glorified by the
resettlement of Jews in Palestine. As religion, and especially
the Bible, was one of the most potent agencies in the formation
of political and moral theories in England, it came about that the
history of the Zionist idea was interwoven with that of religious
opinions. But, on the other hand, it is impossible to overlook the
influence of nationalist ideas which supported the Zionist cause
from another point of view, and were expressed in a different tone
and spirit. While on the one hand religious imagination gave to
the conception the richness and warmth that belong to sentiment,
♦statesmanship contributed the clearness and firmness that reason
alone can give.
♦ “statemanship” replaced with “statesmanship”
Every keen student of the literature of that epoch concerning
Zionism will readily notice that there were two different currents of
thought. We will refer only to one writer who was altogether averse
to conversionism, yet adopted the Zionist view――Thomas Witherby
(1760‒1820). He was a London solicitor of repute, who after his
retirement lived at Enfield and took up the study of political and
social problems. He wrote _An Attempt to Remove Prejudices Concerning
the Jewish Nation_ (Appendix xlv), and was opposed on some important
points to Mr. Bicheno’s prophecies (Appendix xlvi), but, essentially,
shared the latter’s opinions concerning the rights of the Jewish
nation. He was the first English author who dealt with the imaginary
incompatibility of Jewish citizenship with Jewish national claims to
Palestine. He confessed that prejudices against the Jews, though not
as vigorous then as they had been in times gone by, were still very
strong. He admitted “the sad conduct of Christians against Jews”;
he praised “the Jewish sincerity and their attachment _to their
nationality_ and religion,” and on those grounds he defended the claim
of the Jews’ citizenship. “Bad Jews would be bad citizens; good Jews
would be good citizens.” According to his view, the just demand for
equality of rights for the Jews does not conflict with the claim of
the Jewish nation to a land of its own, in which he decidedly believed.
We may let him speak for himself:
“Previous to the great and most conspicuous return of the Jews to
their own land there will be a partial restoration of many of them to
their land, which will probably be effected by the Protestant powers
who may renounce their prejudices against them, and see that the
non-acceptance of the Christian doctrines is not the bar to their
restoration to the favour of God.”
He recognized both the right of the Jews to decide for themselves in
matters affecting the preservation of the race, and the independent
validity of the considerations which lead to the recognition of Jewish
rights in all countries. It was his opinion that while humanity and
justice must refuse to recognize anything in the laws of any country
which was at variance with the principle of equality, they should be
the more ready to admit the higher claim of the Jewish nation to a
home of its own.
Witherby stood, then, for the Restoration of _Israel_ as well as for
Jewish Emancipation. There can be no stronger and more convincing
protest against the fallacious assumption of the irreconcilability of
Zionism and Emancipation than Witherby’s interesting and instructive
pamphlet. His ideal――a noble and statesmanlike ideal――was to do
justice to those Jews who lived in the country, and accordingly formed
an integral part of the organism of the State, working like others
for the prosperity and safety of the realm. Equally he considered
it a sacred duty of humanity to enable this ancient and disinherited
nation to rebuild a central home for those of its members who saw the
necessity of such a home, and had the inclination to go there. The
policy of the State towards the Jews was to be based on these broad
principles. Witherby was a man of practical sense and clear sight; he
stated clearly and forcibly the anomalies of the Jewish position, and,
unhampered by petty prejudices, sought earnestly for a solution of the
Jewish problem in its entirety.
Illustration:
_Rev._ JAMES BICHENO DAVID LEVI
_Rev._ WILLIAM WHISTON
_Dr._ JOSEPH PRIESTLEY _President_ JOHN ADAMS
In concluding this part of the review of the Zionist idea in Christian
England, we may mention the name of Dr. Joseph Priestley (1733‒1804).
Dr. Priestley was an eminent English philosopher, theologian, and
chemist. Though not a conversionist in the true sense of the term,
he was nevertheless somewhat influenced by that point of view. He was
assisted by the Rev. Anselm Bayly (1719‒1794), LL.D., Sub-Dean of His
Majesty’s chapels, _alias_ Anti-Socinus, and John Hadley Swain. In
his _Letters to the Jews_ (Appendix xlvii) and in _A Comparison of the
Institutions of Moses ... And An Address to the Jews on the present
state of the World_ (Appendix xlviii) he threw his arguments into a
series of hypothetical syllogisms, the only defect in which is that
his premises could hardly be proved. Yet the stress which he laid
on the acknowledgment of _Israel’s_ dignity atones for the sophistry
of the argument. Having cast a good idea in the stereotyped mould of
conversionism, he seems to have expected that a great impression would
be produced upon the Jews; but, naturally, his conversionist methods
evoked a storm of protest.
He found a strong opponent in David Levi (1742‒1808), a _Hebraist_ and
well-known author of books dealing with Jewish theology and ritual.
In his controversies with believers and non-believers David Levi
attempted to show that the divine mission of the prophets was fully
established by the present dispersion of the Jews. He published a
reply――_Letters to Dr. Priestley, in answer to those he addressed
to the Jews_; London, 1787 (Appendix xlix)――in which the orthodox
standpoint of passive, religious Zionism is defined in the following
terms: “And, as all the calamities that were to befall our nation,
in consequence of our transgressing the Law, as foretold by that
great prophet, and divine legislator, _Moses_, have been fulfilled in
all respects; consequently, those great and glorious promises, also
foretold by the same prophet, must likewise have their full completion.
“But the exact time of this accomplishment is not known to any, save
the eternal God Himself;... These prophecies, Sir, are our consolation
in this long, and dreadful captivity, and have been our support,
in enabling us to bear up against the many grievous and miserable
persecutions, we have suffered....” (_pp._ 2‒3). In this way Levi
withdraws Messianism altogether from human experience and the
operation of the ordinary laws of thought.
On the other hand, William Whiston (1667‒1752),¹ Bishop Robert Lowth
(1710‒1787)² and Dr. Philip Doddridge (1702‒1751),³ supported the idea
of a speedy restoration of the Jews, and, with the exception of the
liberal-minded Whiston, adopted the conversionist view. There was,
unfortunately, too much hasty and captious objection on the one hand,
and of settled and inveterate prejudice on the other; too strong a
tendency to lose sight of the broader features of the main question
in the eagerness to single out particularly salient points of attack.
Nevertheless, the steady progress of the Zionist idea is unmistakable
on both sides of the controversy. Regardless of all these polemical
discussions, public opinion began to understand that Zionism was not
opposed to and did not interfere with the Christian Millennium or the
Jewish _Messiah_, but was simply a definite conception of the way in
which humanity has to prepare for the realization of the great ideal.
¹ The Literal Accomplishment of Scripture Prophecies.....
IV. Natural Preparations ... for the Restoration of the
Jews,... By Will. Whiston, M.A. ... London: ... MDCCXXIV.
² Isaiah, A New Translation; With a preliminary dissertation
and notes, critical, philological, and explanatory. By
Robert Lowth, D.D. ... Lord Bishop of London.... London:...
MDCCLXXVIII.
³ The Works of the Rev. P. Doddridge, D.D. Volume viii.... The
Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans;... Leeds:... 1805.
CHAPTER XVIII.
LORD BYRON
The Biblical drama “Cain”――Byron and the Bible――The _Hebrew
Melodies_――A poet and a hero――The Hon. Douglas Kinnaird――Isaac
Nathan――John Braham――Lady Caroline Lamb――Sir Walter Scott
――Dr. John Gill――Dr. Henry Hunter――The Rev. John Scott――Mr.
Joseph Eyre.
AT that time the ideal aspirations of the Jewish nation found their
most forceful expression in English poetry. George Gordon Byron
(1788‒1824), the sixth Baron Byron, who was conversant with every
phase of human life, and touched every string of the divine lyre from
its faintest to its most powerful and heart-stirring tones, rivals
Milton, in his own sphere, in his noble and powerful Biblical drama
_Cain_. He was one of the greatest of English poets, and his genius,
like that of Milton, was penetrated with the aspirations of the
Bible.¹ Byron had seen much in his Eastern wanderings, and by his
_Hebrew Melodies_ had constituted himself in some sort the laureate
of Disraeli’s own race.² There is in his work an intensity of grief
and yearning, a vigour of thought combined with enchanting beauty of
imagination, a tenderness which make him comparable only to the sweet
_Hebrew_ Muse of _Jehudah Halevi_. Zionist poetry owes more to Byron
than to any other Gentile poet. His _Hebrew Melodies_, which are among
the most beautiful of his productions, have been translated several
times into _Hebrew_, and there are no lines more popular and more
often quoted than:
The wild dove hath her nest, the fox his cave,
Mankind their country, Israel but the grave.
which might well have been a Zionist motto. Byron was a poet and a
hero; the keynote of his character is to be found in the word “revolt.”
Whenever the cause of liberty was in danger, his entire being was
roused to indignation; this was the passion of his soul, and for this
he gave his life. This “Pilgrim of Eternity,”³ who died a martyr to
his zeal in the cause of the freedom of Greece, might perhaps have
been equally able to sacrifice his life for the freedom of Judæa,
had the deliverance of Judæa offered scope for a similar struggle in
his time. As it was he expressed the Jewish tragedy, not only in its
poetical but also in its political aspect.
¹ “The Pilgrim Poet: Lord Byron of Newstead.” By Albert
Brecknock ... Illustrated ... London ... 1911, _p._ 61.
“Old Nanny” often spoke of the reverence and love Lord
Byron had for his Bible, and states that in his quieter
moments he could often be seen reading it. The verse Byron
wrote on the fly-leaf of his Bible was taught to William
Smith when quite a boy, by his mother. It runs as follows:――
Within this sacred volume lies
The mystery of all mysteries.
Oh! happy he of human race
To whom our God hath given grace――
To read, to learn, to watch, to pray,
To lift the latch, to force the way.
But better he had ne’er been born
Who reads to doubt, who reads to scorn.
² _Shelley_ (1792‒1822) _and Lord Beaconsfield_, by Richard
Garnett (1835‒1906). London: Printed For Private Circulation
Only. 8º. _pp._ 22. 1887, _p._ 9.
³ Adonais ... By Percy B. Shelley ... MDCCCXXI. Stanza xxx.,
line 3.
The genius of pure imagination is usually apt to evade the actual
facts of political and social life, and to wing its way into an ideal
world of abstractions. But some there are who derive their material
from the realities of social and national life, and transmute into
poetry the prevailing ideas of the actual world. The Pilgrim Poet
belonged to the latter category. He re-echoed the aspirations of his
time. Thorough understanding of and sincere compassion for the sorrows
of _Israel_ found eloquent expression in the English writings of
that epoch. At that time English writers were keen students of Jewish
history, and since the time of Vespasian (9‒79) Jewish history has
recorded only sorrowful scenes: it tells mainly of fugitives banished
to all quarters of the world, where they have sought asylum and have
been compelled to realize the unanimity of the desire to annihilate
them. “The Jews were a prey to innumerable calamities, and their
existence was little else than a protracted agony.” “The numberless
banishments, oppressions, exactions, persecutions, massacres and
miseries of all kinds, which they have undergone in almost every age
and nation from their first dispersion down to these latter times――the
various causes which have concurred to wipe off the very name and
memorial of them from the face of the earth ... are indescribable.”
This was what Byron read in the English literature of his time, and
what he realized in his wanderings. A homeless nation――that was the
fact which impressed itself most forcibly upon his mind.
Byron’s _Hebrew Melodies_, which were written at the suggestion of the
Honourable Douglas James William Kinnaird (1788‒1830),¹ were published
with music in January, 1815. Kinnaird was a man of considerable
ability and great intellectual attainments. He introduced a Jewish
composer, Isaac Nathan (1791‒1864), to Lord Byron about 1812. This
was the beginning of a friendship which ended only with the death of
the poet. Byron wrote the _Hebrew Melodies_ with the express purpose
of their being set to music by Nathan, who subsequently bought the
copyright of the work. Nathan decided to raise the means for the
publication of the _Melodies_ by subscription, and with that object
associated himself with his co-religionist, the melodious tenor John
Braham (1774?‒1856), who began his musical career as a chorister at
the Synagogue in Duke’s Place. Braham composed several operas, one
of them the _Americans_, containing that famous song, _The Death of
Nelson_; and achieved a European reputation in his time. On signing
the subscription list, Braham intimated his desire to assist in the
publication of the _Melodies_ and to sing them in public. Hence on the
title-page of the first edition, which was published in 1815, it was
recorded that the music was newly arranged, harmonized and revised by
I. Nathan and I. Braham.
¹ Fifth son of George (_ob._ 1805), seventh Baron Kinnaird of
Inchture.
The _Melodies_ consisted mainly of a selection of favourite airs
sung in connection with the observance of Jewish religious ceremonies
(Appendix l). It is interesting to observe that the music was reviewed
first. Some of the remarks respecting Hebrew music are worthy of note.
“In our very limited Review, it cannot be expected that we should
attempt to throw any new light on the dark subject of Hebrew musick....
Whether the present Melodies were ever performed by King David’s 4000
Levites, ... we shall not venture to decide: their age and originality
are left entirely to conjecture, having been ‘preserved by memory
and tradition alone.’ Some of them possess an interesting wildness of
character, which leaves no doubt as to their real antiquity; and the
Editors assure us that they have preserved as much of this feature as
the rhythm of written musick and the adaptation of the words, would
permit.”¹ The Literary Review of the same Magazine devotes a very few
lines to a criticism of the poems: “To say that these _Melodies_ are
Lord Byron’s, is to pronounce them elegant. We select the following
Poem, in addition to that already given in Part I., _p._ 450” (_i.e._
“I saw thee weep”). There follows the poem “Saul.”²
¹ _Gentleman’s Magazine_, June, 1815, _p._ 539.
² _Ibid._, August, _p._ 141.
More light is thrown on the subject of Byron’s attitude to the
Jewish people and the Zionist idea in Nathan’s _Fugitive Pieces and
Reminiscences of Lord Byron_ (Appendix li). In a note (_p._ 24) to
“Oh! Weep for those,” Nathan writes: “Throughout the composition of
these melodies, it will be observed by the attentive reader that Lord
Byron has exhibited a peculiar feeling of commiseration towards the
Jews. He was entirely free from the prevalent prejudices against that
unhappy and oppressed race of men. On this subject, he has frequently
remarked, that he deemed the existence of the Jews, as a distinct
race of men, the most wonderful instance of the ill-effects of
persecution....” That a period of 1800 years should have elapsed, and
that these people should still preserve their own religion, their laws,
and their customs, in defiance of ecclesiastical and civil oppression,
does indeed seem astonishing; but less so, when the effect of his
Lordship’s observation is sufficiently understood. On one occasion
he remarked, “unfortunate men, surrounded by enemies among whom they
are compelled to live; oppressed, scorned, and outcast: condemned
as criminal, because they cannot succumb to their oppressors,...” In
another note (_p._ 61) contributed to the poem, “From the last hill
that looks on thy once holy dome.” _On the day of the Destruction of
Jerusalem by Titus_, Nathan says: “In the composition of the foregoing
stanzas, he professed to me, that he had always considered the fall
of Jerusalem, as the most remarkable event of all history; for (in his
own words), ‘who can behold the entire destruction of that mighty pile;
the desolate wanderings of its inhabitants, and compare these positive
occurrences with the distant prophecies which foreran them, and be an
infidel?’”
The authenticity of Nathan’s co-operation is beyond question. Nathan
was a composer of acknowledged ability, and a writer on various
subjects. He was born at Canterbury, Kent, and early in life was
sent to Cambridge to study Hebrew and the classical languages. Lady
Caroline Lamb (1785‒1828) was among Nathan’s friends, and wrote poetry
for him to set to music. Sir Walter Scott (1771‒1832), was also an
admirer of Nathan’s Jewish musical productions.
Enthusiasm for the revival of _Hebrew_ music was characteristic
of the time, and was partly due to the prevailing sympathy for the
Jewish people, for their sufferings and their hopes (Appendix lii).
If _Hebrew Melodies_ were written at the suggestion of Kinnaird, this
must not be taken to mean that poems like _Hebrew Melodies_ can be
written merely in response to the suggestion of a personal friend:
they must be the product of a certain aspiration.
At the same time, the idea of the Restoration of _Israel_ made
considerable headway in other quarters. Rev. Dr. John Gill (1697‒1771)
remarks that “the Protestant Princes will be assisting the Jews in
replacing them in their own land.”¹ Rev. Dr. Henry Hunter (1741‒1802)
says: “It is indeed now pretty generally agreed among the learned,
that we are warranted by the Scriptures to expect ... their return
to their own land;...”²
¹ A Body of Doctrinal Divinity;... By John Gill, D.D. ...
London:... M.DCC.LXIX. Vol. ii., _p._ 715.
² The Rise, Fall, and Future Restoration of the Jews.... By
the late Dr. Hunter,... London:... 1806.
The Rev. John Scott (1777‒1834), speaking of the preservation of the
Jews, asks: “But wherefore are the Jews thus preserved? Is it only
as monuments of divine vengeance, and to bear testimony to others of
blessings which they shall never taste themselves? ‘Hath God’ for ever
‘cast off His people’? ‘Have they stumbled that they might fall,’ to
rise no more? God forbid! All the facts before us, and particularly
their preservation, might well raise hopes in our minds that mercy was
still in reserve for _Israel_.”¹
¹ The Destiny of Israel:... By the Rev. John Scott, A.M.,...
Hull:... 1813. _pp._ 17‒18.
The “Advertisement” to Extracts from a work on the Prophecies, by Mr.
Joseph Eyre, informs us that “The design in re-publishing them is to
call the attention of Christians to those Prophecies of the Scriptures,
which have a primary reference to the Jewish people, and which predict
events concerning them that have not yet been fulfilled, and promise
blessings to them of which they have not yet been partakers.”¹
¹ Extracts from a work, entitled Observations upon the
Prophecies, relating to the Restoration of the Jews. By
Joseph Eyre, Esq. Originally published in the year 1771....
London: ... 1823.
“Civis” writes: “With respect to the restoration ... permit me to
refer your readers to Mr. (George Stanley) Faber’s (B.D.) (1773‒1854)
work on that subject, and also to _The Sacred Calendar of Prophecy_,
1828. The reasons ... are ... satisfactory and convincing. Even if
there were no other passage to prove it, the one where God declares
that it shall in future times be said ‘The Lord liveth, who brought up
and who led the children of Israel out of the north country, and from
all the countries whither I had driven them, and they shall dwell in
their own land,’ would, I think, be sufficient to prove it; because
it seems too minute and circumstantial to admit of a merely figurative
interpretation; and, indeed, what can it be a figure of? What is the
reality which the figure is supposed to represent? I would ask, if
a prophecy were intended to declare a literal restoration, what more
plain and forcible terms could have been made use of? We should never
resort to figures except where the nature of the subject, or common
sense, imperatively requires it.”¹
¹ Christian Observer, 1838, _p._ 443.
To this period belong the following articles on the
Restoration of the Jews in _The Christian Observer_ (Church
of England):
1838 May, _pp._ 286‒7
1838 July, _p._ 443
1838 August, _pp._ 518‒520
1838 September, _pp._ 554‒556
1838 November, _pp._ 665‒670
1841 January, _pp._ 2‒4
1841 May, _pp._ 271‒273
“Paulinus” taking the opposite view, says: “In some circles a writer
is almost unchristianized if he does not follow the opinion therein
current ... the literal restoration of the Jews to Palestine; in
favour of which there is a much more general concurrence of opinion
than in any other of the particulars.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, 1838, _p._ 286.
CHAPTER XIX.
THE PALMERSTON PERIOD
The Conflict between Turkey and Egypt――Mahmud II., _Sultan_ of
Turkey――Mehemet Ali, Pasha of Egypt――The victory of Nezib――The
Turkish Fleet――Wellington’s policy――The Eastern Question
――Wellington’s opinion――The London Conference, 1840――The
Insurrection in Syria and the Lebanon――An Ultimatum――The
Capture of Acre by the British Fleet, 1840――Schemes of
annexation.
THE Palmerston period, 1837‒52, was a great time in England for the
idea of the Restoration of _Israel_. It was a time of stirring events
in the East, events which raised some of the most momentous problems
that can engage the statesman’s mind. The English people watched from
day to day with the deepest interest the progress of annexations, of
conquest, of negotiations, which they believed would go far to decide
the future development and destinies of the greatest nations of the
world. The European horizon was so disturbed that a great political
authority of the day is said to have declared that “if an angel from
heaven were in the Foreign Office he would not preserve peace for
three months.”
The facts are sufficiently familiar to most readers. But it will be
necessary for our purpose to go over the oft-trodden ground, which
must be done rapidly.
In 1839 a tremendous crisis broke out between Turkey and Egypt as the
result of a series of conflicts and struggles. In the brief space of
eight years (1831‒39) Mehemet Ali (1769‒1849) had contrived to overrun
the whole of Syria, having organized a fleet and an army beyond the
legitimate necessities of his government, by acts of tyranny and
oppression against the very people for whose defence he pretended
to have raised them; and he forced these wretched people, whom he
was bound to protect, to join him in rebellion, thus fastening more
firmly the chains with which he had shackled them. Having concentrated
100,000 men on the Turkish frontier, he at once threw off the mask
and intimated to the European consuls his intention of declaring his
independence unless his demand for the government of Syria for life
and of Egypt _en hérédité_ were conceded.
He struck the first blow, and was very successful during the first
stage of the war. The victory of Nezib (24 June, 1839) was the last of
his triumphs. The new army, which he had taken pains to organize, was
only half trained. Still his power was unshaken, and his advantage was
not confined to the land. The Turkish admiral, beaten by Mehemet Ali,
and fearing for his life if he returned to Constantinople, determined
on an act of treachery, which would ingratiate him with the victorious
ruler of Egypt. He took the Turkish fleet, with some 20,000 men aboard,
to Alexandria, and surrendered it to Mehemet Ali.
The surprise and astonishment which the suddenness of these
occurrences caused did not allow English diplomacy much time to
consider. It was necessary to intervene at once, unless the Ottoman
Empire was to be broken up. Palmerston determined to carry out
Wellington’s (1769‒1852) policy, and to reduce the apparently
invincible Pasha to “a state of obedience and subordination to the
_Sultan_” (1808‒1839), Mahmud II. (1785‒1839). The difficulties seemed
formidable, but Palmerston’s conception of the diplomatic situation
was unerring. He scouted the idea of actual intervention on Egyptian
soil. The lessons of the battle of the Nile and of the earlier siege
of Acre had not been thrown away upon a survivor of the struggle with
Napoleon Bonaparte. A different strategic plan was adopted: a British
squadron was to compel the evacuation of Syria by Mehemet Ali.
The imminent perils and dangers which surrounded this undertaking
from the political point of view were evident. A great international
problem arose. The solution of those important and complex problems
which include what is usually called the “Eastern Question” had long
occupied a considerable place in the field of international politics,
especially in England. There was scarcely one, perhaps, of the more
eminent English diplomatists who had not distinguished himself in this
department in a greater or a less degree; and there was scarcely an
aspirant to foreign political activity and distinction who had not
thought it one of the surest paths to his ambition to come forward
as a champion in this arena. It must, however, be borne in mind that
this question was continually taking on a new form, and accordingly
opinions and interests were always changing. In 1839‒40 controversy
about this question attained its greatest intensity, and the
interested powers were in a position of the darkest perplexity.¹
¹ Wellington wrote in 1829 to the Earl of Aberdeen: (1784‒1860)
“... it cannot be doubted that the measures completed
by this Treaty of Peace must encourage other nations of
Christians to endeavour to attain the same advantages by
similar means. The other Powers of Europe and all parties
in Europe must view the Treaty of Peace in the same light
as we do ... they must all consider it in the same light
as the death-blow to the independence of the Ottoman Porte,
and the forerunner of the dissolution and extinction of
its power” (_The Eastern Question: Extracted from the
Correspondence of the late Duke of Wellington_, London,
1877, _p._ 40).
After the traitorous defection of the Turkish fleet to the side of
Mehemet Ali, five great Powers of Europe officially intimated to the
Porte that they had determined to discuss and settle together the
embarrassing Eastern question, and ultimately a Conference was called
together in London, at which the Ambassadors of these Powers were to
meet with full authority from their Governments to bring the matter to
a definite issue. It appeared throughout that France was favourable to
Mehemet Ali’s ambitious projects, whilst England had decided to compel
him to evacuate Syria forthwith and to restore the fleet before it
would entertain any proposition of his to be allowed to retain Egypt
in hereditary possession, or any part of Syria during his lifetime.
The negotiations in London dragged on slowly; month after month passed
by, and the high contracting parties came to no definite decision.
Everybody in England was anxious that Great Britain should play an
important rôle in the Eastern Question. The state of the East had
become utterly corrupt and hopeless. Great Britain considered that it
was in its interest to maintain the integrity of the Ottoman Empire.
What was meant by this principle? Great Britain as an Asiatic not
less than a European Power was interested to see that the Ottoman
Empire was made thoroughly independent and enabled to progress by
consolidating and developing its provinces. As to Syria, everybody in
England was aware that its possession was essential for the security
of the richest and most important provinces of Asiatic Turkey, to
which it was the military key. This was sufficiently demonstrated by
the events which actually took place.
On the 25th May, 1840, an insurrection of an alarming character broke
out in Syria and _The Lebanon_ among the Druses and Christians against
the Emir and the Egyptian Government. On the 15th of July, 1840, an
event occurred which brought the affairs of the Levant to a crisis.
A convention was signed in London between England, Russia, Austria
and Prussia, without the concurrence of France, whereby an ultimatum
was delivered to Mehemet Ali, calling on him to evacuate Palestine.
The four Powers demanded of him, first, a prompt submission to the
_Sultan_ (1839‒1861) Abdul Medjid (1823‒1861) as his Sovereign;
secondly, the immediate restoration of the Turkish fleet; thirdly,
a prompt evacuation of Syria, Adana, Candia, Arabia, and the Holy
Cities. Moreover the four Powers declared the ports of Syria and Egypt
to be in a state of blockade. Consequently Acre, the fortress which
had been the great depot and arsenal of Mehemet Ali, and which in
1799 had withstood Bonaparte after the twelfth assault, when he had
been defeated by Admiral Sir William Sidney Smith (1764‒1840) with a
few sailors and marines and a force of undisciplined Turks, was now
successfully bombarded by the English Admiral, Sir Robert Stopford
(1768‒1847), and placed in possession of the _Sultan’s_ troops. The
fortress, which was considered invulnerable, surrendered on the 3rd of
November, 1840. _Jaffa_ surrendered to the new garrison of Acre, a few
days after the fall of the fortress. On the 3rd of November the happy
tidings of the fall of Acre were brought to Constantinople, and the
Government issued orders for public rejoicings; on the 19th of that
month the Turkish Governor was officially informed that the garrison
and inhabitants of _Jerusalem_ had given allegiance to the Porte.
The question of the future of Palestine now arose. Was Palestine
simply to be left to Turkey or was Great Britain to secure some
important places? The prevalent tendency in English opinion was in
favour of the annexation of Acre and Cyprus. Acre, in the hands of
England, or of any other nation commanding the sea, could be made
really impregnable, and Cyprus seemed also to be of great strategic
importance, especially to England. The reasons for such an annexation
were palpable. England and her Allies had not merely rescued Syria,
they had absolutely saved the whole Ottoman Empire. After the battle
of Nezib had given the defiles of Mount Taurus to Mehemet Ali, nothing
could have obstructed the rebels’ triumphant march to Constantinople.
The Allies had thus rendered to the Ottoman Empire the greatest
possible service that one State can receive from another. Gratitude
alone might have suggested a more valuable acknowledgment of this
service than Acre and Cyprus; but as the service had been rendered at
some risk, and at enormous expense, justice demanded that it should
be paid for; and nobody could suggest that it would be paid for too
dearly by a strip of territory which was of little value to Turkey,
though useful to England, and which in British hands would assuredly
supply the Porte with a fortress that could never be established
in its own territory. Acre and Cyprus garrisoned by British troops
would give Turkey the surest protection. Attention was also called to
the fact that no spot in the world was associated with so many proud
recollections as Acre, the theatre of British gallantry from the
days of Richard _Cœur de Lion_ (1157‒1199) to those of Admiral Sir W.
Sidney Smith and Admiral Sir Robert Stopford. Another consideration
had great weight with English opinion. The possession of Acre would
open a road for the return of Biblical truth to the land from which
that truth had spread to the human race; and Englishmen would feel
guilty of sin if they failed to impress upon their Government the need
of seizing this glorious and blessed opportunity. To take, however,
the more utilitarian view of the matter, Great Britain, occupying
the impregnable position of Acre, would not be under the necessity
of seeking the freedom of the overland route to India from any other
Power. She would command it at all times. Acre in the hands of Great
Britain would be a perfect guarantee against revolts in Egypt or in
Syria, and would in fact ensure the Turkish Empire against the only
danger that could threaten it on the side of Asia.
The effects of an English settlement in Syria on the general interests
of mankind presented a more serious question. Syria and the adjacent
countries were in a worse state than they had been 2000 years ago.
While the deserts of America and Australasia had been regained for the
use of man, while India had been brought to peace and unity and its
worst superstitions had been modified, if not altogether extirpated,
by the influence of European civilization, man had given place to the
savage creatures of the wilderness in those countries from which all
that he knows of good, was originally derived. An English settlement
in Syria would begin the work of regeneration in the most venerable
and interesting country in the world. England would be to Syria and to
the adjacent countries all that she had been to India――the protector
of the weak, the common arbiter, the universal peacemaker. Her laws
and her liberties enable her to fulfil that function, her commercial
interests fit her to undertake it, while her wealth, her naval
supremacy and her colonial power furnish her with the means required
for the purpose. Why should any other power oppose her acquiring that
region? That its acquisition would add to her commercial resources
and to her defensive strength had to be conceded. But had no nation
ever before sought to increase her commercial resources and add to
her defensive strength by means in themselves legitimate, which would
not in any way infringe upon the rights or interests of others? The
advancement of the world in civilization and happiness must remain
for ever at a standstill, if each nation is to be held in check by
the jealousy of the others. This was the attitude of public opinion on
this question from the point of view of human progress and of British
interests.
CHAPTER XX.
THE SYRIAN PROBLEM
The conflicting interests of the Powers――Was the conflict
irreconcilable?――Public opinion――A new principle――The
independence of Syria――A neutral position――The Zionist idea
as the only solution――A practical proposition.
PUBLIC opinion had for a long time laboured under the impression
that the intricacy of the Eastern question was due much more to the
conflicting interests of the Powers engaged in its solution than to
any insurmountable barrier between them and the _Sultans_ Mahmud II.,
Abdul Medjid and Mehemet Ali. With France and Mehemet Ali on the
one side and the four European Powers on the other, it was evident
that war would have the most disastrous effect on the contending
parties. The question arose whether the interests of the parties
were irreconcilable, and whether it was not possible to devise an
arrangement acceptable to both sides and thus to avert war. Some
political leaders thought that they could settle the question, and
that it would be possible to adopt a policy sufficiently far-reaching
and just to satisfy the expectations of the five Powers.
It was common knowledge that the great dilemma in which Turkey and
Egypt found themselves had throughout hinged on the question of
Syria. Without the possession of Syria the power of Mehemet Ali became
insecure; with it he would be in a very strong position, because
Turkey could only exist by his sufferance. In fact, the possession
of Syria would give a tremendous advantage to either side.
The problem was therefore to enable each of the Governments to prevent
Syria from passing into the hands of the enemy. And there was only
one possible solution――namely, the establishment of an independent
state in Syria. The grounds for this conclusion may be stated in the
following series of propositions:
(1) That the _Sultan_, unassisted, was powerless to retain
Syria.
(2) That Egypt had no right to Syria, except in so far
as lawlessness and violence might make its possession
necessary.
(3) That Egypt had a right to independence, if she could
achieve it.
(4) That if Syria remained part of Turkey, the independence of
Egypt would be constantly menaced.
(5) That if Syria remained part of Egypt, the existence of
Turkey would be rendered insecure.
(6) That the insecure position of Turkey would endanger the
peace of Europe.
(7) That Syria, being a conquered kingdom, had the right to
regain her independence if she could.
(8) That by the existence of Syria as an independent state
both Turkey and Egypt would remain intact.
(9) That the neutral position of the new state would keep
both Turkey and Egypt in check, and prevent either from
becoming too powerful.
Mehemet Ali could not object to a solution on these lines. He would
be protected by the _Sultan_, Abdul Medjid, and would be at liberty
to extend his influence in other directions. But the _Sultan_,
having been paramount lord of Syria, might reasonably claim some
consideration for consenting to the independence of Syria. Who was
to pay this consideration?
It is at this point that we have to turn to the old idea of Zionism to
find the only just and natural solution. Bishop Newton’s commentaries,
Witherby’s moralisings, Byron’s poetry――to these lines of approach
to Zionism was now added the tendency of British politics. A hundred
times the promoters of the Zionist idea had been disheartened, a
hundred times they had taken it up again. Now political developments
offered the background for a new propaganda for Zionism. The
Restoration of _Israel_, an idea dear not only to the sentimentalist,
the essayist and the littérateur, but also to every believer in the
Bible and to every friend of liberty, had become an actual question of
the day.
If only the five European Powers could agree to settle the Eastern
question upon the basis of Syrian independence, the carrying out
of the details would be an easy matter. France would no doubt agree
to such an arrangement. The amount of the consideration required by
Turkey would be raised from the resources of Syria, augmented by a sum
to be contributed by the Jews. Their contribution might be looked upon
as consideration for their admission into Syria.
An arrangement of this character would satisfy all the parties
concerned. Mehemet Ali would become the hereditary Sovereign of Egypt.
France would be contented. The Jews would be virtually restored to
their land. The Syrians would gladly agree, as their country would in
this way achieve independence, while the Jews would help them to gain
this end.
From then onwards, the Jews would begin to immigrate into Syria from
every part of the world; they would carry in their train the apparatus
of civilization, and would form a nucleus for the creation of European
institutions. They would acquire and exercise the rights and duties
of citizenship in their own country, and would build up, under the
protection and auspices of the five European Powers, the government
and independence of the Turco-Syrian State. And from this change other
advantages also would accrue. Turkey would be relieved of the pressure
that had been destructive of her interests. The consideration that she
would receive for her consent would be the means of resuscitating her
energies and restoring her strength. It would enable her to push on
her reforms and again take her position as a powerful nation.
It must at once be admitted that the condition of Syria presented a
host of difficulties, on account of the division of the inhabitants
into a number of separate tribes. But this fact only proved the
necessity for the introduction of fresh material, with a view to
welding together all classes into one harmonious community. The
necessity of introducing fresh material into the social fabric of
Syria once admitted, it followed as a matter of course that the
immigration of the Jews into Syria would provide the most acceptable
material. The establishment of European institutions in Asia (so
far as they might be suitable) would follow, and in all probability
England would in that way find a new ally, whose friendship might
eventually prove of advantage to her in dealing with Eastern affairs.
CHAPTER XXI.
ENGLAND AND THE JEWS IN THE EAST
Damascus and Rhodes, 1840――The anti-Jewish accusations――Jewish
opinion in England and France――Two views――The persecutions and
the Zionist idea――The difficulties of a Jewish initiative――Sir
W. R. W. Wilde.
AT that time an occurrence of a grave character troubled the Jews
in the East. The Jews resident at Damascus and Rhodes were subjected
in 1840 to cruel persecution on the false and atrocious charge that
they used human blood in the celebration of the Passover. On the 7th
February a Catholic Priest named Father Thomas suddenly disappeared
from the quarter of Damascus where he resided. As he had last been
seen near the shop of a Jewish barber, the latter was seized and
examined, and finally subjected to torture. In his agony he accused
several of the principal Jews of having put Father Thomas to death.
Many of the Jews were immediately thrown into prison, and the most
revolting barbarities were inflicted upon them to induce them to
confess. An appeal was made to Mehemet Ali, the _Pasha_ of Egypt, to
put a stop to these horrors, and he issued peremptory instructions to
that effect, ordering that the matter should be investigated before
a tribunal composed of the European consuls specially delegated for
that purpose. At a later period of the year, the Jews of Rhodes were
accused of having abducted a Greek boy for the purpose of murdering
him, and using his blood at the Passover, but after a trial and a long
investigation the charge was pronounced to be false. In this case also
great barbarities had been inflicted, and the Porte, in order to show
its sense of the injustice done to the Jews, deposed the _Pasha_ of
Rhodes.
These events awakened _Israel_ from a long stupor. They stirred up
Jewish public opinion all over the world, and especially in England
and France. Like all persecutions, they served to accentuate Jewish
solidarity. The first thing to do was to save the innocent martyrs;
next to this immediate necessity the question arose how to prevent
similar attacks on Jewish life, and on the honour of Judaism. It
was necessary to raise a powerful protest against these abominable
accusations, to make representations to the Governments to protect
and to assist the oppressed Jews.
Up to this point Jewish leaders of all shades of opinion travelled
the same road. It was only at this stage that commonplace charity and
political foresight had to part company. To the former it seemed easy
to surmount all difficulties and all objections instantly by a few
plausible generalities, which to such minds were invested with the
force of axiomatic truth, and to question which they would regard
as useless. Persecution, it was said, is a temporary phenomenon, and
consequently the defence should be temporary. But is the persecution
of the Jews really only temporary? Are not all these outrages and
accusations links in one chain? Are they not, to a certain extent,
the consequences of the precarious and untenable position of a people
without a land? Short-sighted philanthropists, harassed by no doubts
of this kind, asserted as facts what they knew in reality to be only
probabilities. There is no doubt as to their perfect good faith,
nor should any wilful misrepresentation be attributed to them. They
had seized on one part of the truth, namely, that justice should
be applied to the Jews. With regard to questions of nationality and
territory they had no experience. They knew little of the conditions
of the countries where the Jewish masses lived; the psychology of the
non-Jewish masses in those countries was unknown to them.
But history was against their superficial optimism, and in the minds
of really thinking people grave doubts arose whether the future of
the Jewish people could be secured by haphazard defence and immediate
relief. It would be idle for the optimists to treat anxieties
of this kind as if they were heresies. They were not reactionary
aspirations; nor were they the pretensions of ignorant spirits to
be wise beyond the limits of man’s wisdom. They were in reality the
logical consequences of experience and observation. They reveal a true
conception of the Jewish problem, which is belittled and watered down
by commonplace optimism.
The Damascus affair, like similar events before and after it,
stimulated Zionist aspirations, not because Zionism is merely a reflex
of persecution, but because persecution reveals to the Jew his real
situation, which, during the short intervals of peace, he does not
clearly understand or is inclined to overlook.
Though far from being the real cause――the real cause is the whole of
Jewish history――the sufferings of the Jews have always been a stimulus
to Jewish national feeling. The Mortara case in 1860 gave rise to the
Alliance Israélite Universelle, the persecutions which began in 1882
to the movement of the “Lovers of _Zion_,” and the Dreyfus affair
in 1894 to Herzl’s pamphlet _The Jewish State_, 1896, which heralded
modern Zionism. In the same way the Damascus and Rhodes affairs were
the immediate cause of Montefiore’s journeys, the representations
to Mehemet Ali about both the innocent martyrs and the establishment
of Jewish colonies in Palestine, and the societies in England for
the support of Palestinian colonization. A number of Jews in several
countries, and especially in England, began to ask themselves: What
will be the end of all these sufferings? The reply was: Two things are
necessary:――
(1) The protection of Great Britain for the Jews in the East.
(2) The colonization of Palestine.
Public opinion had now taken a different turn; and, what is more
important, the character of the difficulties and objections generally
raised had become wholly different. People began to inquire about the
Jews themselves: would they or would they not be inclined to form a
new society for the colonization of Palestine? A greater disposition
to follow up this kind of discussion had developed. The political
sense of the day required definition, argument, and proof, where
religion had been content to appeal merely to the instinct of
reverence, and to put the whole matter on the plane of devotional
feeling or exalted imagination.
Would the Jews go to Palestine?
In the nature of things it could not often happen that a nation
would undergo rapidly any great, although at the same time peaceful
and salutary change. A nation may, indeed, develop almost in a day.
Empires have evaporated in fury or exploded in passion. But then
such violent changes have usually been vicious and destructive. An
utterly demoralized people will abandon itself in a moment to a dream
of ambition, turn its ploughshares into swords, and break from its
borders to conquer the world. A new field for cupidity or pleasure,
the discovery of a continent, the sudden acquisition of a fertile
territory or a mine of wealth, has ere now turned an ancient and
noble race into a rabble of adventurers. But it is very rare, almost
unparalleled, for a _peaceful_ people to find a new opening all at
once. There was doubt, then, about the Jewish desire for redemption.
Side by side with their attachment to the land of their birth, the
sense of a long-lost home lies deep in the hearts of the Jewish masses,
and they are drawn towards it by a longing expressed in heartfelt
songs and prayers, in wishes and in hopes, not in rebellious efforts.
But could the Jews by themselves, as a whole nation, or as scattered
and divided masses, as a defenceless and persecuted minority, take
up the realization of their cherished hope? Although it was an
international political scheme, leading Jews would have to raise their
voices and start the work if they wished to see its accomplishment.
Sir William Robert Wills Wilde (1815‒1876) wrote:――¹
¹ Narrative of a Voyage to ... the Shores of the Mediterranean,
including a visit to ... Palestine, etc. Dublin, 1840, vol.
ii., _pp._ 358‒363.
“This extraordinary people, the favoured of the Lord, the descendants
of the patriarchs and prophets, and the aristocracy of the earth, are
to be seen in _Jerusalem_ to greater advantage, and under an aspect
and in a character totally different from that which they present in
any other place on the face of the globe. In other countries the very
name of Jew has associated with it cunning, deceit, usury, traffic
and often wealth. But here, in addition to the usual degradation and
purchased suffering of a despised, stricken, outcast race, they bend
under extreme poverty, and wear the aspect of a weeping and a mourning
people; lamenting over their fallen greatness as a nation, and over
the prostrate grandeur of their once proud city. Here the usurer
is turned into the pilgrim, the merchant into the priest, and the
inexorable creditor into the weeping suppliant....” “It is curious,
... to read the indications of fond attachment of the Jew to the very
air and soil, scattered about in Jewish writings; ... ‘The air of the
land of _Israel_,’ says one, ‘makes a man wise’; another writes, ‘he
who walks four cubits in the land of _Israel_ is sure of being a son
of the life to come.’ The great Wise Men are wont to kiss the borders
of the Holy Land, to _embrace its ruins_, and roll themselves in its
dust.”¹
¹ The German Jewish weekly, _Der Orient_ (Leipzig, 1840, N 16),
mentions “a Christian divine, Rev. William Filson Marsh
(1775‒1864), who wrote to the then Chief _Rabbi_ in London,
the Rev. Solomon Hershell (1761‒1842), about the necessity
of a Jewish state in Palestine.”
The following extracts are taken from _Der Orient_, a German newspaper.
They seem to betoken a movement among continental Jews in relation to
the late crisis in Syria:――
“We have a country, the inheritance of our fathers, finer, more
fruitful, better situated for commerce, than many of the most
celebrated portions of the globe. Environed by the deep-delled Taurus,
the lovely shores of the Euphrates, the lofty steppes of Arabia
and of rocky _Sinai_, our country extends along the shores of the
Mediterranean, crowned by the towering cedars of _The Lebanon_, the
source of a hundred rivulets and brooks, which spread fruitfulness
over shady dales.... A glorious land! situate at the farthest
extremity of the sea which connects three-quarters of the globe, over
which the Phœnicians ... sent their numerous fleets to the shores of
Albion, near to both the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf; ... the central
country of the commerce between the east and the west. Every country
has its peculiarity; every people their own nature.... No people of
the earth have lived so true to their calling from the first as we
have done.
“The Arab has maintained his language and his original country; on the
Nile, in the deserts, as far as _Sinai_, and beyond _Jordan_, he feeds
his flocks. In the elevated plains of Asia Minor the Turkoman has
conquered for himself a second country, the birthplace of the Osman;
but Palestine and Syria are populated. For centuries the battlefield
between the sons of Altai and of the Arabian wilderness, the
inhabitants of the West and the half-nomadic Persians, none have been
able to establish themselves and maintain their nationality: no nation
can claim the name of Syrian. A chaotic mixture of all tribes and
tongues, remnants of migrations from north and south, they disturb one
another in the possession of the glorious land where our fathers for
so many centuries emptied the cup of joy and woe, and where every clod
is drenched with the blood of our heroes when their bodies were buried
under the ruins of _Jerusalem_....”¹
¹ _The Times_, Thursday, December 24, 1840, _p._ 4.
Illustration: _Painted by G. Richmond. R.A.D.C.L._
_Engraved by T. L. Atkinson_
_Sir_ MOSES MONTEFIORE, _Bart._, _F.R.S._
_From a mezzotint engraving (proof before all letters)
lent by Israel Solomons_
CHAPTER XXII.
SIR MOSES MONTEFIORE
The project “for Cultivation of the Land in Palestine”
――Abraham Shoshana and Samuel Aboo――Sir Moses and Lord
Palmerston――Great Britain’s protection of the Jews in the East
――Lord Aberdeen――Sir Stratford Canning――Dr. Edward Robinson
――Burghas _Bey_――A new journey to the East.
ENGLAND and English Jews deserve indisputably to be placed in the
forefront of Zionism. A great pioneer of Anglo-Jewish Zionism during
the Palmerston period was Sir Moses Montefiore (1784‒1885). He was
a man of great stability and magnanimity of character, and was much
admired by Jew and Gentile alike. There have been few Jews in history
who have been able to look back on a life of useful and beneficial
activity with so much gratification as he, or who were so entitled to
feel proud of the fact that throughout their lives they had done their
duty not only to the country in which they lived, but to the ancient
land of their fathers, to the English people as English patriots and
to the Jewish nation as faithful sons of their race.
Sir Moses was an enthusiastic supporter of “The Fund for the
cultivation of the land in Palestine by the Jews.” This was the
harmless name given to Zionism at the beginning of his activity. We
read in the _Diaries of Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore_¹:――
¹ Diaries of Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore ... Edited by Dr.
L. Loewe,... In Two Volumes, With Illustrations. Vol. i.
London ... 1890, _p._ 167.
“Friday, May 24th (1839, Safed)....
“The heads of the Portuguese and German congregations came to pay
their respects to Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore (1784‒1862). Two
of these gentlemen, the Rev. Abraham Shoshana and Samuel Aboo, were
landowners in a neighbouring village, and gave their opinion on the
subject of agriculture. Sir Moses, referring in his diary to the
conversation, says:――
‘From all information I have been able to gather, the land in this
neighbourhood appears to be particularly favourable for agricultural
speculation. There are groves of olive trees, I should think, more
than five hundred years old, vineyards, much pasture, plenty of wells
and abundance of excellent water; also fig-trees, walnuts, almonds,
mulberries, etc., and rich fields of wheat, barley, and lentils; in
fact it is a land that would produce almost everything in abundance,
with very little skill and labour. I am sure if the plan I have in
contemplation should succeed, it will be the means of introducing
happiness and plenty into the Holy Land. In the first instance, I
shall apply to Mohhammad (Mehemet) Ali for a grant of land for fifty
years; some one or two hundred villages; giving him an increased
rent of from ten to twenty per cent., and paying the whole in money
annually in Alexandria, but the land and villages to be free, during
the whole term, from every tax or rate either of _Pasha_ or Governor
of the several districts; and liberty being accorded to dispose
of the produce in any quarter of the globe. The grant obtained, I
shall, please Heaven, on my return to England, form a company for
the cultivation of the land and the encouragement of our brethren in
Europe to return to Palestine. Many Jews now emigrate to New South
Wales, Canada, _etc._, but in the Holy Land they would find a greater
certainty of success; here they will find wells already dug, olives
and vines already planted, and a land so rich as to require little
manure. By degrees I hope to induce the return of thousands of our
brethren to the Land of _Israel_. I am sure they would be happy in the
enjoyment of the observance of our holy religion, in a manner which is
impossible in Europe.’”
Political steps were undertaken and representations made. Sir Moses
spoke to Lord Palmerston about agriculture for the Jews in Palestine:――
“On April 30th (1840) the Committee proceeded to Downing Street,
and were most kindly received by Lord Palmerston. He promised to use
his influence with Mohhammad Ali and the Turkish Government to put a
stop to such atrocities.¹ Sir Moses mentioned on this occasion, when
Lord Palmerston was speaking of his visit to Palestine, Mr. Young’s
humanity at _Jerusalem_, and also the fact that the Jews were desirous
of being employed in agricultural pursuits.”²
¹ Damascus.
² _Ibid._, _p._ 214.
Then arose the question of Great Britain’s protection of the Jews in
the East:――
“His brethren in the East appealed to Sir Moses to intercede with
the English Government to take them under their protection. They
complained of being compelled by local governors to pay heavier
taxes than any of the non-Israelite inhabitants. Both Lord Palmerston
and his successor Lord Aberdeen listened with great kindness to the
statements made to them on that subject by Sir Moses. Lord Palmerston,
in reply to his representations, said the Christians had suffered more
than the Jews from the Governor being a fanatic, and added that he
(Sir Moses) had his authority to write to the Jews in the East that
if they had any serious complaints to make, the English Consuls would
attend to them, and forward them to the Ambassador at Constantinople,
who would represent them to the Ministers of the Porte....
“Lord Aberdeen, with whom he subsequently had an interview on the same
subject, said that he saw no objection to the British Consul receiving
the statements of grievances made by the Jews, and transmitting such
statements to the British Ambassador in Constantinople, who would be
directed to confer thereon with the Ministers of the Porte, with a
view to the redress of the grievances complained of.”
“On Sir Moses pressing the desire of the Jews in the East to be
brought under British protection, his Lordship said that he did
not see how it could be accomplished. All the European Powers were
extremely jealous of any interference on the part of England. His
Lordship added, however, that he would consider the best means to
afford the Jews protection for the sake of humanity and justice.
“On the 7th November, Sir Stratford Canning (1786‒1880),¹ previous
to leaving for Constantinople, called on Sir Moses, and afterwards
sent him a note, appointing to see him on the following day at twelve
o’clock. Sir Moses accordingly went to him. The purpose of this
interview was to solicit protection for the _Israelites_ in the East.
Sir Moses informed him of the directions given by Lord Palmerston, and
Sir Stratford said he would be happy to do all that his duty permitted,
and to hear from Sir Moses whenever he pleased. They had a long and
interesting conversation respecting the Jews and the Holy Land, and
Sir Moses was exceedingly satisfied by Sir Stratford’s kindness.”²
¹ The Rt. Hon. Sir Stratford Canning――afterwards Viscount
(1852) Stratford _de_ Redcliffe, G.C.B.
² _Ibid._, _pp._ 303‒304.
It may be pointed out here that the extension of Great Britain’s
protection to the Jews in the East was at that time regarded in other
countries as something to which the Jews were justly entitled, and the
granting of this protection was supposed to be necessitated by English
policy.
Dr. Edward Robinson (1797‒1863), the eminent American scholar, wrote:――
“France has long been the acknowledged protector of the Roman Catholic
religion, in the same Empire; and the followers of that faith find
in her a watchful and efficient patron;... In the members of the
Greek Church, still more numerous, ... the Russians have even warmer
partisans.... But where are England’s partisans in any part of Turkey?
That England, while she has so deep a political interest in all that
concerns the Turkish Empire, should remain indifferent to this state
of things in Syria, is a matter of surprise.”¹
¹ Biblical Researches in Palestine,... By Edward Robinson,
D.D.... Vol. iii. London, MDCCCXLI., _pp._ 464‒465.
Notwithstanding the formal difficulties indicated by Lord Aberdeen
the scheme grew, and Sir Moses received very sincere promises, for
despite the force of Lord Aberdeen’s reasoning, it was too subtle
to commend itself to the common sense of Sir Moses, who was acting
not as a diplomatist, but as an ardent protector of his oppressed
people. The two points in Sir Moses’ programme were his scheme for the
colonization of Palestine and his efforts to obtain British protection.
Sir Moses had started his second voyage to Palestine in 1838. He was
then already a friend of Mehemet Ali. Reaching Alexandria on July 13th,
he was cordially received by the _Pasha_, who listened attentively as
he unfolded his scheme. Mehemet Ali promised every assistance. “You
shall have any portion of land open for sale in Syria,” he said, “and
any other land which by application to the _Sultan_ may be procured
for you. You may have anyone you would like to appoint as Governor in
any of the rural districts of the Holy Land, and I will do everything
that lies in my power to support your praiseworthy endeavours.” He
further gave instructions to the Minister of Finance, Burghas _Bey_,
to confirm these assurances in writing.
“A new era seemed dawning for the Jews of the Holy Land. Sir Moses
returned to England with a light heart, and prepared to put his plans
into execution.... He was still conning over the voluminous data he
had collected, and was constructing in his mind the foundation of a
new commonwealth for Palestine, when he was suddenly called upon to
proceed again to the East,――this time, not as a peaceful reformer,
but as the champion of his people, charged to vindicate their honour
in the face of a foul conspiracy. He cheerfully laid aside his
agricultural schemes, and girded up his loins for the new enterprise.
When he returned home in the following spring, crowned with laurels,
and hailed on all sides as the deliverer of _Israel_, his triumph was
clouded by one sad thought――the projects to which he had devoted the
whole of the previous year were no longer possible. Mehemet Ali had
ceased to be lord of Syria, and his improving rule had been replaced
by the asphyxiating authority of the Stamboul _Effendis_, under whom
questions of social well-being could expect little furtherance.”¹
¹ _The Life of Sir Moses Montefiore_, by Lucien Wolf. London,
1884, _pp._ 78‒79.
In these words Mr. Lucien Wolf, in his excellent _Life_, describes
the change that took place in the plans of Sir Moses. The change was,
however, quite superficial. If we consider all the facts and documents,
we cannot doubt that Sir Moses was a great Zionist throughout his
whole life. His type stands midway in the evolution of Zionism. He
was not unconscious of the exaltedness, the pathos, the revulsion of
feeling that the struggle for the revival of a nation awakens in the
normal mind of a Jew. His rôle as a “champion of his people” in his
Zionist efforts is of far greater importance than his defence of the
unfortunate Jewish sufferers in Damascus. The latter was a necessity,
and it was indeed a great honour for any man to be entrusted with
the perilous mission of defending these innocent martyrs. But
unquestionably noble and necessary as it was to struggle against
those shamelessly fabricated charges which have unfortunately been
brought against the Jews again and again, and to protest against that
gross libel upon the honour and humanity of Judaism, a libel that
accused the Jews of being murderers and cannibals, can such a struggle
be compared for dignity and greatness with the stimulating effort
for national regeneration? What was the result of all these pleas
of defence? Some individuals were saved from martyrdom; but since
then the same terrible accusation has been levelled against the
Jews a hundred times over, and it is hurled at them in our own time
with still greater malice and wickedness than in 1840. No one would
underrate the great value and the imperative necessity of Jewish
self-defence; but the efforts undertaken by Sir Moses in 1838 were
more than merely defensive――they were an attempt to transform the
whole situation.
Reviewing the results of the whole period here surveyed, we see that
what Sir Moses attempted was in fact Zionism, political Zionism. It
was, however, left to a later generation to take up the work afresh,
on lines dictated by sound political reasoning. The new generation had
already an organization behind it; Sir Moses acted as an individual.
He could not have succeeded even if the political circumstances had
been radically different. The first essential to colonization, though
one which has been generally overlooked, is a national movement to
support it. So many illusions are shattered by the cold touch of
reality: the best that the regenerator can do is to close his eyes
and to go boldly forward, supported by the strength and the enthusiasm
of the masses, for in that way he can overcome the most formidable
obstacles. But the practical side has also to be considered.
Colonization can never be successfully established without large
capital and carefully laid plans. All these conditions were lacking in
Sir Moses’ day. It is, therefore, no matter for surprise that the plan
on which Sir Moses had so confidently relied slipped out of his hands.
But Zionism was undoubtedly the greatest and noblest of Sir Moses’
aspirations. He made seven journeys to Palestine together with his
wife, who shared his devotion and enthusiasm: and many of these
journeys were very dangerous. _Jerusalem_ was the watchword of his
life. One of his last expressions, as quoted by a biographer, was:
“I do not expect that all _Israelites_ will quit their abodes in those
territories in which they feel happy, even as there are Englishmen
in Hungary, Germany, America and Japan: _but Palestine must belong to
the Jews_, and _Jerusalem_ is destined to become the seat of a Jewish
Commonwealth.”
CHAPTER XXIII.
EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
Diaries of 1830‒40――The first English Vice-Consul for
_Jerusalem_――Lord Lindsay’s travels in Egypt and the Holy Land
――A guarantee of five Powers――Lord Shaftesbury’s conception of
a spiritual centre for the Jewish nation.
THE Zionist idea not only has a long and unbroken history in England;
it links together periods and men of the most widely different
convictions and emotions. This truth is illustrated by the fact that
at the very time when Sir Moses was endeavouring to found a Jewish
Commonwealth in Palestine, another famous man, one of the greatest
Christians in this country, was working in his way and according to
his lights, with similar enthusiasm and strength of conviction, for
precisely the same cause. This was the seventh Earl of Shaftesbury
(1801‒1885), one of the most interesting personalities of the age, a
man of the soundest intellect and the keenest perceptions, sagacious,
far-seeing, of great honesty of purpose, modest and averse from
notoriety, an ardent Christian and a broad-minded philanthropist.¹
¹ In Lord Shaftesbury, the earnest Christian philanthropist,
the world was not slow to recognize the most eminent social
reformer of the nineteenth century. The Duke of Argyll
(1823‒1900) thus described him in a memorable speech
in the House of Lords, and the eulogy was endorsed by
Lord Salisbury (1830‒1903): “The family motto of the
Shaftesburys, ‘Love, serve,’ was well exemplified in the
character of his life. His efforts and his influence were
interwoven with many of the most humane movements of two
generations. Pre-eminently the friend of the poor, the
degraded and the outcast, his generous sympathies and his
ceaseless labours on behalf of the classes in whom he took
so deep an interest, have given him a high place in the
illustrious roll of benevolent Englishmen. The epitaph
which the Eastern _Rabbi_ desired for himself might with
perfect truth be applied to Lord Shaftesbury, ‘Write me as
one who loves his fellow-men.’”
Lord Shaftesbury writes in his _Diaries_¹ on September 29th, 1838:――
¹ Edwin Hodder: _The Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of
Shaftesbury_, London, 1886.
“Took leave this morning of Young, who has just been appointed Her
Majesty’s Vice-Consul at _Jerusalem_! He will sail in a day or two to
the Holy Land. If this is duly considered, what a wonderful event it
is! The ancient city of the people of God is about to resume a place
among the nations, and England is the first of the Gentile Kingdoms
that ceases ‘to tread her down.’ If I had not an aversion to writing,
almost insuperable, I would record here, for the benefit of my very
weak and treacherous memory, all the steps whereby this good deed has
been done, but the arrangement of the narrative, and the execution of
it, would cost me too much penmanship; I shall always, at any rate,
remember that God put it into my heart to conceive the plan for His
honour, gave me influence to prevail with Palmerston, and provided a
man for the situation, who ‘can remember _Jerusalem_ in his mirth’”
(vol. i., _p._ 233).
It was, as we see, a sublimely conceived notion of Lord Shaftesbury’s
that _Jerusalem_ was about to resume a place among the nations, and
that England was destined to carry out God’s designs.
He continues on October 3rd, 1838:――
“Lord Lindsay’s¹ ‘Travels in Egypt and the Holy Land’ are very
creditable to him, ... Egypt will yield largely in confirmation of the
Jewish records; and Palestine, when dug and harrowed by enterprising
travellers, must exhibit the past with all the vividness of the
present. The very violences of Ibrahim _Pasha_² (1789‒1848) (the
Scourge of Syria) have opened the first sources of its political
regeneration by offering free access to the stranger in the repression
of native lawlessness; hundreds now go in a twelvemonth when one trod
the way in a quarter of a century, and the Bible is becoming a common
road-book” (_Ibid._).
¹ Afterwards the twenty-fifth Earl of Crawford (1812‒1880).
² Second son of Mehemet Ali.
The last sentence proves the Biblical character of England’s devotion
to Palestine. English thinkers and statesmen particularly appreciated
the fact that no country has been the scene of the principal drama of
human developments for so many centuries as Palestine, and no other
bears upon its memory so many of the scars of those great convulsions
that have shaped the main features of history.
He writes on July 24th, 1838:――
“It seems as though money were the only thing wanting to regenerate
the world. Never was an age so fertile in good plans, or with
apparently more and better men to execute them, but where are the
means?... Why money would almost restore the Jews to the Holy Land.
Certainly so far as Mehemet Ali is the arbiter of their destinies....
“Anxious about the hopes and destinies of the Jewish people.
Everything seems ripe for their return to Palestine; ‘the way of the
kings of the East is prepared.’ Could the five Powers of the West
be induced to guarantee the security of life and possessions to the
_Hebrew_ race, they would now flow back in rapidly augmenting numbers.
Then by the blessing of God I will prepare a document, fortify it
by all the evidence I can accumulate, and, confiding to the wisdom
and mercy of the Almighty, lay it before the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs” (_Ibid._, _p._ 310).
It may be observed that the Zionist formula of the Basle programme,
demanding a home for the Jewish people secured by public law, is
identical with the “guarantee of the Great Powers” suggested by Lord
Shaftesbury.
Not only the questions of nationality involved in the realization
of this important programme, but also the question of the creation
of a spiritual nucleus for the _Hebrew_ genius――one of the cherished
aspirations of Zionists――occupied Lord Shaftesbury’s mind quite as
much as the political proposition:――
The inherent vitality of the _Hebrew_ race reasserts itself with
amazing persistence; its genius, to tell the truth, adapts itself
more or less to all currents of civilization all over the world,
nevertheless always emerging with distinctive features and a gallant
recovery of vigour. There is an unbroken identity of Jewish race and
Jewish mind down to our times: but the great revival can take place
only in the Holy Land.
He then proceeds to the practical steps.
“August 1st, 1838.――Dined with Palmerston. After dinner left alone
with him. Propounded my scheme, which seemed to strike his fancy;
he asked some questions, and readily promised to consider it. How
singular is the order of Providence! Singular, that is if estimated
by man’s ways! Palmerston had already been chosen by God to be an
instrument of good to His ancient people, to do homage, as it were,
to their inheritance, and to recognise their rights without believing
their destiny. And it seems he will yet do more. But though the
motive be kind, it is not sound. I am forced to argue politically,
financially, commercially; these considerations strike him home; he
weeps not like his Master over _Jerusalem_, nor prays that now, at
last, she may put on her beautiful garments....” (_Ibid._, _pp._
310‒11).
In these few lines we see the Zionist problem in its two aspects: Lord
Shaftesbury dealing with it _sub specie æternitatis_, so thoroughly
infused with the sense of its dignity that the reader’s imagination
is constantly stirred to the same feeling, and Lord Palmerston, the
diplomatist, though of opinion that the scheme, constructed in a mist
of hazy ideas, aspirations and emotions, required more clearness, yet
agreeing in the main and demanding more details regarding the economic
and statistical side of the subject. The difference between the two
men was this: Lord Palmerston was a great political leader, Lord
Shaftesbury was a great Christian.
_The Quarterly Review_ for January, 1839, published a masterly article
by Lord Shaftesbury. It is a review and an appreciation of “Letters
on Egypt, Edom, and the Holy Land, by Lord Lindsay, 1838.” He writes:
“We have alluded, in the commencement of this article, to the growing
interest manifested in behalf of the Holy Land. This interest is not
confined to the Christians――it is shared and avowed by the whole body
of Jews,... Doubtless, this is no new sentiment among the children
of the dispersion. The novelty of the present day does not lie in
the indulgence of such a hope ... but in their fearless confession
of the hope; and in the approximation of spirit between Christians
and _Hebrews_, to entertain the same belief of the future glories of
_Israel_,... In most former periods a development of religious feeling
has been followed by a persecution of the ancient people of God;...
But a mighty change has come over the hearts of the Gentiles; they
seek now the ... peace of the _Hebrew_ people. One of them ... went a
journey into Poland ... informs us that several thousand Jews in that
country and of Russia have recently bound themselves by an oath, that,
as soon as the way is open for them to go up to _Jerusalem_, they will
immediately go thither,... Dr. [Joseph] Wolff (1795‒1862) (_Journal_,
1833)¹ (_sic_) heard these sentiments from their lips in the remotest
countries of Asia; and Buchanan asserts that wherever he went among
the Jews of India, he found memorials of their expulsion from Judæa,
and of their belief of a return thither.... In Poland, the great focus
of the _Hebrew_ people, the sentiment is most rife that the time is
near at hand for the turning of their captivity:...” (_pp._ 176‒9).
¹ Journal of the Rev. Joseph Wolff for the year 1831.
London:... MDCCCXXXII. (8º. 1 _l._ + 70 _pp._ [B. M.])
CHAPTER XXIV.
MEMORANDUM OF THE PROTESTANT MONARCHS
The London Convention of 1840――The new Treaty of London for
the pacification of the Levant――Viscount Ponsonby――Reshid
_Pasha_――Lord Shaftesbury’s “Exposé” addressed to Lord
Palmerston――The articles in _The Times_――A Memorandum to the
European Monarchs――“Enquiries about the Jews”――The _Allgemeine
Zeitung des Judentums_.
WE have to go back to the political changes which we indicated in
connection with Sir Moses’ activity.
After the Convention which was signed on the 15th July, 1840, in
London for the pacification of the Levant, the terms were duly
proposed to Mehemet Ali and were rejected on the 5th September. Then
the war intervened, Mehemet Ali was obliged to come to terms, and
on July 18th, 1841, the new “Treaty of London for the Pacification
of the Levant” was signed. Mehemet Ali abandoned his claim to Syria
on condition that the Khedivate of Egypt was made hereditary in his
family. This was a turning-point of much significance in the history
of Palestine. At that moment the Jews might have been able to regain
their ancient land, if only they had had an organization for carrying
out the plan.
The only country in the world where this idea found influential
expression at the time was England. The events in the East were
naturally of intense interest to Lord Shaftesbury, and stimulated him
to greater activity.
He writes in his _Diary_, on August 24th, 1840: “The _Times_ of 17th
August filled me with astonishment. I wish I had put down at the
moment what I felt at reading it; half satisfaction, half dismay;
pleased to see my opinions and projects so far taken up and approved;
――alarmed lest this premature disclosure of them should bring upon us
all the charge of fanaticism. Now who could have believed, a few years
ago, that this subject could have been treated in a newspaper of wide
circulation, gravely, sincerely, and zealously, yet so it is; and
who sees not the handwriting of God upon the wall? The very insults,
misrepresentations, and persecutions of the Jews at Damascus bring
forward the main question; and Mehemet Ali, ‘howbeit he thinketh not
so,’ is a mighty instrument for the benefit of this people!
“Palmerston told me that he has already written to Lord Ponsonby¹
(1780?‒1855) to direct him to open an intercourse with Reschid
_Pasha_ (1802‒1858) at ♦Constantinople respecting protection and
encouragement to the Jews. This is a prelude to the Antitype of the
decree of Cyrus, but, humanly speaking, we must pray for more caution.
Those gentlemen who have now got access to the columns of the _Times_
will, by over-zeal, bring a charge of fanaticism on the whole question.
O God, from whom _alone_ cometh all counsel, wisdom, and understanding,
be Thou our Guide, our Instructor, and our Friend” (_Ibid._, _p._ 311).
¹ John Viscount Ponsonby.
♦ “Constaninople” replaced with “Constantinople”
On August 29th, 1840, he writes:――
“The newspapers teem with documents about the Jews. Many assail,
and many defend them. I have as yet read nothing (except [the Rev.
Alexander] M’Caul’s (1799‒1863) treatise) which exhibits any statement
either new or clever. The motion of the _Times_ in this matter has
stirred up an immense variety of projects and opinions; everyone has
a thought, and everyone has an interpretation. What a chaos of schemes
and disputes is on the horizon, for the time when the affairs of
the Jews shall be really and fully before the world! What violence,
what hatred, what combination, what discussion. What a stir of every
passion, every feeling in men’s hearts!...” (_Ibid._, _p._ 311).
On September 25th, 1840, he writes:――
“Yesterday began my paper for Palmerston, containing in full the
propositions for the recall of the Jews to their ancient land.
‘Recall’ is too strong; it is simply a ‘permission,’ should they think
fit to avail themselves of it. I wish to prepare a short document,
which may refresh his memory, and exist as a record both of the
suggestion and the character of it” (_Ibid._, _p._ 312).
We may confess that at times we find Lord Shaftesbury’s ideas somewhat
too largely influenced by his religious zeal; yet he did succeed
in mastering his emotions and dealing with the problem in a sound
and statesmanlike manner. In this document of his we find not only
generous ideas but also excellent arguments, simply and convincingly
stated (Appendix liii).
On November 4th, 1840, he writes:――
“I hope I have done right in this: I have suppressed all party
considerations, and have used every effort to persuade the _Times_
to take just views of the Syrian question. I have been successful.
Lord Palmerston told me this evening that the concurrence of the Tory
papers had smoothed ten thousand difficulties....” (_Ibid._, _p._ 315).
The articles in _The Times_, to which Lord Shaftesbury refers,
appeared in that newspaper at various periods. On the 9th March, 1840
(_p._ 3), _The Times_ published the following notice:――
“_Restoration of the Jews._――A memorandum has been addressed to the
Protestant monarchs of Europe on the subject of the restoration of
the Jewish people to the land of Palestine. The document in question,
dictated by the peculiar conjuncture of affairs in the East, and the
other striking ‘signs of the times,’ reverts to the original covenant
which secures that land to the descendants of _Abraham_, and urges
upon the consideration of the powers addressed what may be the
probable line of Protestant Christendom to the Jewish people in the
present controversy in the East. The memorandum and correspondence
which has passed upon the subject have been published.”
This Memorandum (Appendix liv) is written entirely from a Christian
point of view. Lord Shaftesbury, although himself a staunch believer
in Christianity, was more inclined to give the project a practical
character.
On the 17th August, 1840, _The Times_ (_p._ 3) published the following
article:――
“_Syria.――Restoration of the Jews._
“The proposition to plant the Jewish people in the land of their
fathers, under the protection of the five Powers, is no longer a mere
matter of speculation, but of serious political consideration. In a
ministerial paper of the 31st of July an article appears bearing all
the characteristics of a feeler on this deeply interesting subject.
However, it has been reserved for a noble Lord opposed to Her
Majesty’s Ministers to take up the subject in a practical and
statesmanlike manner, and he is instituting inquiries, of which the
following is a copy:――
“1. What are the feelings of the Jews you meet with respect to their
return to the Holy Land?
“2. Would the Jews of station and property be inclined to return
to Palestine, carry with them their capital, and invest it in the
cultivation of the land, if by the operation of law and justice life
and property were rendered secure?
“3. How soon would they be inclined and ready to go back?
“4. Would they go back entirely at their own expense, requiring
nothing farther than the assurance of safety to person and estate?
“5. Would they be content to live under the Government of the country
as they should find it, their rights and privileges being secured to
them under the protection of the European Powers?
“Let the answers you procure be as distinct and decided and detailed
as possible: in respect as to the inquiries as to property, it will
of course be sufficient that you should obtain fair proof of the fact
from general report.
“The noble Lord who is instituting these inquiries has given deep
attention to the matter, and is well known as the writer of an able
article in the _Quarterly_ on the subject, in December, 1838.”
The adherents of the idea of Jewish assimilation in Germany started a
kind of opposition.
The _Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums_ dealt with this matter on the
19th September, 1840, and admitted with regard to the articles in the
_Globe_, which it described as “a London Ministerial newspaper,” that
“the plans may all be classed among the things devoutly to be desired.”
On the other hand, this paper quotes from the _Courier Français_
of August 26th, 1840, a comparison between _M._ A. M. L. de P. de
Lamartine (1790‒1869) (the poet, and at that time Deputy) and Lord
Palmerston in the following words:――
“M. de Lamartine intends to form a Christian kingdom at the sources of
the _Jordan_, and at the foot of _Mount Lebanon_; if only _Jerusalem_,
the Holy City, came into the power of France, he would gladly leave
the rest of the world to England and Russia. But what is odd in the
whole affair is that Lord Palmerston has chosen the same spot. Where
the celebrated Deputy dreams of a Christian state, Lord Palmerston
projects a Jewish Republic.”
This jest caused the _Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums_ to “protest
against the project in question,” and “to warn the young people.” All
we learn from this pronouncement is that the Jewish youth was at the
time inclined to listen to the Zionist idea.
CHAPTER XXV.
RESTORATION AND PROTECTION
A new Memorandum――The “Balance of Power”――Palestine and
“Rights” in other countries――A “Memorial of the Church of
Scotland”――Protection for the Jews in the East.
SOME time afterwards a new Memorandum appeared in the press, which
may be considered one of the highest eulogies of Zionism ever written
(Appendix lv). It combines religious conviction with an appreciation
of political realism. The writers――this article being the expression
of the opinions of a group of statesmen――deal with political problems
which were then of the highest interest and importance, and indicate
with sufficient clearness a probable solution, emphasizing the view
that “the cause of the Restoration of the Jews to Palestine is one
essentially generous and noble.” They do not fail to realize the
complexity of the problem and the many cross-currents and jealousies,
but arrive at the conclusion that there is a remedy for all these
conflicts in the colonization of Palestine by the Jews. They even
go much further than this, for they point out that “it would be a
crowning-point in the glory of England to bring about such an event.”
The writer of an article entitled “A Regard for the Jews,”¹ drew the
following historical parallel:――
¹ _Globe_, August 14, 1840.
“To afford the Jew an opportunity of returning to Palestine, if he
chooses, and of dwelling there in peace and security, will hereafter
form one of the brightest gems in the crown of Britain. Cyrus, for
permitting the captive Jews to go up to _Jerusalem_, was honoured with
an everlasting memorial upon the pages of inspiration. Britain will
not miss a recompense of equal worth and honour for an act of the
same enlightened benevolence. For this the present time is most happy
and opportune――for the stirring and philanthropic portion of the
public are alive to the case of the Jews, and would hail with loudest
applause that government which would thus lay the top-stone upon all
the kind exertions hitherto made in favour of that people.”
It is a common notion, particularly among some Jewish opponents of
Zionism, to suppose that some non-Jewish supporters of this idea may
be jealous of Jewish equality in the countries where they live, and
may hope to get rid of the Jews. As a matter of fact, however, the
promoters of the idea of Restoration have always been opposed to any
sort of persecution or degradation.
Here the writer touched upon one of the most important controversial
points: the alleged incompatibility of the Restoration of the Jews
to Palestine with their rights of citizenship in other countries.
This contention has been made use of by some Jewish opponents of
modern Zionism. We have dealt with the point in the Introduction, and
shall have to return to it again. Here we only call attention to the
broad-minded and lofty manner in which this English writer pointed
out the fallacy of this supposed contradiction between Palestine and
“rights,” which has arisen only through narrowness of judgment and
want of logic. It is curious indeed to find that Jewish opponents
were always wont to speak on this point in the name of Christians, but
in a strain quite opposed to expressed ideas and the attitude of the
Christians most competent to decide. The plain fact is, as the writer
says, that “the promoters of the idea of Restoration have always been
opposed to any sort of persecution and degradation.” This theory of
a supposed irreconcilability of Palestine and “rights” is logically
fallacious from another standpoint. The defenders of the theory refuse
to consider sufficiently the question of the nature of rights and
freedom. At times they seem to opine that Jews have to renounce their
traditions in order to get “rights”; at other times they appear to
emphasize that freedom which is obtainable by means of “rights.” But
in reality rights are not necessarily freedom; a man who aspires to
culture but is forced to renounce his aspirations is not free. On the
other hand, for a group of persons to abandon their traditions is not
freedom. Freedom in the positive sense, the only sense which gives it
any value, is the privilege of a wide choice, because the privilege of
choice is the primary condition of real development and productiveness.
Hence the only logical and liberal formula is that indicated by
the writer of the Memorandum; “to afford the Jew an opportunity of
returning to Palestine if he chooses.” Modern Zionism has expressed
the same idea in other words: Palestine should be for those Jews who
cannot amalgamate with others or are not desirous of doing so.
In the meantime, the question of the protection to be granted to the
Jews in the East continued to occupy English minds a great deal. _The
Times_, December 3, 1840, _p._ 6, has an article on “The Jews” which
reads:――
“The following Memorial has lately been presented by the Church of
Scotland to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs:――
“‘To the Right Hon. Lord Viscount Palmerston, Her Majesty’s Principal
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs....
“‘Your memorialists cannot help expressing the thankfulness which
they, and all others interested in the welfare of the Jewish people,
must feel to your Lordship, for the countenance which you have
given to other societies having at heart the same objects with
your memorialists at the Porte and with the Pasha of Egypt, and for
recommending the Jews to the especial protection of the consul sent
to Syria by Her Majesty’s Government.
“‘Your memorialists look with deep interest on the transactions now
going on in Syria, which they trust will result in the more firm and
more extensive establishment of British influence in that interesting
land: and deeply impressed with the conviction that it is a revealed
truth of the word of God, that the blessing of God is promised to
those who succour His ancient but now afflicted people, whether
nations or individuals, they are most anxious that, in any future
settlement of that country, under the auspices of Britain, your
Lordship and Her Majesty’s Government should take measures as far as
possible for protecting the Jews against oppression and injustice....’”
With reference to this Memorial the _Globe_ made the following
remarks:――
“Great Britain has taught the nations a lesson of charity, as well as
faith, by taking God’s ancient people under her special protection.
Whilst some of the Powers of the earth have wavered, and continue
to do homage to the spirit of unjust prejudice and the practice of
persecution, to Great Britain belongs the just praise of asserting the
claims of justice and mercy by interposing in several periods of her
history on behalf of the unhappy victims of national and religious
hatred. All that are interested in the cause of suffering humanity
turn their eyes towards Great Britain.”
The writer continues:――
“Why has England been so watched over and so preserved? Has any other
country such a history? The histories of many other countries are
made up of wars and rumours of wars in defence of their homes from
foreign invaders――England, save civil wars, chiefly in the struggle
for civil and religious liberty. Why should so small a speck on
the earth’s surface as England be able to control an enormous and
populous-scattered Empire on which the sun never sets? Why should
England be the terror of the oppressor and the asylum of the
oppressed? It is by the spirit of God, by the great zeal and industry
to be profitable and useful to the world, by readiness to take any
pains, and give any assistance to the furthering of justice. Therefore
England gave special protection to the Jews.”
From this we gather that public opinion regarded the protection of
the Jews in the East by England as an accomplished fact, though not
officially proclaimed.
CHAPTER XXVI.
PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
The _Don_ Pacifico case――Admiral Sir William Parker――Lord
Stanley――Mr. J. A. Roebuck――Lord Palmerston’s policy attacked
――Peel and the Opposition――Plans for colonization of Palestine
――Mordecai Manuel Noah――Warder Cresson――Rev. A. G. H.
Hollingsworth――Colonel George Gawler――“The Final Exodus”――Dr.
Thomas Clarke.
A SERIOUS conflict broke out between England and Greece, and
consequently in England itself, in 1850. The cause was Lord
Palmerston’s quarrel with the Greek Government, which had failed
to protect _Don_ David Pacifico (1784‒1854), a Gibraltar Jew and a
British subject, from the violence of the Athenian mob. The British
fleet, under Admiral Sir William Parker (1817‒1866), was ordered to
the Piræus and seized a number of Greek ships to enforce compensation.
A vote of censure upon this high-handed proceeding was moved and
carried by Lord Stanley¹ (1775‒1851) in the House of Lords. The
majority against the Government was thirty-seven. In the House of
Commons Mr. J. A. Roebuck (1801‒1879) moved a counter-resolution,
expressing confidence in the Government, and Lord Palmerston defended
himself in a speech five hours long. He uttered upon that occasion the
celebrated phrase “Civis Romanus sum,” and declared that, wherever a
British subject might be, the watching eye and the strong arm of
England would protect him.
¹ Edward (Smith-Stanley), Baron Stanley of Brokestaffe
(1832‒1851), thirteenth Earl of Derby, K.G. (1834‒1851).
Gladstone, on the other side, pointed out the dangers of this policy.
“What, sir,” he asked, “was a Roman citizen? He was the member of a
privileged class; he belonged to a conquering race, to a nation that
held all others bound down by the strong arm of power. For him there
was to be an exceptional system of law, for him principles were to
be asserted, and by him rights were to be enjoyed that were denied to
the rest of the world. Is such the view of the noble lord as to the
relation which is to subsist between England and other countries?”
Such, at all events, was the view of the House of Commons, for Mr.
Roebuck’s motion was carried by a majority of forty-six. However,
on both sides of the controversy, protection was considered as an
obligation involving great and far-reaching responsibilities. This
conflict gives us an idea of the difficulties with which the question
of the protection of the Jews in the Ottoman Empire was beset.
At the conclusion of this memorable debate, which took place on June
24th, 1850, [Sir Robert] Peel [Bart.] (1788‒1850), in a brief speech
of singular eloquence and wisdom, expressed his “reluctant dissent”
from the motion, and uttered his final caution against perverting
diplomacy, “the great engine used by civilized society for the purpose
of maintaining peace, into a cause of hostility and war.”
Needless to say, the Opposition had no intention whatever of blaming
the Government for undertaking the protection of the Jews. There
was only a difference of attitude, not one of principle, between
the Palmerston Government and the Opposition. The Opposition became
alarmed about the dangerous consequences which they thought likely
to result from certain steps taken by the Government; the Government,
on the other hand, had to consider carefully every new scheme of
protection for the Jews, particularly after the conflict with Greece
in the _Don_ Pacifico case.
Reviewing the whole period and all the petitions, projects and
experiments in connection with the colonization of Palestine by Jews,
we see that Great Britain’s protection was considered a “conditio
sine qua non” for their success――at least as far as English Jews were
interested in the movement. It is the same idea which modern Zionism
expressed half a century later in the Basle Programme (1897) by
demanding the consent of the Powers in the form of a legal guarantee
or public recognition. The formula was different; but the fundamental
idea is the same. It means security. The “Civis Romanus” system of
Palmerston, a Government which sends a fleet to demand satisfaction
for one protected Jew, was justly considered a sufficiently reliable
guarantee of security. It is therefore quite clear that when the
opponents of modern Zionism half a century later endeavoured to
draw a line between the old schemes and efforts on the one hand, and
political Zionism on the other, apparently approving of the former and
anathematizing the latter, they were merely playing with words, and
had no notion of the real facts.
Why did the plans for the Restoration of the Jews to Palestine remain
unfulfilled? Was it through political changes, for want of preparation,
or through the absence of adequate organization on the part of the
Jewish people? It is not our business to criticize the past. Let us
deal instead with the further development of the idea, which in fact
was never dropped, but, on the contrary, continually gained ground.
In 1844 it was proposed to encourage the settlement of the Jews in
Palestine by giving them employment on the land. Lady Montefiore
writes in her journal:――
“General satisfaction was expressed at the suggestion of a plan which
might enable them to obtain an honourable independence. Energy and
talent, they said, existed. Nothing was needed but protection and
encouragement.” In another letter, referring to the same subject, she
writes:――“Our high-spirited nationality, under a judiciously exercised
protectorate, might be assisted to work out, in due time, its own
civilization, and to become a flourishing autonomous community with
an extending commerce.”¹
¹ Notes from a private journal of a visit to Egypt and
Palestine, by way of Italy and the Mediterranean. [Not
Published.] London:... 1844. (8º. 2 _ll._ + 410 _pp._
+ folded leaf), _p._ 249.
From this it is evident that Sir Moses was continuing his efforts
under the new circumstances. His correspondence with the Chief
_Rabbi_, Dr. Nathan Marcus Adler (1803‒1890) shows that this famous
Ecclesiastic was also greatly in sympathy with the idea (Appendix lvi).
At the same time the notion of establishing a Jewish Commonwealth
found ardent champions among another section of English-speaking Jews
and among Christians of Puritan aspirations in America.
Major Mordecai Manuel Noah was one of the most prominent American Jews.
He was Consul of the United States to Morocco from 1813 to 1816. On
his return he established the _National Advent_ and afterwards the
_New York Enquirer_, subsequently also a weekly paper, _The Times_.
He was Surveyor of the Port and Sheriff. In 1819 he published a book
of his travels in England, France, Spain, and the Barbary States.
His attempt to establish a Jewish city of refuge on Grand Island, near
Buffalo, is the one incident in his career that caused some sensation;
but there was a great deal more of interest in the Major’s life than
that famous episode. It would be a great pity indeed were the rest
of his career allowed to pass into oblivion. Major Noah would have
deserved to be remembered had he never gone to Buffalo, and there
dedicated the City of _Ararat_ in the Episcopal Church. It was on
the dedication of the _Shearith Israel_ Synagogue in New York City
in 1818, seven years before the _Ararat_ episode, that Noah said:
“The Jews will possess themselves once more of Syria, and take their
rank among the governments of the earth.” Again, in 1844, nineteen
years after Ararat, he delivered a public discourse in New York, in
which he expressed to an audience of Christians his firm belief in
the Restoration of Israel to the Promised Land. The tenacity with
which Noah held to his Jewish nationalistic ideas is all the more
remarkable in view of the fact that he was so thoroughly American. His
great-great-grandfather, he said in one of the addresses referred to,
was buried in the Cemetery at Chatham Square. He himself was a great
literary and political personality in New York. It was said that he
told the best story, rounded the best sentence and wrote the best play
of all his contemporaries. He was one of the most prominent editors of
the City. He held, at different times, the offices of Consul-General
at Tunis, Sheriff of New York County, Surveyor of the Port, and Judge
of the Court of Sessions. “No man of his day had a better claim to the
title of ‘American,’ yet all his life he cherished the idea of a
Restoration of the Jews to Palestine.”¹
¹ M. M. Noah. The First American Zionist, by Dr. Abraham
Lipsky. The Maccabean, New York, December. 1908, _p._ 231 f.
In 1845 he published a _Discourse on the Restoration of the Jews_,
delivered at the Tabernacle on October 28th and December 2nd, 1844. In
the Preface to his book he refers to some Christian supporters of the
idea, and says:――
“True, the efforts to evangelize them (the Jews) contrary, as I think,
to the manifest predictions of the prophets, continue to be unceasing,
yet even in this there is charity and good feeling, which cannot fail
to be reciprocally beneficial.” He then quotes the letter of the late
President of the United States, Mr. Adams, to which we referred above
(see Chapter IX.), and draws the attention of the Americans to the
idea of Restoration in most forcible and often eloquent language.
Another American, Warder Cresson (1798‒1860), United States Consul in
_Jerusalem_, was a great Zionist in his time. He wrote a book¹ on the
subject, in which he says:――
¹ Jerusalem――the centre and joy of the whole earth.... By
Warder Cresson, United States Consul at Jerusalem....
Second Edition. London.... M.DCCC.XLIX., _p._ 3.
“All the different nations have appointed consuls in _Jerusalem_, as
in anticipation of some very important and general movement; which
is regarded with a jealous eye by the Turks, as well as the other
European Powers. ‘Britain has had a consul in _Jerusalem_ three years
before any other nation, except Prussia; but no sooner did she send
a bishop, than France, Russia and Austria sent consuls forthwith;
and thus in _Jerusalem_――which is, in a commercial point of view,
but a paltry inland Eastern town, without trade or importance of any
kind――sit the five consuls of the Great European powers (as well as
one appointed by the United States of America), looking at one another,
and it is difficult to say why and wherefore.’ To use the words of Dr.
Alexander Keith (1791‒1880): ‘A country which for previous centuries,
_no man inquired after_, excites anew the liveliest interest among the
greatest of earthly potentates.’”¹
¹ The Land of Israel.... By Alexander Keith, D.D.,
Edinburgh:... 1843. _p._ 476.
Having devoted some considerable time to Biblical study, Cresson
embraced the Jewish faith, and after his conversion was named Michael
Boaz Israel. He founded a colony in Palestine which was one of the
pioneer enterprises of its kind.
Meanwhile, the propaganda in England made considerable progress. The
Rev. A. G. H. Hollingsworth aroused public opinion and appealed to the
British Government for help for the Jews to regain the land of their
fathers. He says:――
“Such objects are worthy of the efforts of a great people. These
designs are to be brought into maturity by the settlement and the
protection of the Jew in Palestine. It is his native climate and home.
There he can feel the deathless energies of his race, and the high
destinies of his future. He is poor, he is powerless, he is alone;
scattered like iron amid the clay of surrounding nations. But let
him ask in peace for the common rights of a subject of Turkey, in a
country where the very hills have voices to remind him of what he has
been and may be; and under the protecting flag of Victoria, he will be
able, divinely permitted, to prove himself possessed of heroic virtues
in all that makes man great, noble, religious and free.”¹
¹ Remarks upon the Present Condition and Future Prospects of
the Jews in Palestine. By the Rev. A. G. H. Hollingsworth,
M.A., Rural Dean, and Vicar of Stowmarket and Stowupland....
London:... MDCCCLII. _p._ 14.
Another famous Englishman, Colonel George Gawler (1796‒1869),
Governor of South Australia (1838‒1841), who devoted his whole life to
religious and philanthropic pursuits, was more of a political Zionist,
and dealt with the question from the standpoint of British politics.
He declared:――
“Divine Providence has placed Syria and Egypt in the very gap between
England and the most important regions of her colonial and foreign
trade, India, China, the Indian Archipelago and Australia. She does
not require or wish for increase of territory――already has she (that
dangerous boon) more direct dominion than she can easily maintain; but
she does _most urgently_ need the shortest and the safest lines of
communication to the territories already possessed.... Egypt and Syria
stand in intimate connection. A foreign hostile power mighty in either,
would soon endanger British trade and communications through the other.
Hence the providential call upon her, to exert herself energetically
for the amelioration of the condition of both of these Provinces.
Egypt has improved greatly by British influence, and it is now for
England to set her hand to the renovation of Syria, through the only
people whose energies will be extensively and permanently in the work,
――the real children of the soil, the sons of _Israel_.”¹
¹ Syria, and its near prospects; the substance of an Address
delivered ... on Tuesday, 25th January, 1853 ... By Colonel
George Gawler, K.H., F.R.G.S., Late Governor and Resident
Commissioner of the Province of South Australia. London:...
(_pp._ 48‒49).
An anonymous author considers it a sign of the times that
extraordinary events are announced to take place in regard to Jews.
He is the writer of some of the most beautiful passages in Zionist
literature by a Christian Englishman¹ (Appendix lvii).
¹ The Final Exodus; or, the Restoration to Palestine of
The Lost Tribes, ... with a description of the Battle of
Armageddon, ... as deduced wholly from prophecy. London:...
1854....
Dr. Thomas Clarke, author of _Palestine for the Jews_, wrote: “Any
one who has studied the features of the past, and watched intently the
signs of the present, can see that a terrible convulsion is coming;
and if, out of the chaos, Poles, Huns, Magyars, Sclaves and Italians――
... are to be resuscitated, is not also that nation through whom
we as Gentiles derive a title to our blessings, and whose ancestor,
above four thousand years ago, was the friend of God? And I, as an
Englishman, cannot blind myself to the fact that, while it would be
an inestimable boon to the house of _Israel_, it would be also of the
greatest possible advantage to us; for if it has been a necessity in
times past that the kingdom of Turkey shall exist as a neutral power,
and that its boundaries should remain intact as a defence and barrier
... surely, ... the occupation of Palestine by ... the Jews, under the
protection of England, must be a greater necessity than ever.... If
England, again, is ... relying upon its commerce as the corner-stone
of its greatness; if one of the nearest and best channels of that
commerce is across the axis of the three great continents; and if the
Jews are essentially a trading ... people, what so natural as that
they should be planted along that great highway of ancient traffic?
Is not the mind struck with astonishment at the contemplation of such
a possibility? How the cycles of ages seem to be but the revolutions
of the giant wheel of time, and how the past is but the seed ... of
the future,... For, in the realisation of what is certainly more than
a probability, the now almost forgotten and long buried cities of
Palmyra, Babylon, Bagdad and especially of ancient Balsorah (_sic_),
at the junction of the two great Eastern rivers――a position scarcely
second to Constantinople itself,――must again become emporiums (_sic_)
of wealth, and rise to a splendour and importance equal, or superior,
to what they were in the acme of their glory.―― ... Syria must be
occupied by a trading ... people――it lies in the great route of
ancient commerce; and were the Ottoman Power to be displaced, that old
commercial route would immediately re-open. Trade would flow once more
in its old channel across Syria and along the valley of the Euphrates
... and in what more skilful hands could the exchanges betwixt the
East and the West be placed? In his harbours would the ships of
Europe discharge the fabrics and manufactures of the industrious
West, and return laden with the wine and oil, and silks and gems of
the East. In fine, Syria would be safe only in the hands of a brave,
independent, and spirited people, deeply imbued with the sentiment of
nationality,... Such people we have in the Jews.... Restore them their
nationality and their country once more, and there is no power on
earth that could ever take it from them.”¹
¹ India and Palestine: or, the Restoration of the Jews, viewed
in relation to The Nearest Route to India.... By Thomas
Clarke, M.D.... Manchester: ... (_pp._ 12‒15). _p._ vi.,
Wilmslow, July, 1861.
CHAPTER XXVII.
EARL OF BEACONSFIELD
Christianity and Judaism――Disraeli’s character――Jewish
features――_Alroy_――_Tancred_――The defence of Jewish rights
――Oriental policy.
THE most original combination of an Englishman and a Jew was Benjamin
Disraeli (1804‒1887), Earl of Beaconsfield (1876), whom Zionists
may claim as one of the greatest representatives of their movement.
Was Lord Beaconsfield a Christian or a Jew? For Jews the question
is satisfactorily answered by their instinct of sympathy. Lord
Beaconsfield felt towards the members of his race as a Jew feels for
his fellow-Jews. That being the test, Lord Beaconsfield proved himself
a good Jew in that respect. In religious matters, however, Lord
Beaconsfield was a Christian――and a Zionist.
He was purely Jewish by descent, and was the eldest son of Isaac
_D’_Israeli (1766‒1848), the author of _The Curiosities of Literature_
(1791), _The Genius of Judaism_ (1833), _etc._, by his wife Miriam
(Maria), a daughter of Naphtali (_d._ 1808) _de_ Solomon Basevi of
Verona, Italy. He was born in London on Friday, 21 December, 1804,
and was initiated into the _Abrahamic_ covenant on the following
Friday, 26 _Tebet_, 5565, by David Abarbanel Lindo (1772‒1852).
Isaac _D’_Israeli severed his connection finally with the Bevis
Marks synagogue in March, 1817, and on the 31 July following, at the
instigation it is said of Samuel Rogers (1763‒1855), the banker poet,
the future Premier was baptised at the parish church of St. Andrew,
Holborn. In his public conduct and pronouncements he proved undeniably
that an Englishman, by birth a Jew, can be as much an Englishman as
any descendant of Saxon, Norman, or Dane living in these islands, and
can share with as warm a glow the common sentiment of patriotism that
unites Englishmen round their ancient throne and institutions.
Disraeli was a living monument of the greatness of the Jewish race,
of its capacity to produce individuals equal in mental stature to
the loftiest among mankind. What he thought of his ancestral and of
his adopted faith respectively may be gathered from the well-known
words in one of his earlier writings: “Christianity is Judaism for
the multitude,” a sentence which to his brethren in race is equivalent
to saying: “Ye are the salt of the earth.” The perseverance and zeal
which acknowledged no defeat and produced such extraordinary successes
were essentially Jewish. The most superficial acquaintance with Jews
is sufficient to reveal the fact that there is no Jewish trait more
distinctive than this unconquerable determination. It is a heritage
bequeathed to them by their ancestors. With the many different
experiences of a race dispersed in every corner of the globe, without
a home for nearly twenty centuries, hunted from country to country,
carrying their lives in their hands, and bound to be on the alert for
every emergency, it is not strange that the Jews display great
resourcefulness.
The Disraeli family had been expelled by the persecutions of the
Spanish Inquisition, in the fifteenth century, and found an asylum
in Italy. Two centuries and a half later, Benjamin (1730‒1816) [_de_
Isaac] Israeli of Cento, in Ferrara, Italy, grandfather of the Earl
of Beaconsfield, settled in England. Thus the experience stored in the
mind of a typical Jew like Beaconsfield represents more than a single
trait of heredity; it is a combination of such traits. But what was
most Jewish in him was his affection for the Holy Land. This pious
feeling, which he shared with his race, became with him a tremendous
power; it influenced his policy and caused him to consolidate
England’s power in the East. He also constantly supported every
movement towards Jewish emancipation.
As a historic figure he possesses a charm of his own, and romanticism
pervades his whole career. Neither his birth nor the religion of his
ancestors nor his own antecedents prevented him from conquering the
prejudices which the aristocracy is wont to show towards a self-made
man; for the English aristocracy possesses the wonderful quality that
ensures the preservation of its strength――that if once it recognizes
genius, far from opposing or avoiding it, it defends it, attracts
it, and completely absorbs it. And so Disraeli, instead of becoming
a fiery tribune of the masses, developed into an able and successful
leader of the aristocracy. This man, whom his opponents had abused as
a foreigner, so conducted himself as finally to become one of
England’s most famous champions.
It was no common energy and perseverance that Benjamin Disraeli needed
to climb to fame as he did. It was a continuous struggle for him,
from the time when, hooted by the Whig majority in Parliament, he
retorted that the day would come when they would hear him, to the time
when the great Conservative Party chose him as its leader and he was
acclaimed by all his countrymen. Without inheriting a fortune in this
country――where wealth and birth had always been, if not altogether
indispensable, at least a most important qualification for admission
to public life――he was yet able to overcome obstacles that were
then deemed insurmountable and to attain by sheer force of his own
unconquerable will to a position that powers unfathomable seemed
joined to prevent him from gaining. By race a Jew, he was at bottom
a clear-sighted sceptic. With remarkable foresight he had been
able to weigh the advantage which, from the point of view of a
Cabinet Minister, he could gain from the position offered him by the
Conservative party. No one foresaw more clearly than he the future
in store for it. As a Jew he also knew well that it was impossible
to prevent the Liberal evolution from being slowly accomplished in
England. Instead of declaring war upon Liberalism he compromised with
it, and, by means of concessions cleverly granted at the right moment,
he contrived to concede only a portion of what public opinion demanded.
His tendencies, however, were democratic, and in an age in which greed
for material advancement was levelling all things to the lowest plane,
he was able to rescue England from a grovelling servility to blatant
commercialism, uplift her soul and rouse her to a recognition of the
fact that ephemeral interests are not everything to a great people.
As Premier he showed Europe that “England was something more than
a counting-house.” He obtained possession of the Suez Canal by the
purchase of shares――a transaction in which he was assisted by the late
Lord Rothschild (Appendix lviii).
He placed the Imperial Crown of India on his Sovereign’s head. Without
firing a shot, he took possession of Cyprus (Appendix lix), and caused
the might of British arms to be felt in every continent.
His genius, with its many interesting characteristics, was perceived
long before his abilities in international statesmanship and diplomacy
became known. But as a man of letters, no less than as a statesman,
he was first of all a son of his race (Appendix lx) and a Zionist.
His speeches and writings were never those of a renegade anxious to
vilify the faith he had forsaken, or to condemn the ancestry from
which he had sprung. There never was a Jew who wrote in more glowing
terms of the greatness of the Jewish race. No Jew has borne more
fervid testimony to the sublimity of the religion by which the Jewish
people has been sustained through all persecutions. No one could
have used more persuasive arguments, or adopted wiser measures to
remove restrictions from which the Jews were suffering. He had a
deeply-rooted respect and love for his ancient people and for its
ancient land.
To restore the Jews to their rightful place in the esteem of the world,
he wrote and spoke and toiled (Appendix lxi). For this he imperilled
the prospects of his own career. For this he was content to expose
himself to the scoffs and gibes of opponents who almost to his
last hour never forgave him the “crime” of being a Jew. He held the
firm belief that “the Lord still fights for _Israel_.” Unlike those
degenerate sons of _Israel_, who are ever eager to conceal what should
be a source of honour to them, he was never ashamed of his origin:
and when taunted with being of common extraction he would maintain
that his ancestors were already noble when those of the proudest
aristocracy in the world were still barbarians, roaming helplessly
about the woods.
Although he was educated in the bosom of the Christian Church, his
heart never ceased to beat for the greatness and to feel for the
sufferings of the Jewish nation, to which he belonged by the blood in
his veins and the honoured name he bore. Wherever there was a struggle
for the rights of Jews in matters that concerned their honour and
well-being, wherever there was a fight for truth and uprightness,
there we see him stand――a conqueror. While so many authors made it
their business to depict the dark side of the Jewish character or
history, he used his gifted pen to show the worthier traits of the
Jewish character and the influence of the Jews in the world.
As a writer Lord Beaconsfield was essentially an Oriental. Even the
tales in which he describes the clubs and drawing-rooms of London are
like an Arabian Nights’ entertainment transplanted to St. James’. Over
persons and scenes he casts an Oriental magnificence. His Oriental
tales are, to our mind, the most natural that he wrote.
_The wonderful tale of Alroy_ (1833)¹ is an Oriental romance founded
on a _Hebrew_ tradition concerning the Princes of the Captivity
――rulers whom the Jews continued to elect from among the descendants
of the House of _David_ (2854‒2924 _a.m._) even after their dispersion.
Alroy is one of them,² who after a long interregnum possesses himself,
by supernatural assistance, of a part of the sceptre of _Solomon_
(_ob._ 2964), and establishes the _Hebrew_ monarchy on the ruins of
the new Caliphate of Bagdad. His life is short, and his reign much
shorter. The tale is full of enthusiasm for the hopes of _Israel_.
One little passage may be cited: “All was silent: alone the _Hebrew_
prince stood, amid the regal creation of the Macedonian captains.
Empires and dynasties flourish and pass away; the proud metropolis
becomes a solitude, the conquering kingdom even a desert: but _Israel_
still remains, still a descendant of the most ancient kings.”
¹ חטר מגזע ישי או אל־ראי מאת ... בנימין בנימין דיזראעלי ... ונעתק לשפת עברית צחה ע״י
.אברהם אבא ראקאווסקי ... ווראשא ... שנת תרמ״ג לפ״ק ... 1883
² David Alroy, or Alrui (El David: Menahem _ben_ Suleiman
ibn Alruhi), born at Amadia in Kurdistan. He appeared as
a pseudo-messiah about the year 1160.
A biographer of Disraeli remarks on this passage: “This (with its
after-irony of ‘Alroy’s seizure by the Kourdish bandits’) may be
compared with the satire in which Disraeli encountered Mr. [Charles
Newdigate] Newdegate’s [M.P.] (1816‒1887) appeals to ‘prophecy’:...
They have survived the Pharaohs, they have survived the Cæsars, they
have survived the Antonines and Seleucidæ, and I think they will
survive the arguments of the right honourable member....” Mr. Morley
tells that (1838‒1918)¹ Mr. Gladstone said that Disraeli asserted that
only those nations that behaved well to the Jews prospered....²
¹ Afterwards Viscount (1908‒) Morley of Blackburn.
² Disraeli: A Study in Personality and Ideas, by Walter Sichel
... London, 1904, _p._ 223.
Disraeli loved the East, and particularly Palestine. Its
picturesqueness, both in scenery and in history, fascinated him.
“Say what they like,” says Herbert in _Venetia_, “there is a spell in
the shores of the Mediterranean Sea which no others can rival. Never
was such a union of natural loveliness and magical associations!
On these shores have risen all that interests us in the past――Egypt
and Palestine, Greece, Rome and Carthage, Moorish Spain and feudal
Italy. These shores have yielded us our religion, our arts, our
literature and our laws. If all that we have gained from the shores
of the Mediterranean was erased from the memory of man, we should be
savages.”¹
¹ _Ibid._ Note 1.
The great merit of _Tancred_ (1847)¹ lies in the description of Syria,
and of life in the mountain and desert, in which it abounds. Tancred
is a high-born youth dissatisfied with modern society, yearning for
the restoration of true faith, and resolving to visit the land in
which the Creator had conversed with man, as the only spot in which it
is at all likely that enlightenment or inspiration will be vouchsafed
to him. The story of his adventures is told with wonderful spiritual
beauty. The author leads his reader to the desert, the cradle of the
Arabs, from which they spread East and West, and come to be known as
Moors in Spain, as Jews in Palestine. Nothing can be more interesting
than his account of the manners and the men, neither of which are
much changed since the days of the Patriarchs; nothing finer than the
pictures of the rocks and towers of _Jerusalem_, or the grey forests
of _The Lebanon_.
¹ נס לגוים או טאנקרעד מאת בנימן דיזראעלי ... נעתק עברית מאת יהל״ל ... [יחודה לב לוין]
.ווארשא ... שנת תרמ״ג לפ״ק ... 1883
It was quite natural that the East should engage his attention. He
believed in the glory of Great Britain’s imperial mission, and was
interested to the bottom of his heart in the past history and future
welfare of her venerable and still vigorous institutions. He was
anxious to see the influence of Great Britain strong and decisive in
the East. His policy on the Eastern question was constantly ascribed
by his enemies to his “Semitic instincts,” which were supposed to
taint his views of the relations between Turkey and all her Christian
subjects. But they could know little of Beaconsfield who supposed that
his Semitic instincts led him to any partiality. What guided him was
his deep conception of Great Britain’s policy and highest interests,
working in conjunction and in harmony with his feeling for the real
East, for the Jews, the Semites, for Judaism in its idealism and
Oriental beauty. The conditions were not yet ripe for practical
progress in Zionism, but he was throughout an enthusiastic supporter
of the Zionist idea, and he worked for the future.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE CRIMEAN WAR
Russia and Turkey――A protectorate over the Greek Christians
――The question of the “Holy Places”――The Greek Church――_Sultan_
Mahmud II. and the _Tsar_ Nicholas I.――Jurisdiction in Turkey
――_Prince_ Menschikoff――The Alliance between France, Great
Britain and Turkey――Sardinia――Alexander II.――The fall of
Sebastopol――The conclusion of peace in Paris――The question
of reforms――The Jewish point of view――The Crimean War
and Palestine――Dr. Benisch in the _Jewish Chronicle_――The
Christian Zionist propaganda――Rev. W. H. Johnstone――Mr. Robert
Young.
IN 1853 a great struggle broke out between Russia and Turkey,
the immediate cause of which was the desire of Russia to force a
protectorate upon the Greek Christians in the Turkish dominions. This
was accompanied by a dispute between Russia and other European powers,
especially France, which had arisen over the guardianship of the
“Holy Places.” The fate of Palestine was involved in the issue of
this struggle.
The pretension of the Greek Church to exercise the right of possession
of the “Holy Places” dates back to the early days of Christianity.
The Greek Church has always posed as the genuine representative of
the Eastern Church, professing to have inherited its claim to the
allegiance of the orthodox when the cleavage came, in the second
century, concerning the proper season for the celebration of Easter,
and divided its community into two distinct sections.
The alleged and proved purpose of the Church was to obtain complete
and undisturbed possession of the “Holy Places,” where the Greek
Church deems it of vital importance that certain religious ceremonies
shall be observed, to which pilgrimages are to be made by its devout
members. Some of these members furnished the Russian Government with
reasons for its claims, presumably based on facts. At that period the
greater part of the Christian Communities in the whole of Syria and
Palestine adhered to the Greek Orthodox faith. In the whole Ottoman
Empire their number was very considerable; the estimate in 1852‒53
reached as high a total as 11,000,000 members of the Greek Church.
In Greece it was the established religion, while throughout the
Greek islands its members outnumbered those of any other Christian
denomination. North of the Danube, Wallachia and Moldavia were under
its sway and were considered to be under the protection of Russia.
The Greek monasteries of the Holy Land were not only under the
protection and control of Russia, but were chiefly supported by loans
from that country. Under this influence these communities continued
to make the greatest progress possible, and put forth every effort to
advance themselves step by step, leaving no stone unturned in their
endeavour to raise themselves above the other Churches.
Rumours gained currency that a strong Russian propaganda was on foot.
It was even said that the late _Sultan_ Mahmud II. gave an assurance
to the effect, that at the death of Mehemet Ali, the Holy Land should
be given up to Russian dominion on certain stipulated conditions.
Imagination had, of course, free scope in inventing myths of this kind.
But at any rate there was a general impression abroad that Russia was
anxious to conquer and annex the Holy Land.
The unhappy empire for which England and France had shed so much blood
and made so many sacrifices continued to give anxiety and trouble
to Europe. Turkey had gained much by the war in the way of security
from invasion and extension of the central authority to provinces
which previously had been partly independent. The Western Powers, and
particularly England, waited anxiously for the reforms and progress
which were promised by the sanguine friends of the Turkish cause.
But Turkey did nothing. Her finances were in confusion. The schemes
which English enterprise had kept going were delayed. While the Porte
was borrowing at enormous interest the money required for current
expenditure, it could hardly be expected to guarantee dividends on
many millions sterling, and it would have inspired little confidence
if it had done so. This, then, was the time for statesmen to study the
question and to elaborate their plans.
Of all the evils with which the Turkish State was afflicted,
corruption――in the sense of the denial of justice――seems to have been
the worst. Each of the non-Mohammedan nations was permitted to appear
before tribunals of its own bishops in matters of litigation in which
only its members were concerned. The civil law was administered in the
Greek courts; the Armenians were subject to many regulations brought
from the interior of Asia. The Turkish courts were presided over
by functionaries who had much of the character of priests, and the
law founded on the Koran was what might have been expected from a
text-book interpreted by such commentators. The literal sense meant
one thing, the metaphorical sense another, and the best chance of
getting justice was when the judge could find nothing to fit the case
and decided according to his own common sense. Both his Scriptural
authorities and his private opinions were, however, continually
influenced by arguments more persuasive than any pleadings. The
corruption of this sort of court was notorious, and the Christian
bishops were not considered much better than the believers. As for
the _Frank_¹ jurisdiction, it was chaos, being void of all system.
Each man came under the representative of his own nation; through
this official or his deputy he had to be sued, and by him he had to
be tried for any offence. If a French officer and a German shoemaker
had differences concerning a pair of boots, one had to make his
application through the Austrian Internunciate, the other had to
respond through the French Embassy. The matter was in the first
instance referred to the Consuls, who knew little of law, and the
appeal came before the Ambassadors, who knew less. Commercial courts
existed in some of the chief cities, and exercised a good influence;
but as the country was opened more and more to commercial enterprise,
and this increased with the progress of the non-Mohammedan populations,
these courts became inadequate.
¹ European.
The country was, no doubt, very badly in need of material improvements:
roads and canals are generally the initial work of a renewed
civilization. But the real basis of improvement is confidence in the
Government, and the guarantee of undisturbed ownership of property.
Such confidence cannot exist without impartial courts and sensible
laws. The most capable judge could not do justice according to the
_Koran_, while the codes of Justinian and Napoleon were unavailing so
long as the longest purse was the best argument.
It was therefore the duty of the Western Powers to consider how
justice might be administered so as to encourage both the native and
the settler to join in the work of amelioration. Few thinking men
had visited the East without formulating some plan for supplying
this first and greatest want. The general conclusion was based on
the supposition of the necessity for continuing the “Capitulations.”
It was supposed to be impossible for strangers to submit themselves
to the authority of the monarch who ruled the land; and indeed the
experience of the native courts, and the fact that no man ventured
to undertake any commercial business without security, naturally
suggested foreign protection. More than one traveller, therefore,
recommended that a code of laws should be agreed to by the Great
Powers, and that in every seaport French, English, _etc._, judges
should decide such cases as involved the liberty or property of
Europeans. Such a system was regarded as being superior to the earlier
ineffective regulations. But, on the other hand, it was held that such
an expedient should only be resorted to temporarily.
Turkey had already suffered greatly through the power of European
Embassies and their enmity towards one another. The Western Powers
did not forget that they had gone to war for the independence and
integrity of the Ottoman Empire. They knew that a mixed court sitting
in its capital to try foreigners was a thing that no high-spirited
nation would permit, and that, if circumstances made it necessary
to demand jurisdiction for foreigners in the capital of the Sultan,
that could only be until the elements of a better state of things
came into being. The Powers had, therefore, to look forward to a time
when Turkey would stand alone, and all protection and jurisdiction in
the way of Capitulations would cease to exist. A well-framed code of
laws suited to all races and religions, administered by well-educated
men, and obeyed by native and foreigner alike, was the ideal object
for which the supporters of Turkey had to work. The sovereign of the
country must be at the head of this system and supreme in his own
dominions. Although such a scheme was deemed visionary at that time,
and the gap had to be filled by “mixed” courts, yet public opinion
in England thought that nothing should be done that could prevent the
subsequent establishment of the better system. It was also believed
that if a suitable legal system were set up, men might be found in
England, France and other countries to administer it successfully.
But it was admitted on all hands that the judicial system of
Turkey deserved the immediate attention of thinking politicians;
that questions of taxation and the tenure of land were especially
interesting in view of the increasing commerce with the East and of
possible developments in the matter of immigration; that nothing that
could throw light on the causes of Turkish decay should be neglected;
and that the absence of good laws and security was the first obstacle
to improvement, and should therefore be the first thought of the
statesman and philanthropist.
Here we see all the elements of the political Zionist problem. All
this development prepared the way for the idea of the protection of
the Jews in the East, and gave a powerful stimulus to projects for the
colonization of Palestine by the Jews.
In the spring of 1853 the Russian Government submitted to the Porte,
through _Prince_ A. S. Menschikoff (1787‒1869), an ultimatum in regard
to the Greek Christians and other matters. England and France prepared
to support _Sultan_ Abdul Medjid against Russia, and stationed their
fleets in Bezika Bay. In July the Russian forces advanced into the
Danubian principalities. On October 4th, 1853, Turkey declared war.
The English and French fleets thereupon passed through the Dardanelles.
On March 12th, 1854, France and Great Britain concluded an alliance
with Turkey, and two weeks later they declared war against Russia.
At the beginning of October the Allies began the regular siege of
Sebastopol. Sardinia joined the Allies in January, 1855. Meanwhile the
_Emperor_ Nicholas I. died,¹ and Alexander II. acceded to the throne.
On November 8th Sebastopol fell into the hands of the Allies.
¹ Feb. 18, 1855 [_o.s._].
* * * * *
The Western Powers completed the occupation of Turkey within two
years; but the reforms, of which they spoke so much, were still to
come. Turkey remained what it was in internal rule and mismanagement.
Fear may have controlled the abuses of fanaticism, despair may have
destroyed whatever remained of national pride; but the abuses which
ages had fostered still prevailed. Now the social regeneration of the
Ottoman State was part of the legitimate policy of the Western Powers.
The presence of large foreign armies had broken down the pride of
the Mussulmans, or enforced its concealment; the Sultan, though less
exposed to the vagaries of diplomatists, had become more responsible
to the European States and the brotherhood of sovereigns among whom he
now held a place; the Turk himself, in spite of courage and a certain
amount of dignity, was degenerating day by day, through want of modern
culture; the Christian tribes were increasing in numbers and power;
the merchants of Constantinople, Smyrna, and Alexandria were growing
rich with British gold, while British enterprise seemed to be surely,
though gradually, adding the Sultan’s empire to the area of its wide
activities.
Justice, humanity, England’s promises, the arguments with which
she had opposed her enemies, demanded that her tutelage should not
suddenly cease. She and France were now the protectors of the Ottoman
territory and its outlying provinces; they were the masters of every
military position; every sea was traversed by their fleets; every
port was full of the merchandize required for their vast armies. Nor
was their supremacy one of force alone. Whatever may have been the
feelings aroused by their policy, each class and creed had learned to
respect their motives and to acquiesce in their presence. Whatever may
have been thought on racial and religious grounds, certainly material
interests in the end prevailed over every other. Every business man
saw clearly that his own prosperity was enhanced by the presence
of two wealthy nations, in need of large and constant supplies, and
willing to pay liberally and at once. In their hearts they had no wish
to be again reduced to a miserable traffic with their own bankrupt
Government, or with the poverty-stricken towns of the Turkish and
Persian interior. The peasants who tilled the ground had gained
wherever local tyranny did not rob them of the just rewards of their
labour. The landed proprietor had also become wealthy, and had no
reason to regret the Western crusade, which gave his possessions a
fourfold value. So tangible was the advantage, and so soon did the
Turks acquiesce in what affected only their patriotism and self-esteem,
that it was doubtful whether even the most bigoted Mussulman wanted
the evacuation of the country by the Allied armies. Englishmen,
of course, looked upon the advancement of Turkey in a different
light from that in which it was seen by its own people. Still, even
Englishmen could not fail to realize that if they withdrew there was
no doubt that the old stagnation would immediately return, and that
it would even become worse than before, for old fame and the habit of
command kept the Mussulman in his pre-eminence, while the “_Rajah_”
was accustomed to obey, and the foreigner was a mere sojourner,
who cared for nothing but his own peace and prosperity. Now all was
changed: the Turk was still master, without the authority to rule;
the Christian was without rights, but had felt his power; while every
country had its adventurers or capitalists in the land, each with his
own scheme launched or prospective, and all agreeing in the demand
that this rich land should no longer be the heritage of sloth and
fatuity.
Peace was signed at Paris――where a Congress of the Powers had been in
session――on March 30th, 1856. The integrity of the Ottoman Empire was
guaranteed by the Powers; reforms were promised by the Sultan; Russia
renounced her protectorate over the Danubian principalities, and ceded
a strip of Bessarabia to Moldavia; the Black Sea was neutralized. The
Congress united in the “Declaration of Paris,” which laid down some
principles of international law.
The question in which the Jews were interested was first of all that
of their position in Palestine, as well as in the whole of the Turkish
Empire. According to the wording of the treaty the Jews were excluded
from the general guarantee and the immunities of the “_Rajahs_” under
the protection of the contracting powers. But, on the other hand,
all the rights hitherto granted by the _Sultan_ to his Christian
subjects had been extended to the Jews as well; and it was clear
that, if Turkey understood her position rightly, this would also be
her future policy, seeing that it was in her interest not to create
dissatisfaction among a large and loyal body by refusing to one
section of non-Mohammedans what had been conceded to another, and thus
alienating the only non-Mohammedan section of the population which did
not entertain sentiments of revenge, and the only section which was
capable of neutralizing any possible machinations on the part of other
sections.
The war having on the one hand raised very considerably the prices of
provisions, and on the other hand cut off the supplies obtained by the
Palestinian Jews in times of peace from those countries in which the
masses of Jews reside, an awful famine broke out in the Holy Land, and
affected most severely all those who had hitherto depended for their
livelihood upon the small pittances doled out to them by the Jews
in foreign countries. A pitiable cry of distress was raised in the
East and resounded throughout the Western world. Now the right time
had arrived. “We find”, wrote Dr. Abraham Benisch¹ (1811‒1878), “no
other parallel in Jewish history to it save that offered by some of
the events narrated in the books of _Ezra_ (_fl._ 3413 _a.m._) and
_Nehemiah_ (_fl._ 3426 _a.m._). The generous Abdul-Medjed has his
prototype in the God-fearing _Cyrus_ (_ob._ 529 _b.c.e._); and the
pious affection for brethren and country, the devotion and patriotism
then kindling in the bosoms of patriots on the shores of the Euphrates
have transferred their seat to the banks of the Thames. So far God’s
blessing had rested upon the work. But Rome was not built in a day,
nor is a nation regenerated within a few years.”
¹ _Jewish Chronicle_, March 21, 1856, _p._ 524.
Needless to say, the reference here was to the regeneration of the
Jewish nation in Palestine. But for this purpose safety and full
security were wanted――the very problem with which modern Zionism was
confronted, and which was answered by the Basle programme of 1897.
“The Jew, it is true, may now sow and plant. But will he also be
permitted to reap? Will not the wild son of the desert trample down
and carry off the crop even before it is ripe for the sickle? The
_Sultan_ may emancipate his Jewish subjects in the Holy Land, but,
in order to be enabled to reap any benefit from the boon conceded, he
must give them a government strong enough to protect life and property.
The mighty arm of justice must repress lawlessness and strike down
the wrong-doer.... Will the Porte as easily be able to establish in
Palestine a strong government as it was to bless her with liberal
institutions? This is another question which time, and time alone, can
answer, and yet upon the reply thereto the success of the agricultural
scheme for the Palestinian Jews must depend entirely.”
No doubt 1856 offered a great opportunity, had the legal guarantees
been available and the Jews prepared. Unfortunately these essential
conditions did not yet obtain at that time, and no practical result
was achieved.
The Rev. William Henry Johnstone, Chaplain of Addiscombe, and an
author of several theological works, preached the Restoration of
_Israel_ to the Holy Land:――
“If political events are hastening a crisis, when it may be desirable
to consider what is to be done with Palestine, it behoves the Jews
to take earnest heed to their duty.... It is not an extravagant
supposition that Palestine may be placed within the grasp of its
ancient owners....” “In one matter I feel that the Jews have just
reason to complain of many Christians. The Divine Law, of which they
have been the guardians, has never been repealed. Jehovah gave it,
and Jehovah has never taken it away.” “For the present I waive all
consideration of Scriptural predictions. But, without any reference to
the Bible, it must be clear to all that the residence of _Israel_ in
the Holy Land would be fraught with the greatest blessings to mankind.
The Jews, though now scattered over the entire habitable globe,
are united by every national tie,... They have connections with all
large towns; they possess the moving spring of modern industry and
enterprise; and they are renowned for vigour and intelligence. They
have that gift, also, which no other nation had since the dispersion
of Babel,――they can converse with all people in their own languages.
They have naturally, what the apostolic Christians received by
miraculous interposition, the gift of tongues. They may, therefore,
not only undo the work of Babel, but may carry on the work of the
apostles.”¹
¹ Israel in the World: or, The Mission of the Hebrews to the
great military monarchies. By William Henry Johnstone, M.A.,
... Illustrated with a map. London: ... 1844. (_pp._ viii.,
193‒195.)
Another religious writer gave poetical expression to this idea.
Arise, great God! and let thy grace
Shed its glad beams on Jacob’s race;
Restore the long-lost scatter’d band,
And call them to their native land.
Their mis’ry let thy mercy heal,
Their trespass hide, their pardon seal:
O God of Israel! hear our prayer,
And grant them still thy love to share.¹
¹ _Hebrew Melodies_, _p._ 74. Published by Robert Young
(1822‒1888), Edinburgh [1855].
CHAPTER XXIX.
BRITAIN’S MISSION IN THE EAST
Colonel Charles Henry Churchill――Sir Austen Henry Layard――“The
Key to the East”――European Consuls in Palestine――The _Hatti
Sheerif_ of Gulharch――Lord Palmerston’s Circular of April,
1841――Mr. James Finn.
THE theory of Great Britain’s mission in the East has been put forward
by representatives of different classes of English people in different
epochs and from various points of view. The idea existed in greater
or less degree wherever Englishmen thought seriously about the Eastern
problem; it was a flame which was never extinguished.
Colonel Charles Henry Churchill (1814‒1877), a grandson of the fifth
Duke of Marlborough (1766‒1840), was a staff officer in the British
Expedition to Syria, and wrote one of the best works in English
about _The Lebanon_ and its inhabitants. In the “Preface” to which he
writes:――
“The genius of England, which seems so peculiarly fitted to lead
and govern the populations of the East, has, by the happily-combined
influence of arms, commerce, and legislation, established in that
quarter of the globe, a dominion which no purely military conqueror
could ever have consolidated, much less upheld and sustained.”
“The development of the capabilities and resources of that
unparalleled empire in the East, over which England presides――and that
without a rival or compeer――has thus become essentially necessary to
her national prosperity, it may be to her national existence, and must
ever possess imperative, though not exclusive claims upon her national
feelings and sympathies.”
“I say not exclusive and advisedly; for the East, to an important
portion of which I now invite public attention,――the East, whose
shores are washed by the Mediterranean Sea,――the East of rock-hewn
cities and colossal tombs, of heavenly poesy and gigantic art, of
Jacob’s (2108‒2255 _a.m._) might and Ishmael’s (_b._ 2034 _a.m._)
wandering power, of David’s lyre and of Isaiah’s (_fl._ 3140
_a.m._) strain, of Abraham’s faith and Immanuel’s love,――where God’s
mysterious ways with man begun, and where in the fulness of time they
are to be accomplished,――this East, which may yet become the seat
and centre of the Universal Reign!――it also has claims on England’s
watchful vigilance and sympathizing care....”
After having so forcibly expounded the sentimental side, the author
strikes another note, in addition to that so eloquently struck by
Disraeli and others:――
“Whatever part England may take in the temporary complication of
affairs which will probably ensue on that mighty consummation, which
the timid dictates of diplomacy would defer, but which the urgent
demands of humanity and civilization would fain accelerate, it must,
for obvious reasons, be clear to every English mind, that if England’s
Oriental supremacy is to be upheld, Syria and Egypt must be made to
fall more or less under her sway or influence.”
He argues then as a military expert:――
“Napoleon declared Acre to be the key to the East, and most correctly
did his military genius appreciate the importance of that land into
which he vainly sought to enter, as a basis of operations against our
Indian Empire.... I call upon my countrymen, therefore, to adopt this
political doctrine, and nail it to the National Colours:――That when
Palestine ceases to be Turkish, it must either become English, or else
form part of a new independent State, which without the incentives
to territorial aggrandizement, or the means of military aggression,
shall yet be able to maintain its own honour and dignity, and more
especially to promote the great object for which it will be called
into existence, for which indeed, by its geographical position it will
be so eminently qualified; that of creating, developing and upholding
a commercial intercourse in the East, which shall draw together
and unite the hitherto divergent races of mankind in the humanizing
relations of fraternity and peace....”
“... the time is probably fast approaching when Syria, instead of
being merely the land of dreamy and luxurious travel,――of exhilarating
emotions, and fascinating though transient delights, will have
to become one of sound practical legislation, of resuscitating
institutions, of vigorous and comprehensive government;...”¹
¹ Mount Lebanon, a ten years’ residence, from 1842 to 1852....
By Colonel Churchill.... London, 1853 (vol. i., _pp._ v‒x).
At the back of an analysis of the historical and geographical
conditions of the country offered by the author is his conviction
that Palestine must become and will become the seat of a great,
peaceful and prosperous settlement, which must be ruled by England
or under English influence, or must have its independence and normal
development secured by England. He holds that this position will
strengthen England’s power; and he feels subconsciously that England
ought to be wherever the greatest interests of humanity are at stake.
Similarly he contends that with this object in view England must adopt
a very active policy in the East.
Another authority on Oriental politics, Sir Austen Henry Layard
(1817‒1894), whose discoveries and investigations in the East are the
pride of English Oriental science, expressed his opinion, in a speech
delivered in the House of Commons, in very similar words:――
“We should not forget that, although Egypt is _a_ high road to India,
Syria and the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates form _the_ high road,
and any power holding those countries would command India.”¹
¹ The Turkish Question. Speeches delivered in the House of
Commons, on Aug. 16, 1853, and Feb. 17, 1854, by Austin
Henry Layard, Esq., M.P. for Aylesbury. London:... 1854
(_p._ 10).
British diplomacy seems to have been influenced by all these
considerations.
Mr. W. Young was the first British Consul in _Jerusalem_, 1838. As
we know from Lord Shaftesbury’s Diaries, this appointment had been
made in consequence of his own representations and efforts. France
and Prussia followed suit in 1843, and Austria in 1849. A Sardinian
Consulate had been founded in 1843, but it was abolished in the year
in which the Austrian was established. A Spanish Consulate was founded
in 1854.
The two Protestant Consulates, those of England and Prussia, had no
share in the altercation about the Holy Places. Their relations with
the local government were restricted to protection of the property and
persons of their nationals. The Prussian Consulate had at that time
but few subjects and small affairs to look after; while the English
had its own subjects, both residents and travellers, besides Maltese,
Indians, Canadians and other British Colonists, with the Ionians as a
protected people, and also a number of protected Jews, together with
considerable property, including a church hospital, various schools,
and a cemetery, to watch over.
It is interesting to note how British protection for Palestinian Jews,
though not formally confirmed, was practically developing. This is the
only case in history of Jews enjoying the protection of a great Power
without being subjects of that Power. Let us see how this remarkable
development took place. In 1838 Lord Palmerston’s directions to his
first Consul in _Jerusalem_ were to “_afford protection to the Jews
generally_.”¹ The words were simply these, broad and liberal as under
the circumstances they had to be, leaving after events to work out
their own modification. The instruction, however, seemed to bear on
its face a recognition that the Jews there are a nation by themselves,
and that contingencies might possibly arise which might alter their
relations with the Mohammedans, though it was impossible to foresee
the shape that future negotiations would assume after the impending
expulsion of the Egyptians from Syria.
¹ Stirring Times, or Records from Jerusalem Consular
Chronicles, of 1853 to 1856. By the late James Finn,
M.R.A.S.... Vol. i.... London, 1878, _pp._ 106 _ff._
Then came the atrocities of the Passover of 1840 in Damascus,
inflicted on the Jews there during the Egyptian régime. A few months
later the bombardment of Acre and the restoration of Syria to the
Turks took place. The episode of the Egyptian hold upon Syria from
1832 to 1840 came to an end. The Turks were restored at the end of
1840, being then rather more liberal in disposition than they had been
before leaving the country, and in the following year the _Sultan_
promulgated the _Hatti ♦Sheerif_ of Gulharch, which conceded equality
in theory (but by no means in practice) to all classes of subjects.
♦ “Shereef of Gulgarch” replaced with “Sheerif of Gulharch”
for consistency
The British Government at once brought before the consideration of
the Porte the condition of the Jews “already settled, or who might
afterwards settle themselves in Palestine.” This was evidently a
direct encouragement towards the colonization of Palestine by the
Jews, made officially by the British Government. In April, 1841, Lord
Palmerston forwarded a circular to his agents in the Levant and Syria,
which began by stating that, as far as documents could avail, the law
of Turkey had by that time become as favourable as might reasonably
be expected to the Jews, but that there remained the difficulty of
enforcing an honest administration of that law. The Porte, however,
being at that time entirely under the beneficial influence of
British diplomacy, had declared its determination that the law should
be righteously administered, and had even promised Her Majesty’s
Ambassador that “it will attend to any representations which may be
made to it by the Embassy of any act of oppression practised against
Jews.” The Consul was therefore to investigate diligently all cases
of oppression of the Jews that might come to his knowledge, and report
to the Embassy, and although he might only act officially on behalf
of persons actually by right under British protection, he was on every
suitable occasion to make it known to the local authorities that “the
British Government felt an interest in the welfare of Jews in general,
and was anxious that they should be protected from oppression.” He
was also to make known the offer of the Porte to attend to cases of
persecution that might be reported to the Embassy.
In 1842 a bad case was represented as occurring at _Hebron_ through
acts of violence on the part of Shaiki Baddo and others. In 1847 again
it seemed probable that Christian fanatics were about to reproduce
the horrors which occurred at Rhodes and Damascus in 1840. The British
Consul, James Finn (1806‒1872), then interfered and protected the
Jews. In the same year he was again obliged to interfere on behalf
of the Jews. In consequence of various occurrences of this kind in
_Jerusalem_, another instruction was issued by the Foreign Office,
to the effect that whenever any Austrian, French, or other European
Jew was suffering from persecution or injustice, and was repudiated
by his own Consul, the English Consul might take up the case, unless
the repudiating Consul, when applied to, should assign some strong
and sufficient reason for his objection. The spirit underlying this
instruction, notwithstanding the establishment, since 1839, of other
European Consulates, was in conformity with the rule laid down in that
year, “to afford protection to Jews generally.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, _p._ 112.
One out of many tokens of gratitude from the people so benefited
will be found in an address in _Hebrew_ to Her Majesty Queen Victoria
(1819‒1901), received from _Jerusalem_ in July, 1849 (Appendix lxii).
There were, as usual, many cases in which the Palestinian Jews needed
the official aid of the British Consulate, and numerous documents
refer to the instances in which active official intervention with
the Turkish Government was exercised on their behalf. Notwithstanding
the just jealousy of the Turkish Government, says Finn,¹ there were
many individual ways of ameliorating the condition of Jewish Ottoman
subjects, as well as of the Jews under British protection.
¹ _Ibid._, vol. ii., _pp._ 55‒56.
During the first case mentioned above no other Consul took part in
the business, except that the Sardinian Consul assured Finn in private
conversation that there could be no doubt about Jews using Christian
blood in the Passover rites whenever they could get it, or, at any
rate, they did in the Middle Ages.
CHAPTER XXX.
BRITISH INTEREST AND WORK IN PALESTINE
Mr. Rogers――Mr. Finzi――Agricultural work in Palestine under
the auspices of the British Consul――W. Holman Hunt――Thomas
Seddon――A New Appeal――Prof. D. Brown――Rev. John Fry――Rev.
Capel Molyneux――Prof. C. A. Auberlen――Dr. W. Urwick――Dr. E.
Henderson――Prof. Joseph A. Alexander――Dr. Patrick Fairbairn
――Dr. Thomas Arnold.
“THE greatest advantages had resulted to the Jews from this indirect
protection, and as a natural consequence Jews of all kinds continually
resorted to the British Consulate at all times for advice when in
distress, and they received every kind of help which could be properly
afforded them. They were no longer outwardly persecuted, being well
known to be under British protection.... The Russian Jews, now since
1850 British protégés, enjoyed, especially in _Safed_ and _Tiberias_,
a tranquillity to which they had long been strangers, and the
Consulate was well seconded in regard to them by Mr. [Edward Thomas]
Rogers (1830(1)‒1884), the new Vice-Consul at _Haifa_, besides whom we
had had from long previous years, as British Consular Agent, at Acre,
Mr. Finzi, who was a Jew.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, vol. ii., _pp._ 56‒57.
The British Consul also started works of philanthropy which seemed to
be the beginning of an experiment in Jewish agriculture.
“A plot of ground of about eight to twelve English acres had been
purchased in 1852, on which as soon as money could be obtained for
supplying wages some of the poor had been set to work. That land was
set apart for ever under the name of ‘the Industrial Plantation for
employment of Jews of _Jerusalem_,’ and it was in due time placed
under the security of three trustees.
“The design was not so much to constitute a rural colony of farmers on
this spot, as to afford daily employment _to residents of the city_,
returning from work every evening to their families.
“It was always designed that other branches of Jewish agricultural
employment, that might be carried on in other places in the vicinity,
should be associated with this institution under the general name of
‘Industrial Plantation.’
“We were not so sanguine as to expect pallid creatures, weakened by
hunger and disease, to perform the labours of healthy robust peasants
of the villages, but at least they could clear off the loose stones
from the land in baskets, they could assist in building up dry walls
of enclosure with the guidance of a few peasants; they could carry
water from the cistern, and they could learn to do other things.
“These tasks would be profitable and preparatory. Upon such tasks we
had already in 1850 to 1853 employed as many poor Jews as the small
funds at our disposal had permitted. Now in 1854 we applied to friends
in England, and elsewhere, to send us the means of relieving some
of the vast amount of misery around us, by means of employment in the
open air. The appeal was responded to and funds were sent from England,
from India, and also one or two contributions from America. By the
month of April money had arrived, and we were able to set the people
to work.... Notice was given to the Jews that employment on the
land might be obtained for wages on the ground above-mentioned; the
Arabic name which it bore among the peasants, of its former owners,
was _Ker’m el Khaleel_――the vineyard of the Friend――_i.e. Abraham_
(1948‒2123 _a.m._), by which epithet _Abraham_ is always known.
The very name of the ground was attractive, and the effect of the
announcement fulfilled our best expectations.”
“The foreman in charge of the work was a Polish Jew who had been
in the Russian Army.”¹ “The idea of labouring in the open air for
daily bread had taken root among the Jews in _Jerusalem_――the hope of
cultivating the desolate soil of their own Promised Land was kindled.
These objects were never again lost sight of. The Jews themselves took
them up.”²
¹ _Ibid._, _pp._ 64‒66.
² _Ibid._, _p._ 76.
Sir Moses Montefiore was one of the first Jews who took up these
objects. On his second visit to _Jerusalem_ he was received by Colonel
Gawler, the ardent Christian Zionist. After this visit the impression
was left upon the public mind that the Jews, hitherto so despised,
had, in England at least, powerful representatives, through whom their
grievances might make themselves heard in Europe.
At the same time England’s interest in Palestine was growing in
all directions. In 1849 an English Literary Society was founded by
the Consul, for the investigation of all subjects of literary and
scientific interest in the Holy Land. English artists were also the
first European artists who started serious work in Palestine. Two
English artists of note, William Holman Hunt, O.M. (1827‒1910) and
Thomas Seddon (1821‒1856), came to reside in the Holy City in 1852,
in order to study Bible scenes and Eastern customs. Hunt was the first
painter who attempted to depict the true colours of the mountains of
_Moab_. He began in _Jerusalem_ his great picture of “The Scapegoat
in the Wilderness.” Seddon pitched a tent among the pomegranate trees
in the neighbourhood of _Jerusalem_, and his picture of “_Olivet and
Siloam_,” now in the South Kensington Museum Gallery, was taken from
that spot.
In English literature we find another appeal made by an anonymous
political writer in 1856 in a lofty moral tone, which is at the same
time a high appreciation of Judaism.
“To do justice at once to a people approved of God as ‘His
Inheritance,’ ... a simple course is open to us――to the nations. Let
us prevail upon the Porte to allow the Jews facilities to return to
their own land; to appoint Palestine as a place of refuge for them,
from the anarchy and confusion from which they suffer, but in which
they have no share....
“If the allies are sincere in their professions towards the Porte,
and its eyes are open to its own interests and safety; if Christians
really believe in a Just and Holy God, and that the Bible is His Word;
if Mohammedans feel that God is great, who hath appointed them the
keepers of his holy place against this time, while their elder brother
has been in exile;... If then, we say, integrity in belief or duty has
any place at all with the parties concerned; this matter of a refuge
for the Jews――has only to be mentioned to be accomplished....
“Britons, let us at least be true to the position which the integrity
and foresight of our fathers have, in the providence of God, earned
for us; true to the mission of our faith, ... seek at once to wash our
hands of this monstrous rebellion against Judgment and Righteousness
――the peace of the world and the progress of the human race――and do an
act of tardy justice to a people to whom mankind owe all their higher
privileges and better civilization.”¹
¹ The Crisis, and Way of Escape. An Appeal for the Oldest of
the Oppressed,... London:... 1856.... (_pp._ 5‒6).
The Christian propaganda for the Restoration of _Israel_ made further
progress. Even those who felt disinclined to connect the events of
the time with any particular prediction were ready to admit that these
events were coming as something more decisive in history than anything
that had happened since the Reformation. “With such impressions abroad,
the multitude of treatises on prophetic subjects soon exceeded all
precedent;...”¹
¹ The Restoration of the Jews:... By David Brown, D.D., ...
Edinburgh.... London. 1861 (_p._ 60).
“What most surprises us is, that a ritual of worship, so like the
Mosaic ceremonial, should again be restored by divine appointment,...
For we read of all the various offerings of the Levitical economy;...
We can only reply:――Such is the divine pleasure.”¹ But this one
Divine is not the only precursor of _Rabbi_ Hirsch Kalischer in this
idea; there were others who believed in it. The Rev. Capel Molyneux
(1804‒1877) announced the restoration of the Mosaic sacrifices, and
explained its necessity from a Christian point of view.² The most
curious and interesting opinion is that of a Swiss Protestant divine,
Carl August Auberlen (1824‒1864) of Basle:――“_Israel_ is again to be
at the head of all humanity.... In the Old Testament the whole Jewish
national life was religious; but only in an external legal manner
... in the millennial kingdom, all spheres of life will be truly
Christianized outwardly from within. From this point of view it will
not be offensive to say that the Mosaic ceremonial law corresponds to
the priestly office of _Israel_――the civil law to its kingly office.
The Gentile Church could only adopt the moral law; in like manner
her sole influence is by the word working inwardly, by exercising
the prophetic office. But when the royal and priestly office shall
be revived, then ... the ceremonial and civil law of _Moses_ also
will develop its spiritual depths in the Divine worship and in the
constitution of the millennial kingdom,” _etc._³ In a word, the Jews
have to be restored, and to live according to their Law, which, as
the learned professor believes, will “develop spiritual depths,” an
idea which the most orthodox Jew would accept, and which is even more
conservative than that of some of the _Talmudists_, who maintain that
the ritual prescriptions _Mizvoth_ will be abolished in the Messianic
age.
¹ The Second Advent;... The Restoration of Israel――.... By the
Rev. John Fry, B.A.... In Two Volumes.... London:... 1822
(vol. i., _p._ 583).
² Israel’s Future.... By the Rev. Capel Molyneux, B.A.――London:
... (_pp._ 257‒258).
_p._ vi., 68, _Gloucester Terrace_, _Hyde Park_, _July 17,
1852_.
³ The Prophecies of Daniel ... with an exposition on the
principal passages. By Carl August Auberlen,... Translated
by the Rev. Adolph Saphir. Edinburgh:... MDCCCLVI.
Exaggerations of this kind may have stimulated the opposition which
was represented by the Rev. Dr. William Urwick (1791‒1868) (the
elder),¹ the Rev. Dr. Ebenezer Henderson² (1784‒1858), Professor
Joseph Addison Alexander³ (1809‒1860), the Rev. Patrick Fairbairn⁴
(1805‒1874), Dr. Thomas Arnold⁵ (1795‒1842), Head Master of Rugby,
and many representatives of the so-called Spiritual school, who were
strongly opposed to these Judaizing tendencies. They endeavoured to
transform the plain statements of the Bible into airy visions, and
explained all the names (_Israel_, _Jerusalem_, _etc._) in a peculiar
way. Thus it is to the “spiritual” Christian and not to the natural
Jew that the name of Israel belongs, as it is the Roman and the Greek
to whom alone the promises of Restoration to the Holy Land were made,
and not the “seed of _Abraham_.” In fact, the Spiritualists are far
from being consistent. They would, for instance, spiritualize the
Israel which is blessed, and accept in a literal sense the Israel that
is cursed. A departure from the literal meaning of words has always
proved a source of error and confusion, as words are often taken
literally when they agree with certain theories, allegorically when
they do not――a process by which the Bible may be made to say something
to please everybody. Spiritualistic interpreters, as a rule, go to the
Bible to find support for their own views, rather than to be guided by
the standard of the Word as to whether they be correct or not. Where
they find what they want, the Bible is plain, where they do not, it
is difficult; and they have to have recourse to the expedient of what
is called “spiritualizing” the Word, a term imposing enough, but most
inapplicable――carnalizing would be a far more suitable designation of
the process.
¹ The Second Advent.... By William Urwick, D.D. Dublin:...
MDCCCXXXIX.
² The Book of the Prophet Isaiah ... with a commentary,
critical, philological, and exegetical:... By the Rev. E.
Henderson, D.Ph.... London:... MDCCCXL.
³ The Earlier Prophecies of Isaiah. By Joseph Addison
Alexander, Professor in the Theological Seminary, Princeton,
New Jersey, New York & London:... 1846.
The Later Prophecies of Isaiah. By Joseph Addison Alexander
... New York & London:... 1847.
⁴ The Typology of Scripture,... With an Appendix on the
Restoration of the Jews. By Rev. Patrick Fairbairn, Salton.
Edinburgh:... MDCCCXLV.
⁵ Two Sermons on the Interpretation of Prophecy,... By Thomas
Arnold, D.D.... Oxford.... MDCCCXXXIX.
In Jewish exegetical literature there is an excellent rule: no
Biblical verse should be explained differently from its literal
meaning. To this may be added what the learned Joseph Mede (1586‒1638)
said on the same subject from the Christian point of view: “I cannot
be persuaded to forsake the proper and usual import of Scripture
language, where neither the instruction of the text itself, nor
manifest tokens of allegory, nor the necessity and the nature of the
things spoken of do warrant it. For to do so were to lose all footing
of Divine testimony, and instead of Scripture to believe mine own
imaginations.”
CHAPTER XXXI.
_THE LEBANON_ QUESTION
Selim I.――The _Emir_ Beshir of _The Lebanon_――A Conference of
five Powers――Druses and Maronites――Massacres in Damascus――A
Military Expedition――The Protocol of August 3rd, 1860
――_General_ Beaufort _d’_Hautpoul――Achmet _Pasha_――David
_Pasha_――Joseph Karan――The Constitution of _The Lebanon_――The
boundaries――The alterations from 1861 to 1902――The Earl of
Carnarvon’s views――Jewish charity――Anti-Jewish accusations and
riots――M. E. A. Thouvenal――Lord John Russell――George Gawler’s
letter.
AFTER the conquest of Syria in 1516 by _Sultan_ Selim I. (1467‒1520),
_The Lebanon_ was ruled by a succession of Mussulman _Emirs_, the most
famous of whom, Beshir Shehaab,¹ governed benevolently from 1789 to
1840, in the later years of his reign by the help of Mehemet Ali. The
withdrawal of the Egyptian troops from Syria in 1841 was followed by
anarchy in the mountains. Lord Palmerston accordingly wrote, on 15th
June of that year: “Her Majesty’s Government feel especially called
upon to address the Turkish Government on this matter on the account
of the oppression which Haji Nejib is said to practise upon the
Christians. For England having, in conjunction with other Christian
Powers, succeeded in restoring Syria to the _Sultan_, she is entitled
to expect that the _Sultan_, in return for such assistance, should
secure his Christian subjects from oppression.” A conference of
representatives of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia and Russia
met at Constantinople on 27th May, 1842, with the ultimate result that
the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs announced on 7th December
that the Porte would act upon the advice of the five Powers, and
appoint separate _Kaimakams_ for the Druses and Maronites respectively.
This arrangement was in vogue with but slight success for nearly
twenty years.
¹ Emir Bechir Shehaab (late), Prince of The Lebanon. Fraˢ
Halpen, Lith. M. & N. Hanhart, Imp. Saunders & Otley, 1853.
This portrait is the frontispiece of Mount Lebanon....
Colonel Churchill, vol. i.... 1853.
In 1860 the lasting feuds of the tribes in _The Lebanon_ suddenly
burst into a furious attack, on the part of the Druses, on their
Maronite neighbours. The Turkish authorities connived at the massacres
which were committed. On the 9th of July, 1860, riots broke out
in Damascus in consequence of the punishment inflicted upon a few
Mussulmans who had insulted the Christians. These Mussulmans rushed,
armed to the teeth, to the Christian quarter, and began slaying,
burning and pillaging. The Turkish soldiers came to their assistance
on the pretence of quelling the disturbance, made common cause with
the rioters, and joined in the killing, robbing and plundering. A
few old Mussulmans attempted to stop the massacres, but the Turkish
officers had no desire for peace; on the contrary, they spurred
on their soldiers to further aggression against the unfortunate
Christians, and the soldiers were assisted by hordes of looters of
every sect. This state of things lasted two days, during which the
rioters did not cease to massacre the Christians, to whom the Governor
did not afford any help. The number of the victims was estimated at
3300. The places where their houses had stood were not recognizable,
all their dwellings having been reduced to ashes.
The _Sultan_ sent Faud Pasha (1815‒1869) as an Extraordinary
Commissioner with a military force. Faud _Pasha_ issued a Proclamation
to the inhabitants of Syria, in which, after alluding to the grief
felt by the _Sultan_ on hearing of the outrages, he said:――
“According to the Imperial commands, invested with a special and
extraordinary mission, and possessing full powers, I have arrived,
accompanied by a military force, to punish the guilty authors of so
many crimes.
“The Imperial _firman_ will inform you what is my mission, and enable
everyone to judge of the extent of the Imperial justice, which accords
refuge to the oppressed and punishes the oppressor.
“All may remain here in safety; the condition of the families driven
from their homes will be taken into consideration, and I undertake to
reassure them, and to extend to them the protection of the Imperial
justice.
“I command, above all, that from this day forth dissensions cease;
whichever nation dares to use violence against the other shall be
attacked by the military force which accompanies me, and every person
who forgets his duty will undergo immediate punishment.”
But Faud did not succeed in removing the difficulties, and each new
account added to the horrors of the massacre. It appeared that the
country had almost been swept clean of its Christian inhabitants.
In _The Lebanon_ not a Christian village had been spared; all the
commerce of the region was interrupted; a journey from one village to
another was no longer safe.
To put an end to these excesses and to restore peace and safety to the
province, the “Protocol of the 3rd of August” was signed. In August
the first French troops were landed on the Syrian Coast. It was a
gratifying sign of the unanimity prevailing among all civilized Powers
that although the state of Europe was at that time far from tranquil,
the European nations were yet capable of unison in the cause of
justice. It was certainly in the cause of justice that the forces of
the Western world were brought to the Syrian coast, though political
intrigue was busy circulating rumours such as are bound to be spread
abroad when an expedition of this kind is undertaken by European
Powers. That France should send troops to a country which, according
to popular belief, she had coveted for years was, indeed, enough to
excite world-wide attention. But opinion that mattered was inclined to
assert that France had acted generously and loyally. It was, indeed,
too absurd to profess the belief that intrigues in the East had given
rise to these disturbances, and that the Christians themselves had
caused the massacre so that France should achieve glory and influence.
Undoubtedly there was in every Levantine town a host of Catholic
emissaries, Jesuits, Lazarists, and the like, and it was only natural
for Roman Catholics to use the name and invoke the protection of the
Power which had once been the only Catholic Power known in the East.
The expedition of 1860 was made at the instance of France, but
according to an international convention all the Powers had to
participate in it. A contingent of European troops, which was to
be increased to 12,000 men, was to be despatched for the purpose
of restoring peace. France engaged to furnish half of these troops
at once. If it became necessary to increase the force beyond the
stipulated number, a further understanding was to be arrived at among
the contracting Powers. The Commander-in-Chief of the expedition was
to enter into communication with the special Commissions of the Porte.
All the Powers were to keep sufficient naval forces on the Syrian
coast to assist in the maintenance or re-establishment of tranquillity
there. The contracting parties fixed the term of the occupation at
six months, being convinced that this period would be sufficient to
ensure the pacification of the populace. These were the principal
terms of this important Convention, as laid down in the Protocol by
the representatives of Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia
and Turkey at Paris on the 3rd August.
“The Plenipotentiaries of, _etc._, desirous of establishing, in
conformity with the intention of their respective Courts, the true
character of the assistance afforded to the Sublime Porte, by the
provisions of the Protocol signed this day, the feelings which have
dictated the clauses of this act, and their perfect disinterestedness,
declare in the most formal manner that the contracting Powers do not
intend to seek for, and will not seek for, in the execution of their
engagements, any territorial advantage, and exclusive influence, or
any concession with regard to the commerce of their subjects, such as
could not be granted to the subjects of other nations.”
Troops were landed on the 16th of August under _General_ C. M. N.
Beaufort _d’_Hautpoul (_b._ 1804). Subsequently a Commission
representative of the Powers was appointed to investigate the facts.
The Druses escaped into the Hauran Desert, and it was found that Turks
and Damascene fanatics were really responsible for stirring up the
strife, in which the Maronites had acted with a vindictiveness equal
to that of the Druses. Punishment was meted out to the Mohammedans
who were principally responsible, and among others Achmet _Pasha_, the
Governor of Damascus, was shot. The French occupation continued till
the 5th June, 1861, and the French and English squadron patrolled the
coast for several months after. In June, 1861, the troops returned to
France, and the Commissions drew up a scheme of government for _The
Lebanon_. It provided for the appointment of a Christian Governor,
to be chosen by the Porte, and for dividing the region into seven
districts, each of which was to be controlled by a chief professing
the religion held by its inhabitants. David _Pasha_, an Armenian
Christian, was the first Governor. He was installed on the 4th of July,
1861. In spite of many difficulties, he succeeded in restoring order;
and by raising a military force from the inhabitants of _The Lebanon_
he made the presence of the Turkish soldiery unnecessary. The district
Council included four Maronites, one Druse, one Orthodox Greek, and
one Separatist Greek. The constitution did not satisfy the Maronites,
whose revolt, under Joseph Karan, kept _The Lebanon_ in a very
unsettled state for several years. The privileged province of _The
Lebanon_ was finally constituted by the Organic Statute of the 6th of
September, 1864.
_The Lebanon_ was constituted a _sanjak_ or _mutessariflik_, dependent
directly on the Porte, which was to act in this case in consultation
with the six great Powers. The province extended about 93 miles from
north to south (from the boundary of the _sanjak_ of Tripoli to that
of the _caza_ of Sidon), and had a mean breadth of about 28 miles
from one fort of the chain to the other, beginning at the edge of
the littoral plain behind Beyrout and ending at the western edge of
the Beka’a: but the boundaries were ill-defined, especially on the
east, where the original line drawn along the crest of the ridge had
not been adhered to, and the mountains had encroached on the Beka’a.
_The Lebanon_ was under a military Governor (_mashir_), who had been
a Christian in the service of the _Sultan_ (1861‒1876), Abdul Aziz
(1830‒1876), approved by the Powers, and who had, so far, been chosen
from the Roman Catholics, owing to the great preponderance of Latin
Christians in the province. He resided at Deir-al-Kamar, an old seat
of the Druse _Emirs_. At first appointed for three years, then for ten,
his term has been fixed since 1892 at five years, the Porte fearing
that the longer term might lead to a personal domination. Under the
Governor were seven _Kaimakams_, all Christians except a Druse in Shuf,
and forty-seven _mudirs_, who all depended on the _Kaimakams_, except
one, in the home district of ♦Deir-al-Kamar. A central _mejliss_ or
Council of twelve members was composed of four Maronites, three Druses,
one Turk, two Greeks (orthodox), one Greek Uniate and one _Metawel_.
This was the original proportion, and it has not been altered, in
spite of the decline of the Druses and the increase of the Maronites.
The members are elected by the seven cazas. In each _mudirich_ there
is also a local _mejliss_. Judges are appointed by the Governor,
but _Sheikhs_ by the villagers. Commercial cases, and law-suits in
which strangers are concerned, are carried to Beyrout. The police
is recruited locally, and no regular troops appear in the province
except on special requisition. The taxes are collected directly, and
must meet the needs of the province before any sum is remitted to the
Imperial treasury. The latter has to make deficits good.
♦ “Dier” replaced with “Deir”
This constitution has worked well on the whole. The only serious hitch
that occurred was caused by the attempts of the Governor-General and
the _Kaimakam_ to supersede the _mejliss_ by autocratic action, and
to impair the freedom of the elections. The attention of the Porte
was called to these tendencies in 1892, and again in 1902, on the
appointment of new Governors. The railway is French, and a precedence
in ecclesiastical functions is accorded by the Maronites to the
official representatives of France.
Henry Howard Molyneux Herbert (1831‒1890), the fourth Earl of
Carnarvon, wrote: “In estimating the past, and in taking security
for the future, it must never be forgotten that for generations the
policy of the Turkish Government has been eminently hostile to the
maintenance of Druse nationality. As charity obliges us to believe
that no state in Christendom would deliberately instigate the massacre
of several thousand Christians, so the common instincts of humanity,
and even self-interest, oblige us to acquit the Imperial Government
of Constantinople from planning, or recommending to the execution
of others, a policy of such detestable iniquity towards the subjects
for whose protection they are responsible. Both suppositions are too
monstrous to be entertained. But as it would not be the first time
that Christian rulers have fostered the disputes or exasperated
the irritation of other nations, and have set the rock in motion,
unforeseeing and to a great extent reckless of the course which
it will take, or the misery which it will inflict; so the local
authorities in Syria might not unreasonably count upon a favourable
interpretation in Constantinople of conduct, which might result either
in some moderate spoliation of the Christian population, or in a
humiliation of the Druse mountaineers, or in a convenient opportunity
for intervening in the affairs of _The Lebanon_. It is a natural
expedient, it is doubtless the wish of the Turkish Government, to
divide and rule the tribes of _The Lebanon_;... The desire to break
down Druse independence enters at least equally into these schemes....
It is equally clear that it is not for the advantage of England,
as far as she has an interest in these questions, to consent to
the annihilation of Druse nationality.... Again whilst convents and
schools, ... have long laboured to create a French party among the
Maronites, and to establish a French influence in _The Lebanon_, a
strong connection of gratitude on the one hand, and of good offices on
the other, has existed between the Druses and England; at all events,
_The Lebanon_ has to be relieved of Turkish administration, because
it would be indifferent statesmanship to stimulate still further the
centralizing policy that threatens Turkey equally with every other
nation in Europe, and to allow the independent strength of local
institutions and a peculiar race to be confounded in the ruin of an
empire now tottering to its fall.”
This was a sound political opinion, clear, logical, based upon justice.
It is to be regretted that the same policy was not applied to other
provinces and other distinct races. As regards British interests, we
find again the old and indisputable truth expressed as follows:――
“Territorial extension, indeed, need never enter into the dreams
of English statesmanship; but it would be an act of infatuation
to overlook the vast importance of Syria in any present or future
distribution of European Power, which either the weakness or the
crimes of other nations may necessitate. The country which now, not
less than in the reigns of the _Ptolemies_ and the _Mamelukes_, guards
and therefore governs the northern frontier of Egypt――which now,
as in the days of Alexander [(III.) the Great] (356‒323 _b.c.e._),
commands one at least of the great approaches to India――is no
petty principality, to be surrendered to the love of ease or the
importunities of allies.”¹
¹ Recollections of the Druses of the Lebanon, and Notes on
their Religion. By the Earl of Carnarvon. London:... 1860,
(_pp._ 117‒120.)
The calamity that had befallen the Christians of Syria had aroused
the deepest commiseration among the Jews all over the world. Sir
Moses Montefiore led the way with a letter in the _Times_, July 12,
1860 (_p._ 9), and M. Crémieux in France followed his lead. Several
_Rabbis_ and Presidents of Jewish communities addressed appeals to the
Jewish population, and handsome contributions were collected.
But unfortunately false accusations were again brought against the
Jews in Damascus. Some of the fanatics were envious of the Jews,
especially because they had escaped the slaughter. The accusations
commenced whilst Faud _Pasha_ was still there and was conducting the
inquiries in person. The Maronites accused the Jews of being in league
with the Druses, the orthodox Greeks charged them with being on terms
of reciprocity with the Maronites, and after all these slanders the
blood accusation was circulated. Faud, who knew perfectly well that
the Jews had nothing in common with the Druses or the Maronites, and
that they were a peaceful and law-abiding people, would not listen
to these calumnies. But after the _Pasha_ had left, Christian and
Mohammedan fanatics, by means of bribery, conspired against the
unfortunate Jews, and had some prominent members of their community
arrested, bringing forward false witnesses to testify that they saw
such and such a Jew committing murder. Happily, most of them were at
once released by Faud _Pasha_ on his return to the city. This act of
justice was performed by the Turkish functionary spontaneously, before
any remonstrance from Europe could have reached him. Nevertheless, the
two European Powers acted with promptness and used their influence in
the matter.
M. E. A. Thouvenal (1818‒1866), Minister for Foreign Affairs of
France, had on September 23rd, 1860, given the most stringent orders
to his agents in Syria to protect the Jews, and to prevent any injury
being done to them; and so had Lord John Russell (1792‒1878), who had
also generously joined the defenders of the Jewish population in the
East. This united action on the part of the two Governments prevented
misfortunes and the perpetration of crimes against the Jews, and as a
consequence 1860 bore no analogy to 1840.
But if the Jews were saved from massacre and riot, this did not solve
their problem. Dr. Abraham Benisch, in an editorial,¹ pointed out
that “In permitting this terrible outbreak of fanaticism in Syria,
Providence has once more prominently directed the attention of the
world to the country forming the inalienable inheritance of the
descendants of the patriarchs, and the cradle of the institutions
that have regenerated and reinvigorated a decrepit and decaying
civilisation, and has once more forcibly reminded the world that ever
since the ruthless Romans exterminated the Jew from the land of his
ancestors, no race has found there rest for the sole of its feet, and
no population has been permitted to enjoy in peace, for any length of
time, the blessings of a ground due to the wandering tribe of the sore
foot.”
¹ _Jewish Chronicle_, July 27, 1860.
With reference to these remarks, the following letter was received
from the Christian Zionist, Colonel Gawler:――
“DEAR SIR,
“I cannot refrain from giving expression to my sincere
gratification at your valuable leading article of the 27th
inst. I need scarcely mention that your views are met by my
very warmest reciprocity on the point that, ‘in permitting
this terrible outbreak of fanaticism in Syria, Providence
has once more prominently directed the attention of the world
to the country forming the inalienable inheritance of the
descendants of the Patriarchs.’
“You may remember a plan to which I gave publication on
the occasion of the war between the Druses and Maronites
in 1845, upon the ‘tranquillisation of the East by planting
Jewish (agricultural) settlements in Palestine.’ I entertain
strongly the anticipation that something of this kind may
arise from the present disturbances.
“To give Jews in Palestine the means of maintaining
themselves and their families by honest and healthy industry
would be the best preparation of the way for better things,
to the Jewish nation and to the whole human race, that could
be desired.
“In maintaining such projects I am not at all proposing
faithlessness to ‘our allies’ the Turks. So long as the
empire stands, Jewish civilised settlement in Syria would
be a strength and a blessing to it. It is only in the event
of its ever falling that I should be glad to see the claim
boldly enforced in reference to Palestine, ‘This portion
belongs to the God of _Israel_, and to his national people.’
“I should be truly rejoiced to see in Palestine a strong
guard of Jews established in flourishing agricultural
settlements, and ready to hold their own upon the mountains
of Israel against all aggressors. I can wish for nothing more
glorious in this life than to have my share in helping them
to do so.
“May your anticipation be richly realised, that great good
will come out of the existing Syrian evils.
“GEORGE GAWLER.¹
“... July 30, 1860.”
¹ _Ibid._, August 10, _p._ 6.
All these developments stirred up Jewish public opinion in England
and in France. Great possibilities threw their light into the future
like a beacon of hope. The new _Lebanon_ Constitution was, indeed, an
indication of the future of Palestine: but the time was not yet ripe
for the realization of these hopes.
CHAPTER XXXII.
ZIONISM IN FRANCE
Joseph Salvador――Lazar Lévy-Bing――Maurice [Moses] Hess――D.
Nathan――Benoît Levy――Dr. A.-F. Pétavel――Ernest Laharanne
――Crémieux――The “Alliance Israélite Universelle”――Albert Cohn
――Charles Netter.
IN France the Zionist idea found a supporter in one of the most
prominent French Jews of the last century, Joseph Salvador (1796‒1873).
He was the first French Jew after the emancipation of the Jews in
France to express the great ideas of ancient Judaism. From 1789
to 1822, when the first edition of his _Essay on Mosaism_ made its
appearance, a period of thirty-three years had elapsed――approximately
the span of a generation, and generally the time it takes for a new
epoch to develop. Salvador, as the intellectual leader of his epoch,
was inspired by those fine moral instincts and that devotion to
humanity which are fostered by the influence of the Bible.
When in 1840 the Eastern question presented itself in all its
disquieting developments, Salvador seemed already to anticipate
the stress and strife that were destined to break forth in those
regions where the cradle of the Jewish nation had stood; and these
anticipations were strengthened when fifteen years later the Christian
nations of the Western world came to wage a sanguinary war for the
Holy Places. According to Salvador, Palestine was destined to become
the economic centre of Jewry, just as much as it was the centre of
Jewish national aspirations. “A new life will be infused into the
mountains of _Judah_, into that platform of the _Moriah_ which to-day
is in the hands of the Turks, and of which it was figuratively said
of old that, sooner or later, it would rise above all hills, all
mountains. The Oriental question, for a while put off or veiled by
other public affairs, will exhaust all the present generation. It
will extend into the next century. To-day, in 1853, its character is
above all a political one: it is a question of Constantinople and the
Dardanelles. To-morrow, perhaps, the discussion will be a commercial
one in regard to Egypt, the Red Sea, Suez. The unity of Europe,
so much desired, so much praised, and never obtained, is already a
question of secondary importance. The centre of the affairs of the
world is changed. The Jew of the new era must rise upon the very soil
where the Jew of the old era was built.”
Illustration: JOSEPH SALVADOR BENJAMIN DISRAELI, M.P.
SAMUEL DAVID LUZZATTO BERNARD LAZARE
“Asia Minor has but two elements of life, two races capable of
civilization and progress, the Greeks and the Jews. Notwithstanding
the deep degradation of the Jews of the East, on the day when new life
(which, by the way, is drawn from the Occident) shall have reanimated
this population, the Jew, by the force of his name, by the promises
of his future, will again become a centre of irresistible attraction
to all the Jewish forces of the Orient, and even of a part of Europe.
A new State will be formed upon the coasts of _Galilee_ and in old
Canaan, where the Jewish claim will dominate under the combined
pressure of historic remembrances, of persecution in some countries,
and of the Puritan sympathy of Biblical England.” These words of
Salvador sounded like the cry of a forgotten generation. It must
be borne in mind that they were written at a time when French Jews
cherished only one hope and one ideal: absorption and assimilation by
their surroundings. It is indeed remarkable that this venerable man,
who was a staunch Jew as well as a French patriot, and is one of the
most eminent figures in Franco-Jewish literature, defended the Jewish
national idea and the restoration of the Jews to Palestine with such
clearness and force.¹
¹ J. Salvador, sa vie, ses œuvres et ses critiques, par le
Colonel Gabriel Salvador [1812‒1889]. Paris ... 1881 ...
(1 _l._ + 539 _pp._) _p._ 231.
Joseph Salvador, par James Darmesteter [1849‒1894],
Versailles, 1882.
To state that he wrote this passage just before the outbreak of
the Crimean War, which seemed a suitable moment for considering
the possibilities in the East more thoroughly than had previously
been done, suffices to indicate the immediate cause. But the mere
opportunity could not by itself awaken such thoughts without the
strong foundation and support of deeper convictions. As he justly says,
“the Jew of the new era must rise upon the very soil where the Jew
of the old era was established.” It is clear that he did not think of
the half-united Jews who do not feel the existence of their spiritual
nationality, and wish to eradicate every trace of it. He was eager
to insist that “the Jewish forces of the Orient and even of a part of
Europe” should create this new Jew.
Joseph Salvador was, like all progressive thinkers of his age,
inspired by the great Revolution, the emancipation of the Jews,
and the brotherhood of all nations. The main thesis of his books
about the Laws of _Moses_ was the “universal mission of Judaism.” No
Jewish thinker of the Assimilation school has defended this theory
more consistently and more powerfully, in language more eloquent
and magnificent. He was therefore generally regarded as the father
of modern progressive Judaism in France. But he did not see any
contradiction between his idea of a spiritual achievement and the idea
of a terrestrial centre, which was suggested by the political thinking
of his day. This fact, in our judgment, proves that the first idea of
a Jewish mission, as conceived by the great Jews of the last century,
was far from negating the desirability of a Jewish national future.
We find a reference to this subject in a long controversy which was
published in the Franco-Jewish fortnightly _Archives Israélites_ in
1864. One of the contributors to this magazine, _M._ Lazar Lévy-Bing,
in a letter entitled “Rétablissement de la Nationalité Juive,” dated
from Nancy, 21 Mars,¹ and in another, “Suite d’une polémique,” Nancy,
2 Mai,² tells us in clear, straightforward terms, that he firmly
believes in a Jewish national future, and considers it the only
solution of the Jewish problem. He had strong religious convictions,
and his most earnest hope was to reconcile the spirit of the age
with the eternal truths of Judaism; for he held that a nation which
repudiated its faith in God would abandon the very foundation of
morality. He regarded union between Jews and the friends of liberty
as an indispensable condition of human progress. He maintained that
the Jews would best serve the universal cause of civilization by
working mainly for their own commonwealth, by preparing for their own
future. Obviously, he says, the minority of Jews in free countries
will be chiefly concerned about the present, and their energies
will be consumed in their own environments, but the majority of Jews
will work in a Jewish direction. There is no incompatibility between
the Restoration of Palestine promised by the prophets, and Jewish
patriotism which strives for the welfare of different states.
¹ XXVᵉ Année.―― ... 15 Avril, 1864. Archives Israélites ...
sous la direction de Isidore Cahen ... (1826‒1902). Paris,
1864, _pp._ 330‒335.
² _Ibid._, 15 Mai, _pp._ 427‒432.
He was strongly supported by a series of articles entitled: _Lettres
sur la mission d’Israël dans l’histoire de l’humanité_, signed
“Maurice Hess”¹ (1812‒1875), a well-known author and distinguished
Jewish nationalist. On the other hand, _M._ D. Nathan, Chef d’escadron
d’artillerie, in a letter, “Une Question Soulevée,” dated from
Toulon 21 Avril,² and M. Benoît Levy, in “Tentative de Conciliation,”
15 Juin,³ denounced the idea of the restoration as a sublime
and unrealizable dream. The heated controversy arose through the
intervention of a Christian theologian, Dr. Abram-François Pétavel
of Neuchatel, who appealed to Jews in favour of their restoration
to Palestine.⁴ He published two books,⁵ in which he dealt with the
question from a theological point of view. His letters to the Jews,
however, lacked clearness. He attempted to bring about a sort of
compromise, but created a bad impression. His action spurred the
opposition afresh, with the result that instead of arguing _ad rem_
it took to arguing _ad hominem_.
¹ _Ibid._ 1ᵉʳ Janvier, _pp._ 14‒17: 1ᵉʳ Fevrier, _pp._
102‒106: 15 Fevrier, _pp._ 145‒149: 1ᵉʳ Mars, _pp._ 198‒202:
15 Mars, _pp._ 240‒244: 1ᵉʳ Avril, _pp._ 287‒292: 15 Avril,
_pp._ 336‒340: 1ᵉʳ Mai, _pp._ 377‒382: 15 Mai, _pp._
432‒436: 1ᵉʳ Juin, _pp._ 472‒477.
His _Rom und Jerusalem_ (1862) is one of the masterpieces
of modern Zionist literature. Hess insists that despite
all attempts on the part of the Jews the Jewish national
instinct cannot be eradicated. The only solution of the
Jewish question, according to him, was the colonization
of Palestine; and he looked to France to make it possible.
The historian Graetz was influenced by Hess’ book in the
direction of Jewish nationalism.
² _Ibid._ 1ᵉʳ Mai, _pp._ 372‒377.
³ _Ibid._ 15 Juin, _pp._ 507‒510.
⁴ _Ibid._ 15 Mars, _pp._ 234‒235. “Une brochure publiée
à Genève et la reconstitution de la nationalité juive.”
――Isidore Cahen.
_Ibid._ 1ᵉʳ Avril, _pp._ 273‒274. “De quelques observations
en réponse aux nôtres une brochure publiée à Genève”: M.
Lévy-Bing, M. Pétavel.――Isidore Cahen.
_Ibid._ 15 Mai, _p._ 416.――Isid. Cahen.
⁵ Israel Peuple de l’Avenir ... Par A.-F. Pétavel ... Paris
... 1861. La Fille de Sion ou le rétablissement de Israël
... Par Abram-François Pétavel ... Paris ... 1868.
At the same time another French writer, Ernest Laharanne, private
secretary to Napoleon III., although a Roman Catholic, wrote a
pamphlet in favour of the reconstitution of the Jews as a nation.¹ He
was inspired with the idea of “progress in human civilization and the
rights of nations.” There is a certain amount of sentimentality in his
pamphlet; but his enthusiasm, although too emotional and rhetorical,
is very dignified. It remains to be said that all the French writers
of that epoch dealt with the question in the abstract. Instead of
giving definite indications of what was to be done, they were content
to express empty hopes and formulate vague suggestions and appeals
(Appendix lxiii).
¹ La Nouvelle Question d’Orient.... Reconstitution de la
Nationalité Juive. Paris ... 1860 ... (8º. 47 _pp._ in
printed wrapper) _p._ 46. Ernest Laharanne, _p._ 47. E. L.
9 Septembre 1860.
One of the greatest French Jews, Crémieux, deserves special mention
here. Isaac Moses Adolphe Crémieux was born at Nîmes in 1796. Having
studied law for some time, he was called to the Bar of his native town
in 1817, and immediately began to practise. He gained a reputation
for eloquence and moral courage. In 1827 he removed to Paris, where
his name was well known. His splendid oratory soon gained him high
esteem in the Law Courts. He gradually rose to fame on account of
his political sagacity and integrity of purpose. In 1840 he came over
to England as the accredited representative of the French Jews to
take part in the deliberations held on the initiative of Sir Moses
Montefiore concerning the Damascus massacres. He was at that time
Vice-President of the “Consistoire Central” of the French Jews. Soon
after his arrival in England he became, with the exception of Sir
Moses Montefiore, the most prominent figure in the agitation which
was inaugurated in this country to obtain reparation from Mehemet Ali
for the anti-Jewish outrages which had been perpetrated within his
jurisdiction. Crémieux then accompanied Sir Moses on his mission to
the East, and by his sound advice and diplomacy helped to surmount
many difficulties. When the success of the mission had been ensured
he proceeded with Sir Moses to Constantinople, where he assisted him
in obtaining from Abdul Medjid the _Firman_ of the 12th _Ramadan_
in favour of the Jews. Two years after this brilliant achievement he
made his début in the political arena. He took his seat in the Chamber
of Deputies, and rose to a position of considerable influence. He
identified himself prominently with the extreme left, and not only
exercised great influence among the members of his own party, but
associated himself more actively than anyone else with the efforts
that paved the way for the Revolution of 1848. From that time he
became one of the political leaders of his country, being always
in power though not always in office. He was several times member
of the French Cabinet, and in 1870 he was one of the members of the
Government of National Defence.
The emancipation of the Jews in Algeria was due to his initiative and
exertions. In 1860 he co-operated with Sir Moses Montefiore in raising
a fund for the Christians in Syria. During the same year he assisted
in founding the “Alliance Israélite Universelle.” He was its first
President, and remained at its helm till his death (1880), taking
a prominent part in all its affairs. He was the central figure of a
great and glorious struggle not only for “Jewish rights,” but also
for the honour, the greatness and the real significance of Jewish
brotherhood and of the ideas of Judaism. From the defence of the
Jewish martyrs of Damascus down to the Berlin Congress (1878) his
career was one long record of strenuous and enthusiastic effort
on behalf of the Jewish people all over the world. He typified and
personified all that is sublime in the Jewish cause. His whole life
proved the consistency of his Jewish convictions. His attitude and
tone were those of a Jewish Victor Hugo. There was no more inspiring
orator and no greater intellect. He was the creator of the “Alliance
Israélite Universelle” in the highest sense. He raised it from
insignificance to the importance it had achieved before he died. His
last official act as the President of the “Alliance” was to sign an
appeal on behalf of Jewish schools in _Jerusalem_.
Illustration: ALBERT COHN CHARLES NETTER
ISAAC M. A. CRÉMIEUX
_Rabbi_ ZADOK KAHN SALOMON MUNK
A ruthless agitation was raised against the “Alliance,” and Crémieux
was personally attacked owing to his advocacy of the emancipation
of the Jews in Algeria, and the international character of the
“Alliance.” The wildest rumours were circulated with regard to the
intentions and activities of the “Alliance,” which were condemned
as anti-patriotic, anti-Christian, and even anti-humanitarian. The
greatest absurdities found their way into the sensational anti-Jewish
Press of several countries, attributing to this humanitarian and
charitable institution innumerable crimes and wickednesses. Had
Crémieux been one of those weak-minded Jewish assimilants who are
so easily frightened by accusations and perturbed by anti-Jewish
prejudice, he would have made concessions or have entirely abandoned
this sphere of activity. But he had sufficient moral strength to
disregard senseless accusations.
Crémieux was not a Zionist in the modern sense of the term. But
one may say, without exaggeration, that his Jewish enthusiasm, his
conception of the greatness of _Israel_, and his love for Palestine
were Zionistic. He was a happy combination of a great Jew and a
great French patriot. Visions of the future of _Israel_ elevated his
intellectual outlook. The resurrection of the Holy Land was for him a
question of first-rate importance. “This is,” he said, “the comfort,
the sunshine of our life.” On another occasion he said: “It must be
admitted that heretofore insufficient attention has been paid to the
Eastern aspect.” Speaking of the agricultural school “_Mikveh Israel_,”
near _Jaffa_, he said: “This will become the very bulwark of the
future. When once the Jews set foot on their own native soil they will
never leave it again.” In all his speeches he laid emphasis upon the
need for knowledge of the _Hebrew_ Bible. The Jewish ideal, to use
his own term, “is quite distinct,” and those who trample upon justice
will have to come back to us, the progeny and successors of those who
first received “the Divine Word.” This is the spirit which animated
the “Alliance Israélite Universelle,” particularly during the earlier
stages of its existence.
One of the most active members of the “Alliance,” and a devoted friend,
pupil and admirer of Crémieux, was Albert Cohn (1814‒1877). He filled
numerous communal and other offices with distinction. He was a member
of the Central Consistory of France, President of the Paris Benevolent
Society, a prominent member of the “Alliance,” and President of the
Society of the Promised Land. He sympathized with all who were in
distress, and participated in their grief; he expended a great part of
his wealth in mitigating their sufferings; his time was always at the
command of the poor. He combined the characteristics of an idealistic
and a practical Jew. He was an ardent communal worker in the Jewish
community in Paris, but at the same time was engaged throughout his
life in Palestinian work. He had a remarkable gift of intuition, and
foretold great future developments in Palestine.¹
¹ Albert Cohn wrote in a letter, in French, from _Jérusalem_,
ce 15 juillet (in a moment of extraordinary clairvoyance):――
“MONSIEUR LE REDACTEUR,
“... when we succeed to make this patriarchal City a centre
of religious studies, a sort of a Jewish University for the
Orient and the adjacent countries ... we shall have erected
a worthy monument to the spirit of the age” (Archives
Israélites, Nº. 16――15 Août, 1864, _p._ 715).
Another French Jew of special note, as one of the first pioneers of
the colonization of Palestine, was Charles Netter (1826‒1882). As
early as 1858 he was the chief promoter of the “Société de Patronage
des Ouvriers Juifs de Paris.” In 1859 (after the Mortara case) he
conceived, together with Crémieux and others, the idea of a “Universal
Jewish Alliance.” The “Alliance” was definitely formed in 1861.
Netter was a member of a Committee of six charged with drawing up the
rules and the general work of organization. A few schools having been
established by the “Alliance” in Turkey and Morocco, Netter began
to direct his attention to the condition of the Jews in Palestine.
He undertook a journey to Jerusalem and made very exhaustive
inquiries. On his return he laid before his colleagues a plan for
the establishment of an agricultural school in the Holy Land, which
was immediately adopted. Returning to Palestine, he selected a
large and convenient site in the vicinity of _Jaffa_, and personally
superintended the erection of the school _Mikveh Israel_, the
construction of the various buildings, the boring of the wells and
the laying out of the grounds and gardens. That Crémieux could not
be silent or idle while the work for _Mikveh Israel_ proceeded, goes
without saying. The school became the favourite institution of all the
original leaders of the “Alliance.” It is a curious coincidence that
the title of Manasseh Ben-Israel’s most famous book, _Mikveh Israel_
(1650),¹ became, two hundred and twenty years after its appearance,
the name of the first Jewish agricultural school in Palestine. Netter
visited Palestine very often in subsequent years. In 1882 he left
Paris for his last visit to _Jaffa_, paying a visit to London on his
way in order to consult the Jewish organizations of England on some
pressing questions connected with the Jews in Palestine. He died at
_Jaffa_ whilst on a visit to _Mikveh Israel_.
¹ The Hope of Israel.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
JEWISH COLONIZATION
New developments――Two tendencies――Societies in London for
supporting Jewish colonization of Palestine――_Rabbi_ Chayyim
Zebi Sneersohn――Sir Moses Montefiore’s further journey to
Palestine.
THE various projects and suggestions discussed above fell far short
of real Zionism, although some of them were permeated with Zionist
ideals. Between the Restoration of _Israel_ preached by Christians and
that advocated by national Jews, between theological combinations and
rational organized work, lie innumerable intermediate phases. And each
phase may be said to furnish a certain kind of evidence of the changes
undergone by public opinion towards the Zionist idea. Often enough,
indeed, the attitude of the public mind is one that eludes rigid
classification. Yet, while the currents of ideas and imaginations
crossed and recrossed, joined and interlinked one with another,
two alternating tendencies were plainly apparent even to the least
practical observer: the _philanthropic_ and the _national_.
The philanthropic tendency had undoubtedly as its _raison d’être_ the
plan of settling small groups of Jewish agriculturists in Palestine.
A succession of experiments in this kind of work was necessary.
Just as, for instance, vegetable products have been introduced into a
country by a single individual, the recognition of their utility being
sufficient to induce the inhabitants to take advantage of the novelty,
so the establishment of small settlements in Palestine might be
expected to lead to imitation and consequent further development. But
at the same time, even if the results of these experiments remained
for years much less extensive than might be desired, and instead of
thousands of Jews only hundreds settled on the land, it would still be
too much to assert that the first societies had failed to fulfil their
legitimate purpose. It was not unimportant to have made a beginning,
and to have sown even a few scattered seeds, which during a fruitful
season, aided by the dew of God’s blessing, might yield an abundant
harvest. If public activity to promote such plans had been as
energetic as the intrinsic merits of the cause deserved, an objection
on account of the insignificance of the work would have mattered but
little, because a comparatively small measure of success would have
been deemed of sufficient importance to counterbalance many cases
of failure. It was not surprising, however, that where scepticism
prevailed the results of Palestinian colonisation were not such as
to silence the objections of practical people who were insufficiently
inspired by the Zionist idea. The breadth of Zionist premises seemed
to them out of proportion to the results which Zionists succeeded in
obtaining. They ridiculed the apparent poverty of the achievement as
compared with the powerful machinery which had been set in operation,
the strewing of abundant seeds for the sake of reaping a few mature
plants. But to the sincere supporter even a comparatively small
measure of success appeared highly important, for he measured the
value of that success by his eager desire for the boon of a new future.
Three Societies for the support of Jewish Colonization in Palestine
were founded in London at the beginning of the sixties of the last
century. One, managed by Jews and Christians together, was mainly “for
promoting Jewish settlements in Palestine” through the encouragement
of agricultural pursuits.¹ Another, also under the management of
Christians and Jews, comprised several separate undertakings in the
neighbourhood of _Jerusalem_. A third was founded by the American
Consul in _Jerusalem_, with the idea that the direction should be
placed in the hands of the Jews only. Its first efforts were to be
centred on _Jerusalem_ and its neighbourhood.
¹ Dr. Abraham Benisch――William Henry Black (1808‒1872),
founder of the Palestine Archæological Association (1853)
and pastor of the seventh day Baptists――Alfred Hall
――Montague Leverson――Rev. John Mills (1812‒1873)――Hugh
Owen――Solomon Sequerra were among its members.
Whether it was possible to frame a workable scheme of colonization
on an extensive scale, and whether any such scheme could be carried
into practice with any chance of success, were questions difficult
to answer. It was a fact that beyond the walls of the old (Jewish)
_Jerusalem_ there was no safety for life or limb, and still less
for property. But, on the other hand, it was known that this evil
was not ineradicable, for during the few years when Syria was under
the control of Mehemet Ali the energetic government of that Prince
effectually curbed the lawlessness of the wandering tribes, and so
thoroughly established security that a person might have travelled
from one frontier town of Syria to the other with a bag of money in
his hands, without fearing any attempt at robbery. Moreover, before
the evacuation of Syria by the Egyptian troops, Sir Moses Montefiore
had been seriously engaged in the plan of establishing a Jewish centre
of settlement in the Holy Land, and had entered into negotiations with
Mehemet Ali, the Viceroy of Egypt, when the surrender of Syria to the
Porte frustrated his great design. Those who have had the opportunity
of referring to the second private journal of Lady Montefiore will
find in the Addenda (Appendix lxiv) full particulars of this project.
This experienced philanthropist had not therefore considered such a
scheme impracticable twenty-three years earlier. The question was:
Had circumstances so altered since the accession of the _Sultan_ Abdul
Aziz to the throne that any plan of this kind would have as good a
chance of success as it had offered under Mehemet Ali? “Difficulties,”
said a great statesman, “are made to be overcome”: and after all,
why should those presented by such a scheme prove insuperable? The
proposition of itself was, unquestionably, worthy of the attention
of a generation so enterprising and so eminently practical in its
philanthropic exertions as that of the sixties of the last century.
It was at this time that _Rabbi_ Chayyim Zebi Sneersohn, of
_Jerusalem_, addressed to the Jews of England an open letter
(Appendix lxv) advocating the promotion of Jewish colonization. One
of the replies was the announcement of Sir Moses Montefiore’s new
journey to Palestine. Possibly this visit had no further object than
the gratification of a natural desire to see again the places so holy
and so closely connected with _Israel’s_ most sacred associations,
which had been especially endeared to him as the centre of his
repeated pilgrimages in past years.
Nevertheless, public opinion inclined to the view that there was a
connection between this journey and the Jewish Commonwealth projected
many years before, which would indeed have been established had not
Syria unfortunately passed from the power of Mehemet Ali, under whom
life and property were well protected, into the weak hands of the
_Sultan_, under whom the land had soon relapsed into its former state
of lawlessness. A whole generation had passed away since then, and
during this interval much had changed for the better in Syria.
Foreigners were now enabled to hold landed property in the dominions
of the Porte. The Government of the country had become much more
settled. Roads had been made: the fierce Bedouins were held in
check. Travelling in the country was much safer than in former years.
An incessant stream of pilgrims from all directions had begun to
pour into the land. The bounds of _Jerusalem_ had been considerably
extended, and the approaching completion of the Suez Canal had given
a new impetus to the cultivation of the soil and trade in general.
Was it not now possible to take up the project contemplated in 1839,
but abandoned after a time, under more favourable auspices? Such an
undertaking was not to be carried out by one section of the Jewish
people: it required the united forces of the Jews of the civilized
world. And the magic spell which should weld all these scattered
forces into one united whole had not yet been spoken. A publicist
wrote at that time in the _Jewish Chronicle_:――
“Can it be doubted that the name of Montefiore would prove the magic
spell, were only authority given to utter it? It is likely that in the
first instance not all standard-bearers of _Jerusalem_ would join the
movement. The Continent might for a time hang back. It might at first
be found impracticable to enlist for such a project the phlegmatic
Germans. But practical England and her dependencies, as well as the
acute Americans, would hail such a project: and after a while all
other sections of _Israel_ would join.”
We may appropriately pause at this point to consider the attitude of
English Jews to the conflicting ideas of Zionism and assimilation.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
ZIONISM _VERSUS_ ASSIMILATION
The first difficulties――The traditions of Anglo-Jewry――The
influence of the English people on the Jews――Assimilation and
the Jewish National idea――The Zionist conception of the Jewish
problem――The tragedy of a minority.
IN order that Zionism might be prevented from becoming a metaphysical
theory instead of a practical principle, and might achieve
concreteness and real life, it was most advisable that its development
should proceed by steady and slow degrees, that it should meet with
opposition at every step and be challenged to produce logical proof
of its soundness. For it is only after antagonism has been overcome
that truth reigns triumphant in the human mind. There is consequently
no cause to regret that Zionism met with opposition among the Jews
themselves.
At the time with which we are dealing――the sixties of last century――a
number of Jews in some countries of Western Europe already showed a
desire to assimilate with their fellow-countrymen in every possible
way. This desire arises merely from a confusion of aspirations and
ideas. It is of course natural for a Jew born in England to be proud
of being an English citizen, for a Jew born in France, Italy or
elsewhere to be proud of the greatness and progress of his native
land. Everybody thoroughly understands and appreciates this sentiment.
There are few feelings more noble than patriotism, and few have been
responsible for greater deeds and more heroic achievements. It is a
good thing when the “_amour sacre de la patrie_” fills one’s breast.
But a Jew may be a good and loyal citizen and yet a thoroughly
national Jew. The two things are in no way incompatible, and have
been made to appear so only by inaccuracy in definition, and failure
to understand the difference between ethnological and religious
nationality on the one hand, and political nationality on the other.
The Jews are a nation, although they have not retained their full
national status. Most non-Jews, whether they are anti-or pro-Jews,
regard Judaism as a national tie, and if well-wishers hesitate to
express this opinion it is only for fear of hurting the feelings
of those Jews who wish to be thought merely a religious community.
Delicate natures shrink from incurring the suspicion of anti-Semitism,
and comply from conscious or unconscious kindliness with this singular
wish of a few Jews. So this minority has contrived to suggest to many
Christians a view which, in reality, they do not share at all, and
which will not stand careful scrutiny. The best proof of the national
quality of a given community is the conviction of the outside world
that it is a nation. Whether the Jews are an absolutely pure race
or not (absolute purity does not exist, but relatively the Jews
are doubtless the purest race among civilized nations), they have
a specific past, a peculiar temperament, a special mentality, which
persist even when the Jewish religion has long ceased to be a living
force, and make the most assimilated Jews a nation. And so it will
remain, for, on the whole, the Jews are a tenacious people, and
withstand extreme tendencies to assimilation. When some assimilated
Jews, who really believe in nothing, call themselves genuine Teutons,
Latins, _etc._, of the Jewish faith, it may be psychologically
interesting to close observers, but it is in reality only an
unconscious impulse on the part of self-despairing Judaism to survive
in any shape whatsoever. And these assimilationists have never
been――though the Jews have gone through greater and more extensive
periods of assimilation than the present――more than a handful.
Of course the national force of present-day Judaism is in a latent
state, and it can only become manifest when Judaism resumes its
history. The Jewish nation has the cultural power to attain that goal,
to form a national community, to maintain it and to make it prosper.
Its intellectual and ethical aptitudes are denied by none but the
malevolent and the envious. One cannot glance into the history of
civilized nations, and of civilization itself, without meeting at
every point with men of Jewish race who have achieved great things
in poetry and science, in economics and politics.
“Yours is a mighty genius,” the French statesman Ernest Laharanne
wrote in 1860, “and we bow before you. You were strong in the days
of antiquity, and strong in the Middle Ages. You have preserved your
existence throughout the dispersion, of course not without paying the
heavy tax of eighteen centuries of persecution. But the remainder is
still strong enough to erect anew the gates of _Jerusalem_. This is
your task.”¹
¹ _La Nouvelle Question d’Orient_, _ibid._
Orientals through their inherited aptitudes of intellect and mind,
Occidentals through eighteen centuries of education, the Jews are
the only qualified intermediaries for the great work which is to
begin with the civilizing of the peoples of Asia and to end with the
conciliation of the races.
What is _nationally_ Jewish? The word _national_ implies racial unity
not merely in the sense of a common origin, but as a present fact and
an abiding influence, with a particular fervour and strength of its
own. This racial unity has its psychological counterpart in a certain
intense racial spirit, by virtue of which the whole nation is animated
by a definite aspiration towards a common ideal, and becomes merged
with it into a _living unit_. This characteristic spirit permeates the
whole people “like a salve, and causes it to glow as with one flame.”
Or in the words of the _Zohar_:――
“_Israel_ and its _Torah_ are one.”¹ This _Torah_ is precisely the
ethos of the fundamental racial unity of the Jews.
¹ ג׳ דרגין מתקשרן דא בדא ק״בח אורייתא וישׁראל ספר הזהר חלק ן אחרי מות דף ענ
To the singular and exceptional nature of the Jewish nationality is
due the fact that it is frequently difficult to determine with any
degree of exactitude in how far certain terms and assertions which are
applied to other nations may properly be applied to the Jews. Hence,
while it is a matter of the greatest importance for the preservation
of the full and precise significance of Judaism to use the most
definite and unequivocal expressions in speaking of Jewish nationality,
it inevitably happens that certain terms as used by the upholders
of assimilation have to be characterized as inaccurate because their
ordinary connotation is misleading, though they may in themselves be
legitimate. An examination of the whole series of phrases which occur
in the polemics of nationalism and assimilation would take us too far;
but it will be worth while to draw attention to certain fundamental
principles in the discussion of which misunderstandings frequently
arise.
In any attempt to define Jewish nationality, it is necessary first of
all to bear in mind that the only elements of nationality that enter
into consideration are the historical and the ethnographical. The
predicates of the conception of nationality as applied to all other
nations fall under the headings:
(1) Origin, historical solidarity, racial characteristics.
(2) State organization, political functions and civic
interests.
The predicates of the first category alone are germane to our subject.
Those of the second category are partly inapplicable (political
union, political functions), and partly limited in their application,
for example, to the sphere of local interests. In this connection
attention may be drawn to the fact that the local organization of the
Jews is strong and well-marked wherever the state or society drives
the Jews, by means of exceptional laws, ostracism or prejudice, to
an instinctive or organized self-defence, and is absent only where
the Jews enjoy complete emancipation not only in the eyes of the law,
but also in the view of public opinion as a whole, and not merely in
that of certain of the upper classes which are everywhere more or less
privileged.¹
¹ The desire to remove this sort of separatism was the
fundamental idea of the _Alliance Israélite Universelle_.
Exceptional laws tend to isolate the Jews; the attacks and accusations
directed against them collectively, the differential treatment meted
out to them, the anti-Semitic policy, all necessarily contribute
to strengthen the walls of the _Ghetto_. Every discrimination made
against the Jews, be it only the merest _chicane_, is a stone added
to the walls of the _Ghetto_. It is not to the Jews that the erection
of a “State within a State” is to be credited; it is the anti-Semitic
movement which is responsible for this anomaly. As soon as the Jews
are subjected to differential treatment, they must likewise alter
their attitude. Whether they will or no, there arises out of these
conditions a complex of problems in consequence of the instinct for
self-preservation, which acts with the force of an iron law. These
problems, which in their origin have nothing to do with the national
life and character of the Jews, invest them with the character of a
politico-economic nationality, artificially isolated within the State.
That is a kind of nationality to which the Jews do not aspire; it is
forced on them from without. And it is in such conditions that the
majority of the Jews live. It is a superficial method of computation
which estimates the condition of the Jews according to the majority of
the countries in which they live; the right method is to consider the
condition of the majority of the people. That is the decisive factor.
A well-known Jewish author has taken the trouble to collect in a book
all the laws promulgated against the Jews in Russia under the old
régime. These laws numbered more than a thousand, and subsequently
they were increased by many hundreds. This code of laws――a kind of
anti-Bible――affects half of the Jewish race. The originators of these
special laws have consciously or unconsciously bestowed upon the Jews
the predicates of a nationality within the domain of the State, but in
a negative sense and with (as it were) _inverted_ political rights. A
group of men may thus be converted into a nation isolated within the
State, not only by granting them special privileges, but also, and
perhaps more thoroughly, by subjecting them to special restrictions.
As an inevitable result of this treatment, the thoughts, feelings and
aspirations, the daily interests, the public opinion, the collective
will of the Jewish masses have been driven to assume a tendency
necessarily peculiar to themselves even in economic and general
questions, in which they would otherwise have no special concern as
Jews. In spite of the exceptional conditions artificially created for
them they yet contrive on the whole to maintain their loyalty to the
State, and make supreme sacrifices for it.
It stands to reason that when, in the course of one generation, a
certain class of men has been called upon to suffer the martyrdom of
violent persecutions and is constantly threatened by this gruesome
spectre, the consequence is that whether they will or no, the members
of the group become welded and cemented together into one body.
It is also self-evident that given a certain class of men confined
within a _Ghetto_ or debarred from many professions――only a few in
fact remaining open to them――the members of the community are bound
to become a people of entirely exceptional character, with cares
and problems of their own. In our day, as on innumerable previous
occasions in Jewish history, malice makes use of this fact to bring
forward fresh accusations against the Jew. The Jews are driven into
certain positions, and are then held responsible for them. It is of
no avail to give serious consideration to these charges. They are so
numerous and so obstinate that it would be impossible to dispose of
them all in an apology. Impartial observers will understand that the
exceptional status of the Jews within the States, and the separate
interests resulting therefrom, were not a consummation desired by
the Jews, but a necessity imposed upon them against their will and of
which they are compelled to bear the consequences. They are obliged
to combine in many countries, just as any people taken collectively
usually combine, when their interests as a collective body are at
stake. This is a necessity even in the most ordinary matters of daily
life, and it results in a national combination for economic interests,
as, for instance, in the case of boycott or of social ostracism. But
for these aggravations, it would not occur to the most zealous of
Jewish nationalists to make attempts at organization in this direction.
The distinctive Jewish national concept is not embodied in these
organizations, nor dependent upon them. But the demand that these
special organizations shall cease, is first of all a chimera: and
secondly an injustice: a chimera because it transgresses the law of
the instinct of self-preservation, and an injustice because one must
not forbid a man who has been attacked to defend himself. One can only
demand that the grievances shall be removed. Whether they will ever
vanish, and when, is another question. The Russian revolution, with
its boon of freedom to oppressed nationalities, will mark, we hope,
an epoch in the struggle of the Jewish masses for the right to live
freely in the political and economic sense. But history and experience
warn us against believing too readily that salvation has come.
However that may be, Jewish nationality, as we said above, in no
way depends on the political status and the position of the Jews
in various countries. This question may be left entirely out of
consideration. In dealing with Jewish nationality, we are concerned
only with those predicates which are based upon the _natio_, that is
the origin and the spirit or type of the race in question.
The Jewish national idea is not merely an historical tradition,
it is a programme for outward as well as inward use. Outwardly it
manifests itself in an energetic struggle for its own existence, in
the development of its self-consciousness, in an active regard for
its own interests; inwardly as a union of the Jews of all countries,
rites, grades of culture and political parties on all questions which
affect Jews and Judaism (though it is and must be set on one side in
all non-Jewish questions relating to the State). As in the _natio_
the fact of being at one with the race is the really characteristic
feature, it is necessary to regard all Jews as members of the Jewish
nationality without reference to their religious opinions or points of
view. This is the meaning of the _Talmudic_ dictum:――
אף על פי שחטא ישראל הוא
סנהדרין דף מד ע׳א׃¹
¹ Although he sinned he is an Israelite.――Sanhedrin 44ᵃ.
Nationality has nothing to do with the differences of theological
opinion between the various sections of Jewry; it is based simply
upon oneness with the race. The endeavour to form this union is the
foundation of the national idea.
By those who do not understand it the Jewish national idea is
reproached with constituting an antithesis to the idea of the
State and of citizenship on the one hand, and to the spiritual and
the _Torah_ on the other. This reproach has no foundation: Jewish
nationality cannot find expression in political citizenship in the
Diaspora, simply because it lies outside that sphere. On the other
hand, from the point of view of the inner, spiritual strength of
Jewry, the sense of nationality is a source of vitality, and produces
a fusion which transcends all parties. It is folly to regard it as a
degradation of the spiritual character of Judaism.
Those who were unable to comprehend this distinction, and could not
or would not recognize the true nobility of their Jewish nationality,
were impelled by a desire to destroy the distinctive characteristics
which recalled their origin. They wished to submerge their nationality,
glorious in tradition and history, illustrious in its record of
heroism, venerable in its antiquity, holy by the inspiration of
religion. They failed to see that their people’s history abounded in
events and incidents sufficient not only to stamp a nation as glorious,
but to confer upon themselves, as men and as citizens in the countries
of their birth, greater dignity, more native worth and integrity
of purpose. They forgot that assimilation involved the sacrifice
of a glorious historical tradition, of a living national sentiment,
and, worst of all, of their national genius. However, the pursuit of
assimilation did not always extend to a desire for total absorption;
its effect was to weaken rather than to destroy.
The attitude of assimilation was not adopted in its fulness by the
Jews in England. This was due to the influence of the English nation.
Jews in England could not fail to see the attachment of Englishmen
to time-honoured political observances, sometimes meaningless in
themselves, yet full of significance through their symbolism or
associations; that strong under-current of traditional feeling which,
though held in check by the swifter stream of progress, manifests its
presence and power in a dignified reverence for the past. With such
fellow-countrymen as the British people, in a land whose greatness is
built on the past, on tradition, on the Bible, the Jews had no need to
be ashamed of pointing to their own traditions, of dwelling upon their
own history and the glory of their own past. The Jews, whose history
is an epic, had no need to slur over that chapter of the poem whose
scenes are laid in the Holy Land. They knew that the ancient glory
of their annals shone brightly on those sacred shores. They knew
that that holy soil had been trodden by the prophets, the poets, and
the warriors of their race, and that there they had first impressed
themselves on their age and on the ages which were to follow. They
knew that amid the most splendid states of antiquity or of the modern
world no land had produced such brilliant examples of valour, wisdom
and virtue; that no land had ever rendered more wonderful services to
the world than this Holy Land of theirs; that no land had ever had so
great a past. And though the future is wrapped in darkness, national
hope sees a glimmer of promise even through the veil of mist.
English Jews understood, then, that the relationship of the Jewish
people to the Holy Land was a tie of a peculiar character. They
understood that in ordinary circumstances the connection between an
exiled people and its land would probably have been severed long ago.
It could hardly have resisted the influences that had been at work to
bring about its dissolution. Everybody knows of numerous instances of
such dissolution recorded in history. When a people, or a section of
a people, leaves the country which was the cradle of its nationality
to live in a distant clime, under the ægis of new institutions, the
link that bound it to the ancient soil loosens and gives way in course
of time and by force of events. At first old associations assert
themselves. Familiar names are resumed on the unfamiliar shore. The
followers of Cadmus (_fl._ 1493 _b.c.e._) planted a new Thebes in the
land to which they migrated. The Pilgrim Fathers raised a new Plymouth
on the shore which the _Mayflower_ touched at the end of its outward
voyage from the Plymouth of the motherland. For long years the
American exile called the old country his home. But even this feeling
scarcely survives the changes of which we are witnesses. Generations
pass by. New institutions take root: new feelings prevail, they ripen
and burst into fruit. There is no revolution more complete and more
enduring than that caused by the transplanting of a nation. But with
the Jews and the land of their lost glory the case is wholly different.
Elements of a higher character than those of an ordinary historical
nature enter into consideration. The Holy Land is the country of their
past greatness, present longings and future hopes. It is a bridge
which links the past with the future through the span of the present.
It is still a land of dreams, but it is to become a land of wakeful
activity, it is to be stirred to new life and progress. To carry out
such objects combined, sustained and intelligent action is required.
How could English Jews, living amongst the greatest colonizing nation
in the world, overlook this great necessity?
No other country under the sun can unite all the advantages which the
restored home of the _Hebrews_ will present, can attract the Jewish
people, with the knowledge which it has gained of the ways of the
world and its pre-eminence in commerce, can become the home of a
Commonwealth which will restore its national greatness.
From a purely practical point of view, again, there is no reason
why property in the land of _Israel_ should not offer as safe an
investment as any other. Surely it is within the realm of probability
that those who regard the idea as the ridiculous notion of a mad
enthusiast, or at least their children after them, may find it to
their interest to labour for the restoration of Palestine as the
surest method of placing their worldly possessions in safety, even
without taking into consideration the benefits which would accrue to
the Jews as a religious community, through their obtaining once more
a home for the practice of their laws, a spot where the ark of the
covenant may rest without being exposed to malevolence and prejudice.
These ideas, in fact, were prevalent among English Jews. There were
some adherents of Assimilation, but they were insignificant both in
numbers and in influence. It is note-worthy that the idea preached by
modern Zionism in the first years of the movement, namely, that the
Jewish tragedy is due to the fact that the Jews are everywhere in a
minority, and that therefore the only solution of the problem is to
make them a majority in their own country, was expressed in England
by a Jewish publicist in 1863 (Appendix lxvi).
CHAPTER XXXV.
COLONIZATION AND RESTORATION
Henry Wentworth Monk――Zionism in France――Jean Henri Dunant’s
“Le Renouvellement de l’Orient”――Napoleon III.――Bishop Stephen
Watson――“L’Orient” in Brussels.
PHILANTHROPY, not nationalism, was the basis of the “London _Hebrew_
Society for the Colonization of the Holy Land” (Appendix lxvii),
founded by Jews in 1861. This experiment, generous as it was, could
not succeed, even as a philanthropic scheme, because it lacked the
great national idea, which is the soul and essence of Zionism, and
without which no revival can possibly succeed. It is worthy of note
that an English Christian who was one of the promoters of Palestine
colonization grasped this truth; and addressed the following letter
from _Jerusalem_ to the Jewish press in England:――
November 6, 1863. _The Jewish Chronicle and Hebrew Observer_
(_p._ 3).
“Projected Agricultural Colonies in the Holy Land.”
“To the Editor of the _Jewish Chronicle_.
“SIR,
“Yesterday my attention was called to your editorial of
the 4th _ult._ by _Rabbi_ Sneersohn, who at the same time
requested me to try and explain why the poor Jews in this
country have not yet succeeded in earning an independence
by the cultivation of the soil, as poor people in other
countries generally do to some extent. He supposes that I
ought to know something about it, as I have been brought up
to farming in Canada, where poor people generally do succeed
in earning a good living by agriculture; and for about
two years (in 1854 and 1855) I also had some experience in
reference to agriculture in this country, where it must be
admitted that lately it has been far otherwise.... The cause
of the great want of success hitherto, it appears to me,
is, because people have not fairly considered the great
magnitude and importance of the object to be accomplished,
and seriously gone to work to accomplish that object with
that kind of earnestness with which men go to work to build
a railroad, or engage in any other great undertaking, which
they have decided would conduce greatly to the advantage of
the public, and for their own profit also.... When the Greeks
are making efforts to become a people again, and the Italians
or Romans trying to restore something of their former
greatness, shall _Israel_ alone be totally indifferent as
to whether they are a nation or not? The poor of Israel
have done their part――they have come here in thousands to
live or die, as God or man shall permit. Let the rich and
enterprising do their part, and then let us see whether we
shall eventually succeed even better than did the remnants
of the Greeks or Romans.
“Very truly yours,
“HENRY WENTWORTH MONK.
“_Jerusalem_, Palestine, _Oct. 1, 1863_.”
At the same time the political idea was taken up in France by Jean
Henri Dunant (1828‒1910), the author of _Un Souvenir de Solferino_.
Technically a Swiss citizen, having been born in Geneva, nevertheless
in all his ideas he was French. In 1859 he launched the idea of a
permanent organization of voluntary groups of humanitarian workers,
and also of an international treaty agreement concerning the wounded
in war. He then presented himself to Napoleon III., who became
interested in his project and immediately gave orders to his army
to cease making prisoners of the physicians and nurses of the enemy.
Soon Dunant organized an “Aid Committee” in Geneva, and shortly
afterwards published his _Souvenir de Solferino_ (1859), which was
enthusiastically received and greatly applauded. The philanthropic
ideas of his book were received with interest by many European
sovereigns, with whom he was on friendly terms, through correspondence
or conversation. He interested the Governments so much in his project
that various nations sent delegates to the International Conference,
which was held in Geneva in 1863, when it was decided to establish a
National Committee. A diplomatic International Congress on the subject
was held in 1869 at Geneva, by invitation of the Swiss Government.
The treaty there drafted accepted Dunant’s project, and the formation
of the Red Cross Societies was decided upon. Thus a single individual,
inspired by the sentiment of kindness and compassion for his
fellow-creatures, had by his own untiring efforts achieved the
realization of his ideas, and thus aided the progress of mankind.
Dunant was a statesman, and might have been a saint. His most earnest
desire was to carry the message of sympathy, faith and knowledge
to the hearts of poor men and oppressed nations. During his zealous
propaganda, in the course of which he edited pamphlets and articles in
many languages, and travelled continually through the whole of Europe,
he spent all he possessed, and for many years nothing more was heard
of this modest and good man. In 1897 he was discovered in the Swiss
village of Heiden,¹ where he was living in poverty in a “Home of Rest”
for old men. In 1901, when the A. B. Nobel (1833‒1896) Peace Prize was
awarded for the first time, it was granted to the founder of the Red
Cross Society.
¹ Died there October 31, 1910.
These biographical details are interesting in so far as they enhance
our appreciation of the activity of this great man, who advocated
also the idea of the regeneration of the East, and the resurrection
of Palestine by the Jewish people. Dunant was inspired more by
political convictions than by religious emotion. He was a champion
of humanitarian ideas in the political life of Europe, and he dealt
with the problem of the East and the Jews from this point of view. He
addressed to the public an “Open Letter,” which, far from repeating
the older ideas and suggestions which had been put forth on several
occasions in England and France, gave the impression of a fascinating
spontaneity and originality (Appendix lxviii).
A peculiar feature of so many Zionist writings is the writer’s
unfamiliarity with what has been written repeatedly before. There
is no reference to earlier suggestions and attempts, no allusion or
reminiscence whatever. Every writer begins _ab ovo_; everyone makes
new discoveries. Is this due to the fact that there was no literary
concentration, no history of Zionist literature, no bibliography?
Partly so: but the true reason was, in our opinion, the independence
of the idea in all these writings. Every writer was impressed
not by what he had read――most of them had not read anything about
Zionism――but by the appearance of the problem as it presented itself
to him. Everybody discovered the truth in his own way, and all came
to the same conclusion quite independently. Henri Dunant planned out
and calculated for himself all the details of his great scheme. He had,
as we see, a clear political conception of Zionism; his style, too,
was lucid and pleasant. He had a wonderful faculty for disposing of
difficulties. Moreover, he started political activity, and was in this
respect a forerunner of Herzl.
He started his work in France. Different rumours were current at
that time (1866) in England about a great Zionist propaganda in
France. “A curious and interesting movement has been in progress for a
considerable time affecting the state and prospects of the Jewish race
in all quarters of the world,” we read in an editorial in _The Morning
Herald_, London (6th Feb., 1866). “It is of national rather than of
a religious character. As is well known, the generous exertions of
Sir Moses Montefiore in Morocco, Persia and elsewhere have greatly
tended to ameliorate the conditions of the Jews locally, although
they are still in many regions persecuted and oppressed: but the most
remarkable fact of all, has been the interview between the French
Emperor and the leading members of the community in Paris. The object
of this informal proceeding was, on the part of Napoleon III., to
ascertain how far there yet lingered in the Jewish mind a belief and
desire, that they might become repossessed of their native country;
and certainly no idea, since that of the Crusaders, could be more
romantic or bold, than one which should promise them through any means
the fulfilment of this ancient wish....” The author of this article
concludes: “Whatever our creeds, we cannot forget the good words of
Bishop Weston¹ when he said that, upon seeing a Jew, his best thoughts
were always carried back to the beginning and earliest blessing of
the world. Therefore it is with more than a mere antiquarian spirit
that we observe with sympathy the refusal of this race to raise,
whenever challenged to resume their lost position in the world, the
cry _Hierosolyma est perdita...._” This rumour concerning an interview
which the French Emperor had granted to the leading members of the
community in Paris was undoubtedly due to the propaganda of Henri
Dunant, who was a _persona gratissima_ at the French Court.
¹ Stephen Weston (1665‒1742), Bishop of Exeter, 1724.
The appeal was afterwards re-echoed in a political paper started in
Brussels under the title of _L’Orient_, which devoted much attention
to Eastern affairs.
“Palestine,” we read in one of the articles, “situated at the point
of junction of the three continents, is the key of Asia: it occupies
a central position in reference to the East as well as the West: its
situation is the same between the countries of the North and South: no
other on earth can in this respect be compared with it. What European
power could take possession of it without bringing upon itself, on the
part of the others, the most protracted and sanguinary wars? However,
one solution would still be possible for which, despite the rivalries
and revolutions which keep the people of Europe on the alert, the
way might be paved. The final solution of the Eastern question might
be accomplished if Palestine were reopened to the _Israelitish_
people. We have, further, to take into consideration the principles
of nationality which in our days play such a prominent part: to bear
in mind the isolated position of the Jewish people in the world,
which has been dispersed among the nations of the earth for thousands
of years without being absorbed by them; and to study the condition
of the Israelites within the last seventy years, their wealth, the
influence acquired by them in the commercial world, in industrial
pursuits and on Governments. The inference from all this will be that
something grand is in store for the Jewish people. The return of the
Jewish people to the Holy Land may be considered from two different
points of view: the religious and the political. There exist several
Scriptural passages which predict the return of the Jews.... The
_Israelitish_ people and the Arabic or Ishmaelitic tribes, which
with justice may be called the oldest nations on the earth, have been
preserved by Providence, while the others among which they lived in
captivity have disappeared from the stage of the world. We may depend
upon it, the destinies of the Israelites, so unique and mysterious in
their kind, will in the future be still grander than they were in the
past: and they must be counted upon if we wish eventually to arrive at
the solution of the Eastern question, which appears so complicated.”
CHAPTER XXXVI.
APPEALS FOR COLONIZATION
A _Rabbinical_ appeal――_Rabbi_ Elias Gutmacher――_Rabbi_ Hirsch
Kalischer――Correspondence with Sir Moses Montefiore――Servian
Jews ready for Palestine――_Rabbi_ Sneersohn――Another appeal of
Henri Dunant――A committee in Paris under the patronage of the
Empress of the French――Zionism in French fiction.
IN 1867 an appeal in favour of the colonization of Palestine was
addressed to English Jews by two well-known _Rabbis_, Elias Gutmacher
(1796‒1874) of Grätz, and Zebi Hirsch Kalischer (1795‒1874) of
Thorn. This appeal contains interesting references to a letter of Sir
Moses Montefiore dealing with the same subject, to Servian Jews who
were ready to go to Palestine, and to the activity of the “Alliance
Israélite Universelle” in Paris in the same direction (Appendix lxix).
Conceived in an orthodox Jewish spirit, it seems to have produced
a favourable impression on some portions of the Jewish population
in England; but it elicited few contributions. This is evidenced
in another letter addressed to England by _Rabbi_ Sneersohn of
_Jerusalem_ in 1866 (_Ab._ 8, 5626). “And now, my brethren in England,
it is for you to be among the foremost in accomplishing the divine
will. Hasten to buy fields and vineyards on the Holy Ground without
looking for any immediate advantage. Do you not see that all nations
around lay out large sums in buying up land here? Why should we
not follow this good example, when thereby great benefits would be
conferred on our brethren here: for they would till the ground and
thereby maintain themselves, and no longer depend upon charity from
abroad? By this means also would hatred and sorrow be removed from
their midst, for being engaged in their work they would have no time
for prying into the affairs of others. The time is most favourable for
such an undertaking. About eighty heads of families, both _Sephardim_
and _Ashkenazim_, lately bought fields along the road to _Jaffa_, and
some of them have commenced to till the ground. Who knows how soon
the ground will be worth double the price for which it can now be
had? There is now a large and most eligible piece of ground at a very
reasonable price to be had, etc....”
Illustration:
_Rabbi_ ZEBI HIRSCH KALISCHER _Rabbi_ ISAAC JACOB REINES
_Rabbi_ MORDECAI ELIASBERG _Rabbi_ SAMUEL MOHILEWER
_Rabbi_ _Dr._ ISRAEL HILDESHEIMER _Rabbi_ ISAAC J. RÜLF
At the same time Dunant continued his propaganda, and addressed the
following letter from Paris to the Jewish press in England:――
_Jewish Chronicle_, Dec. 13, 1867 (_p._ 6).
“Palestine Colonisation”
“To the Editor of the _Jewish Chronicle_.
“SIR,
“Permit me to recall to your mind the remembrance of me. At
that time you were pleased to take a truly humane interest
in the work in favour of wounded soldiers, of which I am the
founder, for which I then laboured, and which still occupies
my attention. You are no doubt aware that this work has
been as successful as such a work of philanthropy can be. It
has obtained the adhesion not only of all the Sovereigns of
Europe, and even those of the Sultan of Turkey and Emperor of
Brazil (1831‒1891),¹ but also the unanimous suffrage of all
benevolent persons in all civilized countries.
“In the whole European and American Continents――both of them
liable to the chances of war――committees and societies for
the relief of wounded soldiers have been formed, and are
in activity, and it may be said, without exaggeration, that
the service rendered by this institution during the late war
surpassed all expectation. Official reports from this society,
as well as from military authorities published more than once,
have sufficiently shown it. At present, sir, I am engaged
in another work, for which I hope you will not feel less
interest than for that to which I have just referred, the
more so as it concerns Palestine, the country made over by
God to the glorious people of which you have the honour of
being a member.
“You will find enclosed two copies of a notice which a
committee formed in Paris for the Colonisation of Palestine
――a committee of which I am a member, and which Her Majesty
the Empress of the French² has deigned to honour with her
patronage――have just published. The notice will explain
to you the object and tendency of our foundation. The
labours of your whole life, and the great merits acquired
by you in serving the cause, rights, and interests of your
co-religionists, inspire me with the lively desire to obtain
your valuable advice on the work on which we are engaged.
I hope that if you find our publication conformable to your
ideas, you will have the goodness to cause a translation
thereof inserted in the estimable journal which you edit, the
_Jewish Chronicle_.
“I also hope that you will likewise acquaint me with the
names and addresses of persons in England, whom you may
believe inclined to sympathise with the moral and economical
re-constitution of the ancient patrimony of the Hebrews; for
our work, supported by the greatest and most aristocratic
names among Christians, sympathises not the less, nay, before
all, with the Israelites, whose rights to Palestine are
superior to all others.
“I do not doubt but that the international sentiments which
animate you will call forth in old England, and among the
readers of the _Jewish Chronicle_, a sympathetic echo.
“Receive the assurance of my high consideration.
“(_Signed_) HENRI DUNANT,
“Founder and promoter of the international undertaking in
behalf of the wounded soldier, on land and at sea.
“Paris, 24, Rue de la Paix, _Dec. 3, 1867_.”
¹ Dom Pedro de Alcantara (1825‒1891).
² The Empress Eugénie, _b._ 1826.
Evidently Dunant expected more from England and English Jews than
from any other country in the world. The liberties and rights of
citizenship of the Jews have been more respected, and their social and
political standing made more secure in this country than in any other.
Here, at all events, the days of Jewish persecution have long since
passed away.
In France, where a favourable atmosphere for Jewish national
aspirations had scarcely been created, _M._ Dunant’s scheme does not
appear to have made much headway in a practical direction; but there
is no doubt that his efforts were watched with sympathetic interest.
We quote again _M._ L. Lévy-Bing, who advocated the Zionist idea in
several articles from 1864 onwards.¹ In French fiction _M._ Alexandre
Dumas (_fils_) (1824‒1895) had made one of the heroes of his play _La
Femme de Claude_ a Zionist character (Appendix lxx). Many more such
quotations could be traced, but we mention this only as an example.
Further, there was, at all events, the idea of Jewish brotherhood in
the creation of the “Alliance Israélite Universelle”: as we pointed
out above, the activities of the “Alliance” were directed chiefly
to the East, where it found a vast sphere of labour. All this was
consciously or unconsciously Zionist work.
¹ In one of his last letters _M._ L. Lévy-Bing wrote: “Quant
aux destinées du peuple Juif, la restauration de ce peuple
est l’une des conditions essentielles du système divin. Il
n’est pas un de nos écrivains sacres, depuis Moïse jusqu’à
Malachi, qui ne parle du retour infaillible.”
CHAPTER XXXVII.
CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA IN ENGLAND
A new appeal――Earl of Shaftesbury in 1876――Edward Cazalet
――Laurence Oliphant――Zionism in English fiction――George Eliot
――“Daniel Deronda”――The Jewish nationalism of Mordecai Cohen
――A quotation from Dr. Joseph Jacobs.
IN Palestine the Jews continued to cherish the hope of colonization,
though they had a hard struggle for existence. In a new appeal
addressed to the Jews in England, _Rabbi_ Sneersohn describes
the situation in Palestine, and gives a clear idea of the efforts
previously made in the direction of colonization. This appeal is
very instructive as to the history of the colonization efforts in
the earlier stages (Appendix lxxi).
At the same time, while the Jewish organizations grappled with the
problem from the standpoint of charity, the great Zionist idea was
again put forth by English Christians. In the first place, Lord
Shaftesbury wrote in 1876 a most remarkable Zionist article, from
which we quote a few sentences:――
“Is there no other destiny for Palestine but to remain desolate or
to become the appendage of an ambitious foreign power? Syria and
Palestine will ere long become most important. On the Euphrates and
along the coast old cities will revive and new ones will be built: the
old time will come back on a scale of greater vastness and grandeur:
and bridging the districts the stream will run in the track of the
caravans. Syria then will be a place of trade pre-eminence. And who
are pre-eminently the traders of the world? Will there, when the
coming change has taken place, be any more congenial field for the
energies of the Jew? The country wants capital and population. The
Jews can give it both. And has not England a special interest in
promoting such a restoration? It would be a blow to England if either
of her rivals should get hold of Syria. Her Empire reaching from
Canada in the West to Calcutta and Australia in the South-East would
be cut in two. England does not covet any such territories, but
she must see that they do not get in the hands of rival Powers. She
must preserve Syria to herself. Does not policy then――if that were
all――exhort England to foster the nationality of the Jews and aid
them, as opportunity may offer, to return as a leavening power to
their old country? England is the great trading and maritime power of
the world. To England, then, naturally belongs the rôle of favouring
the settlement of the Jews in Palestine. The nationality of the Jews
exists: the spirit is there and has been there for 3000 years, but the
external form, the crowning bond of union is still wanting. A nation
must have a country. The old land, the old people. This is not an
artificial experiment: it is nature, it is history.” Needless to say,
the political idea, as expounded in these sentences, could not have
been put more convincingly by the staunchest Jewish political Zionist.
A few years later, two distinguished Englishmen started propaganda
work on the same lines as Lord Shaftesbury: Edward Cazalet and
Laurence Oliphant.
Edward Cazalet (1827‒1883) was a man of great political ability.
He was a staunch friend of the Jews, and he knew the East. His idea
was that “wrong should be righted and freedom allowed a place in the
world.” He had a very high conception of Great Britain’s duty in the
East. His appreciation of a centre for “Jewish culture” is especially
remarkable. Hardly a single point seems to have escaped him; he covers
the ground thoroughly, from criticism of the old English policy to
discussion of the new Eastern problem, taking the question of the
Palestinian population, the jealousies of the sects, and a hundred
other things by the way. There are naturally a few debatable points in
this comprehensive treatise (Appendix lxxii). But as a whole it shows
remarkable insight.
A place of honour in the realm of England’s Zionism belongs to
another remarkable personality: Laurence Oliphant (1829‒1888). He
was a friend of Lord Shaftesbury, and had been a high official in
connection with Indian affairs, secretary to the Earl of Elgin and
Kincardine (1811‒1863), traveller, journalist, diplomatist and member
of Parliament. He took up a scheme for colonizing Palestine with
Jews, and early in 1879 went to the East to examine the country
and endeavour to obtain a concession from the Turkish Government.
In consequence of jealousies this attempt to influence the Turkish
Government failed, and the scheme broke down, as did many others
that were launched about this time. He again took up the Palestine
colonization scheme in 1882. He travelled to Constantinople in the
summer of that year, and settled for a time in Therapia. At the end
of the year he moved with his wife to _Haifa_.
He reports thus on his efforts in his book¹:――
¹ The Land of Gilead with Excursions in the Lebanon. By
Laurence Oliphant.... Edinburgh and London, MDCCCLXXX.
Introduction, _pp._ xxxv‒xxxvi.
“... Prior to starting, however, it seemed to be my first duty to lay
the matter before the Government, with the view of obtaining their
support and approval, and I therefore communicated to the then Prime
Minister and Lord Salisbury the outline of the project. From both
Ministers I received the kindest encouragements and assurances of
support, as far as it was possible to afford it without officially
committing the Government. And I was instructed to obtain, if possible,
the unofficial approval of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the scheme. I therefore proceeded to Paris, and submitted it to
_M._ W. H. Waddington (1826‒1894), who was sufficiently favourably
impressed with the idea to give me a circular letter to the French
Ambassador at Constantinople and other diplomatic and consular
representatives in Turkey. I was also similarly provided with letters
of recommendation from our own Foreign Office.
“I would venture to express most respectfully my gratitude and
thanks to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales¹ and to their
Royal Highnesses the Prince (1831‒1917) and Princess Christian of
Schleswig-Holstein for the warm interest and cordial sympathy with
which they regarded the project and which encouraged me to prosecute
it.”
¹ Afterwards King Edward VII. (1841‒1910).
“It appeared to me that this object might be attained by means of
a Colonisation Company, and that one of those rich and unoccupied
districts which abound in Turkey might be obtained and developed
through the agency of a commercial enterprise which should be formed
under the auspices of His Majesty, and have its seat at Constantinople,
though, as in the case of the Ottoman Bank and other Turkish companies,
the capital would be found abroad, provided the charter contained
guarantees adequate for the protection of the interests of the
shareholders.”¹ “It is somewhat unfortunate that so important a
political and strategical question as the future of Palestine should
be inseparably connected in the public mind with a favourite religious
theory. The restoration of the Jews to Palestine has been so often
urged upon sentimental or Scriptural grounds, that now, when it may
possibly become the practical and common-sense solution of a great
future difficulty, a prejudice against it exists in the minds of
those who have always regarded it as a theological chimera, which it
is not easy to remove. The mere accident of a measure involving most
important international consequences, having been advocated by a large
section of the Christian community, from a purely Biblical point of
view, does not necessarily impair its political value. On the contrary,
its political value once estimated on its own merits and admitted,
the fact that it will carry with it the sympathy and support of those
who are not usually particularly well versed in foreign politics is
decidedly in its favour. I would avail myself of this opportunity of
observing that, so far as my own efforts are concerned, they are based
upon considerations which have no connection whatever with any popular
religious theory upon the subject.”²
¹ _Ibid._, _p._ xv: “In his endeavours to obtain a concession
for an autonomous Jewish state in Palestine from the Porte,
Oliphant had the support of both Lord Salisbury and Lord
Beaconsfield.”
² _Ibid._, _pp._ xxxii‒xxxiii.
These last remarks are particularly worthy of the attention of those
who, ignorant of the actual facts, are inclined to represent Zionism
merely as a theological or sectarian idea. There is ♦undoubtedly a
strong religious feeling underlying it, but the idea has been dealt
with, defended and propagated in England from all points of view.
♦ “undoubedly” replaced with “undoubtedly”
Illustration:
_Rt. Hon._ JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN EARL _of_ SHAFTESBURY
_London Stereoscopic Co._
GEORGE ELIOT
_London Stereoscopic Co._
JAMES FINN LAURENCE OLIPHANT
Laurence Oliphant continued to take an interest in the question until
his death on December 23rd, 1888.
Among English writers who have understood the idea in all its depth
and breadth, the place of honour belongs unquestionably to George
Eliot (1819‒1880).¹ She chose the Zionist idea for the theme of
an imaginative creation, wherein she displayed unequalled depth
of comprehension and breadth of conception. In “Daniel Deronda”²
(1874‒1876) the Jew demands the rights pertaining to his race,
and claims admittance into the community of nations as one of its
legitimate members. He demands real emancipation, real equality. The
blood of the prophets surges in his veins, the voice of God calls to
him, and he becomes conscious, and emphatically declares that he has
a distinct nationality; the days of levelling are over. Where calumny
and obtuseness see nothing but _disjecta membra_, the eye of the
English poetess perceives a complete national entity destined to begin
life afresh, full of strength and vigour.
¹ Mary Ann (Marian) Cross, _née_ Evans.
² דָּנִיֵּאל דּרוֹנְדָה ספור כתוב אנגלית ביד ”גארג“ עליוט ונעתק לעברית על ידי דוד
.פרישמאנן ... ווארשא ... שנת תרנ״ג לפ״ק ... 1893
(8º. 1 _l._ + 774 _pp._, in printed wrapper as issued.
([B. M.])
דזארזש עליאט דניאל דיראנדה ראמאן ... ווארשא, תרע״ד.. ווארשא, תרע״ד
(8º. 308 _pp._ [B. M.])
It is a memorable book, written by an author devoted to humanity and
to the deeper realities of English national life. Its atmosphere is
far removed from the conception of a materialistic world. Yet it is
practical in a higher sense. It preaches a great idea. The Jewish
nationality is represented as it actually is: not as an artificial
combination, but as an ethnological group which possessed the glory of
independence in the happier past and has been kept alive to hope for
the future by a deep historical consciousness and a lofty devotion to
humanity. This is a Zionist message indeed.
The wonderful completeness and accuracy with which George Eliot
represented the Jewish character is particularly remarkable. The
sketches of Klesmer and Alcharisi are triumphs of artistic skill.
Ezra Cohen is the embodiment of the successful commercial faculty.
The influence of the mother and the home on the inner life of the Jew,
as described in the novel, must impress every reader. Pusti, the “Jew
who is no Jew,” typifies excellently the despised class of which he
is a specimen. The more temperate Gideon represents a large section
of the Jews who are neither ashamed of their race nor proud of it, but
are prepared to let the racial and religious distinctions for which
the Jewish nation has fought so valiantly perish unexpressed. But the
great character of the book is Mordecai Cohen.
Mordecai Cohen is a lineal descendant of three great spiritual houses
which, in past ages, have waged a moral warfare in defiance of the
whole world against terrible odds; and the fact that those noble souls
are descendants of the Jewish race affords ample proof of the physical,
intellectual, and moral stamina which Judaism has always preserved.
Mordecai is the leader of a party which refuses to believe that
Israel’s part in history is accomplished, and maintains that Israel’s
future policy should be to join the nations as soon as possible.
George Eliot explains the traditions, habits and characteristics of
the Jews with the affectionate accuracy of a delighted scientific
observer and with the fine enthusiasm of a humanitarian spirit.
The abundance of detail and the sensitiveness of the fine shades
are marvellous. With subtlety, restraint and delicacy, without the
excitements of sensationalism, she succeeds in throwing into relief
the real Jewish problem. Something is passing away that once possessed
a life and value of its own. The labour of thousands of years is
lost; a flame has burnt in vain, a fire is extinguished without having
fostered life. There is a terrible sadness in it. The human soul
turns to what has been the highest aspiration of its life. Mordecai
has a profound contempt for the arts of emulation; he wants creative
originality. His idea is to be wholly what he is partly, his own self,
his own self restored. He wants to live entirety at home, to live by
the work of his hands, to bring to maturity the ideas which he feels
developing in his mind. Where would this be possible? Only within
an organization of his own people in their ancient home, in the
mother-country of his own kin and ancestry, in a commonwealth which
should focus and embody the whole of Jewish life as it should be,
not ossified, dried, cut up, preserved in the form of saintly relics
and adapted by interpretations and compromises to different zones,
cultures and customs. He has, it is true, a great reverence for these
saintly relics, and――_faute de mieux_――in the Diaspora he feels it a
sacred duty to preserve them. But he feels that this is not the ideal,
he sees that it is going to vanish, and therefore he longs for his
home, for a cultural entity working independently in harmony with
similar entities. This and only this would bring the Jews nearer to
the world, nearer to humanity. Is this “nationalism”? In the absence
of a happier name, let us accept this term. “What’s in a name?” In
reality, it is human liberty; it involves no secession from the stream
of common humanity. There is no aspiration more in harmony with the
spirit and deeper tendencies of our age, more in accordance with
liberty and justice, for nations as well as for individuals. This is
Zionist “nationalism.” No writer defends it more enthusiastically than
George Eliot.¹
¹ The late Dr. Joseph Jacobs (1854‒1916) was more Zionist
than the Zionists themselves when he wrote: “Unless some
such project as Mordecai has in view be carried out in the
next three generations, it is much to be feared that both
the national life of the Jews and the religious life of
Judaism will perish utterly from the face of the earth”
(_Macmillan’s Magazine_, June, 1877, _p._ 110). This
opinion is rather too gloomy, and he took a different view
in later years. But his first opinion is significant.
In the Valhalla of the Jewish people, among the tokens of homage
offered by the genius of centuries, “Daniel Deronda” will take its
place as the proudest testimony to English recognition of the Zionist
idea.
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
THE RUSSIAN POGROMS OF 1881 AND 1882
The new period of Jewish martyrdom――Public opinion in England
――Mass meetings, questions in Parliament and collections
――Protests from France, Holland, America and other countries
――An instructive lesson――Emigration of Jewish masses――The
problem――The “Lovers of _Zion_.”
THE year 1882 was a turning-point in the history of the colonization
of Palestine by the Jews.
The anti-Jewish riots and massacres which broke out in Russia in
the spring of 1881 had attracted attention to the position of the
Jewish people, but not to a degree commensurate with the importance
of the subject. Just when it seemed probable that the martyrs of 1881
would leave no record behind them, new massacres occurred in 1882 and
again drew attention to the subject. All the English newspapers dealt
sympathetically with the position of the persecuted Jews, and gave
full accounts of the atrocities. These articles caused an outburst of
pity and sympathy throughout England. Several mass meetings were held
and funds were started. Questions were addressed in both Houses to the
Secretary and Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. This spontaneous
outcry in England soon spread to all the countries of Europe. In Paris
the veteran poet novelist Victor Hugo (1802‒1885) headed the appeal for
justice and pity. In Holland the University of Utrecht rivalled that
of Oxford in its protests. Across the Atlantic the Government of the
United States went further than any other Government, and entered a
powerful protest in the President’s Message to Congress. All these
movements took their origin from the first emphatic outburst of pity
in England.
The racial and national instincts which in times of prosperity often
lie dormant in the hearts of the Jews were thoroughly aroused and
stimulated by the cruel persecutions to which their brethren were
subjected. It was a terribly instructive lesson for those Jews who
believed in the progress of humanity as a solution of the problem
of the Jewish tragedy. They had a sudden and rude awakening. More
and more the conviction gained ground among the people that the
helplessness of the Jew in his trials, his utter inability to stem
the tide of abuse and oppression, was chiefly due to the fact that he
had no land which he could call a Jewish land _par excellence_. The
best treatment that he received in free countries was only toleration.
He was always supposed to have the right of existence and of equality
with those among whom he lived, but in no case could he enforce it by
stronger measures than an appeal to the goodwill and kindness of those
who could either give or withhold it. Appeals to the sacred principles
of humanity and justice, beautiful and inspiring as they were, were
practically futile. Renewed persecution brought these facts once again
to the cognizance of the Jews.
Besides, there was the visible fact of an enormous number of homeless
Jews who had no place of refuge anywhere in the wide world. For
the great exodus had begun. The necessity of providing the homeless
wanderers with shelter was most pressing, the more so as it had to
be done without much delay. The persecutions grew in intensity, and
emigration increased by leaps and bounds. The sufferers attempted to
settle in almost every part of the world. Every country objected to
the influx of so many immigrants, and more than one country prohibited
their entry altogether.
While most of the poor wanderers themselves struggled manfully to
brave the tide of poverty and of exile, the bulk of their brethren
who dwelt under more favourable conditions in other countries made
it their business to devise plans for the succour of the exiled.
Fortunately for the immigrants, and to the credit of human nature,
there were noble-minded men in America who saw that there was work to
be done, and undertook it without hesitation, sparing neither expense
nor trouble in devising measures for the alleviation of the misery of
the immigrants and for safeguarding them against the temptations and
evils of a new country.
The immediate help which America gave was very important, but the
question of the future still remained unsolved. The problem created by
Jewish emigration presents many difficulties. The tie that binds the
heart of the emigrant to the soil of his birth is gradually weakened.
The attachment of the parents to the traditions of their native land
slowly weakens. The children find new ties. The new surroundings claim
their attention. The distant land of their infancy appears to them
only dimly on the horizon. A few years pass, and the old _Ghetto_ has
become to them a mythical vision. Nothing, indeed, is so remarkable
as the rapid absorption of English, Irish, Scotch, German, and
even French immigrants, not to speak of some half a dozen smaller
nationalities, by the ordinary American type. One would have expected
to see citizens of the States learning to regard this continual fusion
as a natural political condition, to reckon with it, to encourage
it, to remove all difficulties out of the way of those who devoted
themselves to the task of bringing new immigrants into the “land
of unlimited possibilities,” and of reconciling and harmonizing the
numerous heterogeneous elements. But there are men who do their best
to hinder this great work, and thanks to their efforts, legislation is
engaged in placing various restrictions upon free immigration. Jewish
immigrants in particular are still looked upon in some quarters as
intruders. They are received with frigid looks not only by non-Jews,
but also by some of their own brethren, who have had the good fortune
to settle in the country earlier, and have learnt to feel quite at
home. And it is not only the economic question which makes Jewish
immigration _en masse_ difficult: it is still more the question of
the national culture, religion and traditions of the Jews, which are
endangered by assimilation. The question of bread, important as it
is, is not the whole of the Jewish problem. The old Roman “panem et
circenses” could never become a Jewish principle. The Jewish principle
is expressed in the words:――
“... man doth not live by bread only, but by everything
that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live”
(Deuteronomy viii. 3).
Now members of other nations can find a home in America while their
nation remains and develops its own life in the mother-country. But
where is the mother-country of the Jews, of Judaism?
Various schemes of Jewish colonisation were planned and partly carried
out in America at the time of which we speak. Some of them met with
some success, others proved utter failures. On the other hand, great
masses of Jews were inspired by the conviction that good results could
be expected only in Palestine from an effort to turn the exiled Jews
into agriculturists. That view was strongly opposed by others who,
living themselves in affluence, thought that they would always be
secure against persecution in the countries in which they dwelt. They
consequently thought that the Jewish problem could be solved only by
a real union between the Jews and their non-Jewish neighbours, by a
process in which the Jews would cast off all that separated them from
non-Jews. They were blind to the fact, established by the whole of
Jewish history, that the more the Jew denies his distinctiveness the
more he is attacked and accused of it; and that whilst small groups of
Jews may sometimes succeed in getting rid of their dissimilarity, the
Jewish masses neither can nor will. They thought that Palestine should
be the last place for the Jew of to-day to think of, being under the
mistaken impression that the Holy Land was unsuitable for colonisation
and agriculture on a large scale. They argued from a technical
standpoint which had a bad foundation. They had no knowledge of the
facts, and Palestine was for them really a _terra incognita_. But
the masses turned with a unanimous impulse to Palestine. Everywhere
societies of “Lovers of _Zion_” were founded for the realization
of the cherished hope of making Jews once more owners of land in
Palestine. Sometimes the idea was taken up with more enthusiasm than
practical sense, and many hurried to Palestine in the belief that,
once in the country, they would find it easy to make a living. Not
unnaturally there was much disillusionment, and many a bitter lesson
was learnt by sad experience. So it became incumbent upon the existing
societies to keep the enthusiasm of their adherents within the bounds
of sanity and practicability. The societies had to grope their way
carefully. They had to find out suitable localities for establishing
colonies, to direct the energies of those most fit to undertake
colonising work into the proper channels, and to check the efforts of
those who did not show the capacity for success and would only have
proved a hindrance to the capable and the efficient.
Illustration: DAVID GORDON SAMUEL J. FUENN
_Dr._ LEON PINSKER
MOSES L. LILIENBLUM PEREZ SMOLENSKIN
CHAPTER XXXIX.
DR. LEO PINSKER
His life and experiences――His _Auto-emancipation_――The old
idea of self-help in Jewish teaching――Individual and national
self-help――The revival of an old doctrine――An analysis of
_Auto-emancipation_――The results of Pinsker’s idea.
LEO PINSKER (1821‒1891) was the son of the well-known Jewish scholar
Simchah Pinsker (1801‒1864), the celebrated author of _Lekute
Kadmonioth_ (Wien, 1860), an important work on the history of the
Karaites, and of other valuable Hebrew works. Pinsker was educated
at Odessa, where he studied law at the local Richelieu Lyceum. Law,
however, was not to his liking, and he went to Moscow, where he
studied medicine and took the degree of M.D. He returned to Odessa
and took up practice as a medical man. Shortly afterwards the Crimean
War came to an end, and Odessa was full of soldiers suffering from
typhoid fever. There was danger of an epidemic. Pinsker gave up his
practice and devoted himself entirely to the stricken soldiers. This
self-sacrifice was not overlooked by the higher officials, who brought
it to the notice of the _Czar_ Alexander II. (1818‒1881), and Pinsker
received a generous reward. Pinsker, besides being an authority
on medical matters, was one of the editors of the Russian-Jewish
paper _Zion_. Educated as he had been in the dark days of the reign
of Nicholas I. (1796‒1855), and witnessing the somewhat improved
conditions brought about for the Jews by the accession of Alexander
II., Pinsker believed for a time in emancipation and amalgamation;
but after long years of observation and experience he came to take a
different view. He was an eye-witness of the anti-Jewish riots in 1859,
1871, and 1881; and in the latter year, he issued a pamphlet in German,
under the _nom de plume_ “Ein Russischer Jude,” in which he most
forcibly expresses the conclusions he had arrived at. It was entitled
“Auto-emancipation,” of which an English version appeared in London
some ten years later.¹ Self-emancipation was Pinsker’s great idea.
Not that the idea did not exist before he preached it: as a matter
of fact it is as old as Judaism. But Pinsker started his career as
a Jewish nationalist by giving renewed expression to this idea of
self-help, and from that moment he kept it in the very forefront of
his aspirations and activities. Electricity is a comparatively recent
discovery; it is only within the last half-century that it has come
to be fully understood and harnessed for man’s purposes. But this
mysterious power is not of recent birth; although unknown to man it
was latent in the universe from the beginning. In the fullness of time
inquiring minds discovered it and gave us our modern triumphs of power,
of lighting and of communication. The analogy, though weak, may convey
to us in a certain degree what happened in the case of the idea of
self-help. It had permeated the Jewish nation from the beginning of
the ages. The importance of free will and independent action had been
a leading Jewish principle from time immemorial. But it needed the
“Lovers of _Zion_” and the advent of a great interpreter to bring home
the lesson to the Jewish people.
¹ Self-Emancipation! The only Solution of the Jewish Question.
Translated from the anonymous German original, by Albert
A. L. Finkenstein.... London, E. W. Rabbinowicz, Printer
and Publisher, 8 Little Alie St., E., 1891 (_8vo._ 51 _pp._
[I. S.])
“Dedicated to Lieutenant-Colonel A. Goldsmid as a token
of esteem for his zealous championship of Palestine
colonisation.”
Self-help implies the duty of the nation to be on its guard and to
use its own endeavours to secure its position. It implies the moral
obligation of self-defence and of self-salvation by one’s own efforts
and sacrifices, without the assistance and protection of others. The
principle comes to the surface over and over again in the Bible, where
we catch glimpses of a doctrine that is to be fully worked out only
in the development of a national movement. The author of the Book of
_Joshua_ strikes the keynote of _Israel’s_ duties when he says:――
“Be strong and of good courage;...” (Joshua i. 6).
“Only be strong and very courageous, ...” (_Ibid._ 7).
Phrases similar to those in Deuteronomy xxxi. 6, 7, 23. _Joshua_
obeyed the precept, and abundantly realized the promise with which
it was accompanied. The historical sections of the Bible are filled
with this idea――every deliverance is attributed directly to the moral
integrity of the Jew and to the help of his God. It is remarkable how
large a place exhortations to courage hold in the Bible; we cannot
easily count the “fear nots” of the Scriptures. And these are not
merely soothing words to calm, they are quickening words, calling to
conflict and to victory. This is the lesson which the individual as
well as the nation had to learn. In the light of it may be read the
whole history of Israel. The course of ages reveals a thousand ways
in which Israel vainly tries to remedy the disaster into which it
has brought itself by relying on the aid of others. Now it was Egypt
(Isaiah xxx. 2, xxxvi. 6), now Assyria (2 Kings xvi. 7), now their own
kings and nobles. When threatened by the Syrians, they made treaties
with the Assyrians; when threatened by the Assyrians, they tried to
strengthen themselves by the support of Egypt. The proved uselessness
of reliance on others brought the nation at last to recognize the
virtue of entire and obedient trust in God.
“Trust in the Lord with all thy heart,...” (Prov. iii. 5),
was a protest against self-sufficiency, self-conceit and vanity, and
also against relying on others. Entire reliance upon God, implied
in the words “with all thy heart,” is here appropriately placed at
the head of a series of admonitions relating especially to God and
man’s relations with him, inasmuch as such confidence or trust is a
fundamental principle of all religion. The admonition does not mean
that men are not to use their own understanding, i.e. to make plans
and to employ legitimate means in the pursuit of their ends; but that,
when they use it, they are to depend upon God and his directing and
overruling providence. For there is a true and a false self-reliance:
that which forgets God is ignorant and impious; that which recognizes
Him as the source of all true intelligence is genuine and blessed.
“If thou art wise, thou art wise for thyself;
And if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it”
(_Ibid._ ix. 12).
This was a proclamation of the principle of personality, the
great truth that each individual, in his single personality, has
been endowed with full and equal rights of self-determination and
self-control. The old civilizations annihilated the rights of the many
in the privileges of the few, and put the manhood of the masses under
the heel of power. The very idea of common rights had scarcely dawned
upon the minds of men. The grandeur of human personality, as complete
and inviolably sacred in every individual, was not discerned. The
idea, now so familiar to every civilized human being, that every man
is entitled to all the rights of manhood on his own responsibility was
originally Jewish. The meaning of the verse quoted above is clear: our
wisdom or folly is our own affair, both in origin and consequences.
We must reap as we sow, must bear the brunt of the conflict we have
provoked.
This principle concerns nations as well as individuals. The book of
Proverbs contains many maxims with regard to nations:――
“Righteousness exalteth a nation;...” (_Ibid._ xiv. 34).
National righteousness consists in the possession of a reverent
spirit and the practice of justice, purity, and mercy. In this is a
nation’s strength and superiority, for it will surely lead to physical
well-being, to material prosperity, to moral and spiritual advancement,
and to estimation and influence among surrounding nations. The Pagan
view of an eternal, inevitable force coercing and controlling all
human action was in conflict with the Jewish conception of a free
human and national will: man is not a helpless creature, borne along
by destiny. Man’s moral freedom and responsibility is at the very root
of all Jewish teaching, and is most strongly emphasized with regard to
the nation:――
“Is Israel a servant?
Is he a home-born slave?...”
(Jeremiah, _chap._ ii. _v._ 14.)
A slave can be emancipated only by others, a free man emancipates
himself. Hope comes to those who rouse themselves from dejection,
and “power to him that power exerts.” History proves the practical
folly, as well as the ingratitude and rebelliousness, of “Israel
forsaking God.” When trust is placed in other powers they prove like
Egypt――inactive, do-nothing (Isaiah xxxi. 7). The “captive daughter of
Zion,” which is a poetical image for the Jewish nation, brought down
to the dust by suffering and oppression, is commanded to rise and
shake herself from the dust.
“Awake, awake,
Put on thy strength, O Zion;...”
(Isaiah lii. 1).
“Shake thyself from the dust;
Arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem;
Loose thyself from the bands of thy neck,
O captive daughter of Zion” (_Ibid._ 2).
In these words _Zion_ was exhorted to do her part, to put on her own
strength. What we term in modern language “self-emancipation,” the
Prophet, in his simpler phraseology, calls “Loose thyself.” When the
bonds can be broken, break them; when the door can be opened, unbar
it; when the way is clear, take it without hesitation and delay; and
if this seems to be impossible, try and try again. God’s providence
requires of men, as a condition of his assisting them, their own
efforts. When the Jews were delivered from Babylon, those only were
delivered who braced themselves for a great effort, left all that they
had, confronted peril (Ezra viii. 31), undertook the difficult and
wearisome journey (_Ibid._ ♦xliii.) from Chaldea to Palestine, and
made all sorts of sacrifices. They saved the nation. A small beginning
was facilitated to some extent by the favourable decree of Cyrus, but
the most important and essential part was left for the people to do
itself.
♦ This is an incorrect reference. There is no chapter 43 in
Ezra, and I cannot identify what verse is actually meant.
“Put not your trust in princes,
Nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.”
(Psalm cxlvi. 3.)
This psalm was evidently composed at a time of great national
depression, when the community, sick of dependence on the favour of
foreign princes, turned more and more to the thought of self-help
coupled with a strong belief in the eternal righteousness and
faithfulness of the “God of Jacob.” It bears evident traces of
belonging to the post-exilic period, and the subsequent verses:――
“... The Lord looseth the prisoners;” (_Ibid._ 7)
“... The Lord raiseth up them that are bowed down;...”
(_Ibid._ 8)
are an appropriate expression of the feelings which would naturally
be called forth at a time immediately subsequent to the return from
Captivity.
This idea was handed on as a legacy from the prophets and psalmists
to the men of the Great Synod, and from the latter to the Jewish
philosophers and teachers of the Middle Ages. No doubt it had vastly
changed in form and in content; but in essence it was the same.
Political independence was lost in course of time; and the place of
the political state was taken by national unity and an unshaken belief
in the Restoration of the people to its old land. In substance it was
a combination of consciousness of the past and hope for the future
that made Jewish life in the present worth living. The sluggard was
still inert, the credulous man still trusted “in man in whom there is
no help,” and had need of a live coal from the altar. But now it was
not an angel that brought to man the purifying agency. The sufferings
of the nation had been exalted far above the coal of the altar.
National martyrdom had assumed a more intense and vivid meaning.
It was more insistently set over against the thoughtlessness of a
materialistic life.
When we read the maxim of Hillel _the elder_ (112? _b.c.e._‒8?
_c.e._) which Pinsker used as the motto of his pamphlet:
¹הוא היה אומר אם אין אני לי מי לי וכשאני לעצמי מה אני ואם לא עכשו אימתי׃
פרקי אבות א׳ יד׳
¹ He used to say, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
And being for my own self, what am I?
And if not now, when?”
(_Ethics of the Fathers_, _chap._ i. _v._ 14.)
We cannot help thinking that this aphorism, as well as the rule:――
¹”...ובמקום שאין אנשים השתדל להיות איש׃“ ב׳ו׳
¹ “... and in a place where there are no men, strive to be a
man.” (_Ibid._ ii. 6.)
refers not only to individual matters, but also to national duties.
Several centuries later, Bahia _ben_ Joseph Ibn Pakuda (_fl._
1000‒1050), who devoted a whole chapter of his _Duties of the Heart_
to the exaltation of trust in God, wrote:――
“Trust in God should not prevent man from doing his utmost in the way
of human effort and enterprise. Likewise it is folly to put too much
trust in benefactors, however powerful.”
The self-emancipation of the Jewish people is, accordingly, not
simply _a_ Jewish idea, it is _the_ Jewish idea. This idea is not
of the _Ghetto_, it is truly _Hebraic_; it may be opposed to some
superstitious notions, but it is religious in the highest sense.
Belief in predestination tended to make many Asiatic nations lethargic
and indolent. Fatalism killed their energy and stopped all their
progress. Relying on others was essentially fatalism. This doctrine
was Babylonian; it was never Jewish.
“Ethiopia and Egypt were thy strength, and it was infinite;
Put and Lubim were thy helpers” (Nahum iii. 9).
This was the burden concerning Nineveh, but _Israel_ trusted in God,
_i.e._ in its Genius, in its own moral power, in its self-sacrifice
and faithfulness to its ideals.
“That walk to go down into Egypt,
And have not asked at My mouth;
To take refuge in the stronghold of Pharaoh,
And to take shelter in the shadow of Egypt!”
(Isaiah xxx. 2).
“Therefore shall the stronghold of Pharaoh turn to your shame,
And the shelter in the shadow of Egypt to your confusion”
(_Ibid._ 3).
“Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help,...”
(_Ibid._ xxxi. 1).
“... Both he that helpeth shall stumble, and he that is helped
shall fall,
And they all shall perish together” (_Ibid._ 3).
In the period of the Second Temple, the Hellenists again made frantic
efforts to be emancipated by the Greeks. The Jewish Law, which was the
life and progress of the nation, was for them the stronghold of Jewish
unity and the obstacle in their path. But the more they strove after
equality with the Greeks, the more futile seemed their strivings. It
was the loss of their faith in God and their nation that made them
cast about for another power to deliver them. They preferred the
attractions of Hellenic culture to _Hebrew_ morality; Syrian power to
the Divine Spirit; the material army of the Seleucides, whose forces
they could count and whose weapons they could handle, to the unseen
moral power of their nation. This was the sin of the Hellenists. When
their success was at its height, they gave themselves with savage
energy to the persecution of those of their brethren who remained
faithful to their own nationality. With a zeal that far excelled
that of the enemy, they hunted to death the innocent followers of
the old prophets. But just when this persecuting fury was burning at
its hottest, the _Maccabeans_ came forward and exhorted the “captive
daughter of _Zion_” to shake herself from the dust. Henceforth they
became the blessed messengers of national self-help, and it was their
chief joy to sing the glories of the Divine grace which enabled them
to be more abundant in works than all others.
Was not _Rabbi_ Akiba (50?‒132?) _ben_ Joseph the spiritual hero and
martyr, a preacher of self-emancipation? Did not the same idea inspire
Judah Halevi [Abu al-Hassan al-Lawi] (1085(6)‒_post_ 1140), Moses
_ben_ Nachman Gerondi [RaM-BaN]: Nachmanides: [Bonastruc _da_ Porta]
(1194‒1270?), Obadiah (Yareh) (_circa_ 1475‒1500?) _ben_ Abraham
Bertenoro, and that splendid host of scholars who endeavoured to
re-establish the ordination in Palestine, and to encourage the Jewish
settlement, in that country, amidst terrific troubles and dangers,
as well as _Don_ Joseph Nasi [João Miguez]――(_circa_ 1510‒1579), Duke
of Naxos, who spared no effort to help his brethren to settle in the
promised Land?
This same idea lies at the root of Pinsker’s conception. A
clear-minded and quiet thinker, he was deeply impressed by the events
of 1880‒1881. The grave anxieties through which the Russian Jews
passed, and the awakening of anti-Jewish feeling in Western Europe,
particularly in Germany, led him to reconsider the conventional
Emancipation doctrine, in which he, like all highly educated Russian
and Polish Jews, had formerly believed. Being a medical man, he may
have seen the tortures of the victims; as an old inhabitant of Odessa,
he no doubt remembered the anti-Jewish riots of 1859 and 1871; and
now the eighties, with all their horrors, began. He then enunciated
“the message of political Zionism.”¹ “Pinsker, like all subsequent
political Zionists, arrived at the idea of Zionism not through
the problem of Judaism――through the necessity of seeking for a new
foundation for our national existence and unity, in place of the
old foundation, which is crumbling away――but through the problem
of Jewry――through a definite conviction that even emancipation and
general progress will not improve the degraded and insecure position
of the Jews among the nations, and that anti-Semitism will never cease
so long as we have not a national home of our own.” Pinsker discovered
that the root causes of “our being hated and despised more than any
other human beings ... lie deep in human psychology.”²
¹ Zionist Pamphlets. Second Series ... _Pinsker and Political
Zionism_, by Achad Ha’am (Translated by Leon Simon), London,
1916, _p._ 7.
² _Ibid._, _p._ 8.
“We cannot know whether that great day will ever arrive when all
mankind will live in brotherhood and concord, and national barriers
will no longer exist; but even at the best, thousands of years must
elapse before that Messianic age. Meanwhile nations live side by
side in a state of _relative_ peace, which is based chiefly on the
fundamental equality between them.... But it is different with the
people of _Israel_. This people is not counted among the nations,
because since it was exiled from its land it has lacked the essential
attributes of nationality, by which one nation is distinguished from
another.... True, we have not ceased even in the lands of our exile
to be _spiritually_ a distinct nation; but this spiritual nationality,
so far from giving us the status of a nation in the eyes of the other
nations, is the very cause of their hatred for us as a people. Men
are always terrified by a disembodied spirit, a soul wandering about
with no physical covering; and terror breeds hatred. This is a form
of psychic disease which we are powerless to cure. In all ages men
have feared all kinds of ghosts which their imaginations have seen;
and _Israel_ appears to them as a ghost――but a ghost which they see
with their very eyes, not merely in fancy. Thus the hatred of the
nations for Jewish nationality is a psychic disease of the kind known
as ‘demonopathy’; and having been transmitted from generation to
generation for some two thousand years, it has by now become so
deep-rooted that it can no longer be eradicated.”¹
¹ _Ibid._, _pp._ 8‒9.
The great value of Pinsker’s doctrine does not lie in the fact of its
originality in literature. Original to him――he undoubtedly came to his
conclusion by his own reflection――it was not a discovery in the usual
sense of this word: views of this kind had been expressed before him.
Neither does its great value lie in its possessing the indisputable
character of a scientific axiom. It may be said that although the
Jews are perhaps the most perfect example of a spiritual existence
in dispersion, still they are not quite unique in that respect. Other
disinherited nations have existed more or less spiritually for many
centuries in a degraded state of national homelessness, “lacking
the essential attributes of nationality,” dispersed or dependent on
other nations, and yet have not produced, even in a smaller degree,
that fear which is evoked by a “disembodied spirit.” It may also be
urged that the Jews were hated and branded by all sorts of calumnies
and malicious accusations [Apion (_fl._ 15‒54 _c.e._), Tacitus
(55?‒_post_ 117 _c.e._)], mainly on account of their distinctiveness,
their isolation, their different views and customs, and the inveterate
prejudices of others――even when they had a land of their own. And
although they may, and probably will, meet with the sympathy of
some nations, which are not entirely blinded by prejudice, and whose
interests may not clash with theirs, if they succeed in establishing
their own home, still the supposition that they will no longer
be hated by others, plausible though it may be, cannot claim
any scientific certainty. It must be remembered that, apart from
“demonophobia,” which is undoubtedly an important motive, hatred
of the Jews is continually stimulated by a deep-rooted religious
fanaticism, by economic competition and jealousy, by racial prejudice,
and that it is rather a _mixtum compositum_ of causes, conditions,
passions, and interests too numerous to be destroyed by the removal
of a few of them, and perhaps too various to be focussed in any single
formula.
But that is not the main point. The psychology of anti-Semitism,
as Pinsker formulated it, may be from a scientific point of view
absolutely true, or it may be open to some criticism: the finest and
most original achievement of Pinsker is rather that he was one of
the first Russian Jews to treat the Jewish problem as a whole, and to
treat it scientifically, while others deal only with fragments of it,
and always in an apologetic spirit. The new synthesis, the new line
of thought, foreshadowed by great minds in the past, but now fully
disengaged and standing clearly revealed as the beacon-light of the
future, was, to our mind, not his formulation of the causes of the
problem, but his formulation of the programme――self-emancipation.
Perez Smolenskin had voiced the demand of the Jewish conscience
to maintain its historic tradition, and its condemnation of all
that spirit of assimilation that betrays it with new formulas or
deliberately denies it. Superior to Pinsker’s in being independent of
the way in which the Jewish people is treated by others――to Smolenskin
the fact of anti-Semitism was not one of fundamental importance――his
message, eloquent as it was, suffered from being expressed in many
different books, mixed up with other subjects, and confined to
_Hebrew_ readers, and thus cannot be compared with Pinsker’s concise
and definite teaching. There were, however, many imperfections
in that teaching. “Our great misfortune is that we do not form a
nation――we are merely Jews.... And where shall we find this national
consciousness?”¹ How different Smolenskin and others, who spoke from
a secure tower of faith! “When he wrote his pamphlet Pinsker did not
yet regard our historic land as the only possible home of refuge; on
the contrary, he feared that our ingrained love for Palestine might
give us a bias and induce us to choose that country without paying
regard to its political, economic and other conditions, which perhaps
might be unfavourable. For this reason he warns us emphatically not
to be guided by sentiment in this matter, but to leave the question of
territory to a commission of experts.”² He evidently saw in Palestine
no more than a fraction of Asiatic earth, peopled by a certain number
of inhabitants, while Smolenskin, David Gordon, and many others looked
on it as the sanctuary of the nation, the historic centre, whence came
the Jewish message to men, and the Jewish initiative in the world.
Pinsker, like many others after him, had not yet realized at that time
that one’s country is not merely a territory. Territory is only its
basis; country is the idea that rises on that basis, the thought of a
common history that draws together all the sons of that territory. But
in spite of all these imperfections, Pinsker’s pamphlet necessarily
led to faith in a national revival and to Palestine――not because of
its arguments, but because it was a wonderful human document. Earnest,
true, without a trace of affectation, Pinsker’s appeal bore the stamp
of great sincerity, and if there was in his pamphlet some of the
spirit of the prophets,³ this was essentially in his cry for self-help,
in his warnings not to trust in others, in his appeal to national
dignity and energy. To superficial minds, the idea of this modern
scientist unconsciously re-echoing the warnings of the prophets not to
trust in Egypt or in Assyria may seem exaggerated, but the apparently
far-fetched comparison is absolutely sane, for it is based on the
sanest of all conceptions――the unity of the Jewish national idea
throughout hundreds of generations.
¹ _Ibid._, _p._ 19.
² _Ibid._, _p._ 21.
³ _Ibid._, _p._ 21.
“He came to take part in the work of the _Chovevé Zion_.... He
understood perfectly well that their work was very far removed from
the great project of which he dreamt ... but when he saw a small group
of men, with insignificant means, putting forth every possible effort
to carry out a national project, small and poor though it was in
comparison with his own ideal, Pinsker could not help lending a hand
to those who were engaged in this work, seeing in them the nucleus of
an organization, and the small beginning of the national resolution.”¹
He encouraged and supported the work of the _Chovevé Zion_ (Lovers of
_Zion_) as the first President of the Odessa Committee, and paved the
way for modern Zionism. He died at Odessa, his native town, at the age
of sixty-nine, on the 21st of December, 1891.
¹ _Ibid._, _p._ 24.
CHAPTER XL.
THE COLONIZATION OF PALESTINE
Jewish immigration into England――A meeting for the
establishment of Jewish colonies in Palestine――The foundation
of the Society “_Kadima_”――The Opposition――The opinions of
English authorities on Palestine――Col. Conder――General Sir
Charles Warren――Lord Swaythling――Earl of Rosebery――A petition
to Abdul Hamid, _Sultan_ of Turkey.
THROUGH the persecutions of the Jews in different countries large
numbers of fugitives had found their way to England. Many of these,
ignorant of the language and customs of this country, had to endure
great hardships. Although some of them succeeded in the struggle for
existence under such unfavourable conditions, there were many others
to whom England could not afford the prospect of gaining a livelihood.
Their difficulties were forcibly brought home to the Jews who lived in
the East of London. They had been eye-witnesses themselves, if not of
the persecutions, at least of some of their worst consequences. The
first movement to remedy this unfortunate state of affairs began in
1885, when a meeting was held for the purpose of founding a society
for the promotion of the Jewish National Idea, and the establishment
of Jewish Colonies in Palestine. This meeting achieved no practical
results at the time; but it gave expression to feelings which were
bound ultimately to lead to practical and useful action. Two years
later a society was formed in East London under the name of “_Kadima_.”
Meetings were held at which papers were regularly read on some
Jewish national subject. But the members were much divided as to the
best method of realizing their aims. While some wanted the society
to be nothing but an educational institution for the refugees who had
taken up their abode in England, others desired to extend the sphere
of its activity, and to make colonization one of its main objects. The
newly awakened national consciousness had not yet gained mastery over
the inveterate national apathy, and was still groping in the dark to
find a basis for practical operations.
The enthusiasm manifested among the Jewish masses, important as it
was, could not raise sufficient means, and was unable to influence the
upper classes. The old questions arose again: Is Palestine suitable
for colonization? What are the conditions of the soil and the climate?
How many people could be accommodated there? By what means could a
change in the conditions of Palestine be brought about?
It is strange how obstinately some Jewish opponents of the
colonization of Palestine strained against believing in the future
of Palestine. To the past they paid in icy discomfort the tribute of
their remembrance, for this past imposes no duties upon those who are
already quite detached from it in spirit. But the future! By denying
the possibility of a future one beguiles an elastic conscience,
which longs to evade the apparent conflict between duty to humanity
and national instinct. But it avails little to pay no heed to truth
because it is inconvenient, for where historical facts and direct
experience point the same way, to deny them is but empty sophistry.
The opponents of Palestinian colonization could not deny that
Palestine was once the “land of milk and honey,” but to justify
themselves they tried to make out that two thousand years of
desolation and neglect had laid the Holy Land waste and transformed it
for all time into an unproductive desert. No more fallacious idea ever
obtained currency. True, Palestine is no longer the luxuriant garden
it once was, for history has crushed it under an iron heel, and what
traces were left of its former richness lacked care and protection,
so that disintegration and sterility took possession of the Holy Land
as though it were a land accursed. Nevertheless, there is not the
slightest reason to despair of a new development of the country, if
only the task of carrying out this new development be entrusted to
those who are willing to devote themselves to it, head, heart and
hand, with the passion of patriotism and the zeal that springs from
the consciousness of a historic responsibility.
The appendices to this book contain many excerpts from the works of
competent authorities, which afford reliable information as to what
may be achieved by a systematic and devoted cultivation. One may infer
from these quotations, which are not in any way coloured by a facile
optimism, what indestructible germs of future prosperity remain, in
spite of all “_injuriæ temporum_.” If only an indolent administration
and a lazy and retrograde population are replaced by capable national
elements, the promise will be turned into a rich fulfilment. Figures
and facts show too that notwithstanding all the unkindness of
history, not only has the soil of Palestine retained its capacity for
development, but trade has maintained itself, all things considered,
at a high level. The ports of _Jaffa_ and _Haifa_ teem with traffic,
although little enough is being done in harbour construction; and
exports considerably exceed imports, which shows that, despite the
neglect of centuries, the natural productiveness of the soil is still
capable of adjustment to present-day conditions. No factory chimneys
bear witness to active industry, no convenient means of communication
favour trade; a phlegmatic, sparse population, entirely untouched
by modern civilization, takes indolently what nature proffers,
without any thought of supplementing it by its own endeavours. But
given capable agriculturists, engineers and technicians, trained
and enterprising merchants, and ample capital, how quickly could
stagnation be turned into living and creative vigorous prosperity.
The idea of the colonization of Palestine is, moreover, connected with
the remarkable colonizing impetus which has taken hold of the entire
modern world. And, judged by outward characteristics, are the European
migrations to foreign lands, their colonization and development, so
very different from this feature of Jewish aspirations? Exuberant
energy finds no appropriate outlet in Europe, and seeks it far away,
where it may be usefully employed for the furthering of civilization
in the midst of backward countries and nations. Fruitful Jewish
energy, which is being kept under in the Diaspora, will be gathered
and transplanted to Palestine, that it may prove true to itself and
to the whole of civilization, like Antæus brought back to contact with
the earth.
Still, questions were naturally asked as to the condition of the
soil of Palestine and the possibilities of expansion. It was also
repeatedly asked, whether the Jews would be capable of hard pioneer
work in the sphere of agriculture. These questions have been answered
in a series of ♦pamphlets and articles by such authorities as Colonel
Claude Reignier Conder, General Sir Charles Warren, and others. They
have shown that Palestine is capable of supporting a nation such as
the Jews. Men who for many years had made the scientific exploration
of Palestine their sole aim, whose judgment in the matter must be
universally admitted to be decisive, have given testimony to the fact
that the land “may be made one vast garden, not merely by rebuilding
the great aqueducts, remains of which still exist, and by means of
which the great cities were watered, but by means of the _Jordan_
river itself.” They also affirmed that “the time has at last arrived
to restore the desolations of _Zion_, and to rebuild the wasted places
of the land of _Israel_.” Some of them referred to the Scriptures, but
others dealt with the matter from a purely scientific point of view.
They suggested the formation of a company similar to the old East
India Company to administer Palestine (Appendix lxxiii).
♦ “pamphets” replaced with “pamphlets”
In brief, all these English Christian authorities put forward in the
most definite and clearest terms what we know as political Zionism.
These testimonies of English authorities concerning Palestine
encouraged the “Lovers of _Zion_” in England to carry on their
philanthropic work, and also to take certain political steps. A great
and far-reaching step was taken by them in 1893, when a petition
to Abdul Hamid, _Sultan_ of Turkey (1876‒1909), was presented by
Mr. Samuel Montagu, M.P. (afterwards Lord Swaythling) (1832‒1911), to
the Earl of Rosebery, with a request to transmit it to Constantinople
(Appendix lxxiv). The petition was signed by the officers of the
Executive Committee and the secretaries of each Tent of the “Lovers
of _Zion_.” It had no effect, because negotiations with the Turkish
Government are generally very tardy, and the circumstances of the time
were not favourable. There were obstacles, difficulties, uncertain
political influences, currents and counter-currents which could not be
got rid of immediately. But at any rate the English “Lovers of _Zion_”
endeavoured to do precisely what the Zionists did at a later period.
CHAPTER XLI.
THE “LOVERS OF _ZION_” IN FRANCE AND ENGLAND
The work in France――Baron Edmond _de_ Rothschild and his
activity in the colonization of Palestine――The effects in
England――Colonel A. E. W. Goldsmid――Elim _d’_Avigdor.
TO come back to France, it is significant that whilst England took the
first place in the propaganda of the idea, its practical progress was
due to French Jewry, or, to be more precise, to an individual French
Jew. The work of the “Lovers of _Zion_” entered upon a new period when
Baron Edmond _de_ Rothschild of Paris started his great activity in
the colonization of Palestine in 1895‒1896.
Baron Edmond _de_ Rothschild is one of the most honoured figures of
Jewish contemporary history. Born to an exalted station in life and
to a large fortune, he has devoted the best of his life and of his
thought neither to pleasure nor to personal advancement, but to the
furtherance of the material and moral well-being of the oppressed
Jewish people. It is not too much to say that he has acquired a
world-wide fame as a philanthropist, and that his name is indissolubly
connected with all the greatest achievements of the Jews in Palestine.
He is pre-eminently the friend of the persecuted and the outcast,
without distinction of nationality or creed, and his generous
sympathies and ceaseless efforts on behalf of his brethren entitle him
to the foremost rank in the illustrious roll of Jewish leaders. His
philanthropic enthusiasm can be traced to his profound Jewish national
feeling.
Recent improvement in the condition of Jewish life in Palestine is
due to many causes and to the efforts of many men, but to none more
than to the noble work of Baron Edmond. He was not the originator
of the idea of colonizing Palestine, but he carried it further than
any of his predecessors or contemporaries, and he is responsible
for developments beyond any that they conceived. His activity should
serve as the grandest example of what can be accomplished when work is
undertaken for the sake of a great ideal and carried out with staunch
conviction. The creation of a sound Jewish settlement in Palestine
is his vocation and his life-work. Nor is it the least interesting
feature in his character, or the least honourable incident of his
career, that the idea took hold of him at a time when there was
every reason for even a generous man to dissociate himself from such
thankless work.
Baron Edmond began to take an interest in Palestine at a time when
the doctrine of assimilation was still triumphantly making headway
throughout the whole of West-European Jewry. Under the guidance of the
preachers of disintegration, Judaism was supposed to emancipate itself
from the antiquated traditions of Palestine and from a belief in its
future renascence. All this was to be altered. Neither the past nor
the future was to interfere with the present. All that Jewish leaders
could do to mitigate the lot of their unfortunate co-religionists
was――charity. It was in such a world as this that Baron Edmond found
himself when he first became a public character and a public force.
Breaking away from the assimilation doctrine, he co-operated most
cordially with the “Lovers of _Zion_.”
His activity found appreciation and emulation in England.
Representatives of English Jewry, who were at the same time English
patriots, supported the colonization of Palestine movement. One of
the most prominent “Lovers of _Zion_” and an ardent supporter of the
Jewish national idea, was Colonel Albert Edward Williamson Goldsmid,
M.V.O. (1846‒1904),¹ a scion of an old and distinguished Anglo-Jewish
family. He made the Army his career, and in January, 1869, after
serving two and a half years with the Fusiliers at Walmer, proceeded
to India with his regiment. He was appointed Deputy Assistant
Adjutant-General at headquarters in 1889, and held this position
till 1892. In 1892 he accepted the responsible task of organizing
the Jewish agricultural colonies in the Argentine, and, having
obtained a year’s leave of absence, he proceeded to South America as
Director-General. During his administration there enormous tracts of
land were surveyed and parcelled out. About seven hundred families
were settled in four great colonies, the majority of whom, being
quite ignorant of agriculture, had to be instructed in its first
principles. The Colonies were organized on a system whereby, as the
colonists gained sufficient experience, the administration could be so
materially reduced as to render the Colonies virtually self-governing.
On returning from the Argentine, Colonel Goldsmid was unanimously
elected chief of the “Lovers of _Zion_” Association of Great Britain
and Ireland.
¹ מיכאל בן אהרון בן אלי בן צבי הלוי, son of Henry Edward Goldsmid
(1812‒1855), M.E.I.C.S., Chief Secretary to the Government,
Bombay, who in 1845 married Jessie Sarah Goldsmid. Her
paternal grandfather, Benjamin (Baruch) (1755‒1808) _ben_
Aaron (_ob._ 1782) Goldsmid was one of the pillars of
Anglo-Jewry, and a noted philanthropist in the early days
of the nineteenth century. Her father-in-law, Edward Moses
(_ob._ 1853), on his marriage in 1804 to Rose (_ob._ 1851),
a daughter of Elias Joachim, discarded his own, for the
maiden surname of his mother-in-law Esther (_ob._ 1811),
a sister of Benjamin Goldsmid. Maria [Mrs. Nathan Levien],
another daughter of Elias Joachim, was the great-grandmother
of Col. A. E. W. Goldsmid’s widow, one of whose daughters
is Gladys Helen Rachel, the Baroness Swaythling of
Swaythling in the county of Hampshire.
Another active leader was Elim Henry _d’_Avigdor (1841‒1895).¹
By profession a civil engineer, he supervised the construction of
railways in Syria and Transylvania, and of waterworks at Vienna. He
was the author of several works in connection with his profession,
and had literary leanings in other directions. Under the pseudonym
“Wanderer,” he published many hunting stories of merit, for which he
was well qualified, being himself an intrepid rider to hounds. At one
time he was associated with _Vanity Fair_; and afterwards owned the
_Examiner_, and subsequently brought out the _Yachting Gazette_.
¹ אדם בן שלמה בז יצחק שמואל, eldest son of Salomon Henri _d’_Avigdor
(_ob._ 1870) by his wife Rachel (1816‒1896), third daughter
of Sir Isaac Lyon Goldsmid, Bart., Barão _de_ Goldsmid _da_
Palmeira, of Portugal (1778‒1859) [son of Asher (1751‒1822),
the elder brother of Benjamin Goldsmid] by his wife Isabel
(1788‒1860), a daughter of his uncle, Abraham Goldsmid
(1756‒1810). _d’_Avigdor was a personal friend of Napoleon
III. (1808‒1873), who conferred upon him the titles of
Comte d’Avigdor, and subsequently that of Duc d’Acqua-Viva.
His father, Isaac Samuel Avigdor (1773‒1850), was secretary
of the “Grand _Sanhédrin_” (1807) convened by Napoleon I.
(1769‒1821), and represented the department of the “Maritime
Alps” in that assembly. He was the author of “Discours
Prononcé A L’Assemblée Des Israélites De L’Empire Français
Et Du Royaume D’Italie”; Par J. S. Avigdor (De Nice),
Secrétaire de L’Assemblée, Membre du comité des Neufs et du
Grand _Sanhédrin_. Paris, De L’Imprimerie De Levrault Rue
Mézières, 1807 (8º. 1 _l._ + 16 _pp._ [B. M.])
It may be noted here, that “A Jewish State,” issued in 1896,
was the English translation by Sylvie, the third daughter
of Elim H. _d’_Avigdor, of Theodor Herzl’s “_Judenstaat_.”
He was like Colonel Goldsmid, one of the first English Jews to join
the new movement for establishing agricultural colonies of Jews
in the Holy Land. Such an idea was unwelcome to the prosperous and
assimilated Jews, for the idea of assimilation had by now made some
progress even in English Jewry. The impression left on the minds of
many who heard of the idea was that there was a large number of Jews
desirous of forestalling the promised advent of the _Messiah_. They
had grown accustomed to the notion that Palestine was a thorny desert,
infested by hordes of marauding Bedouins, and only fit for beggars
and pious pilgrims. They were ignorant of all that had been written to
the contrary by a number of authors, particularly by the indefatigable
workers of the Palestine Exploration Fund. They had learned to
discredit the sacred promises as to the future of the country. They
felt themselves secure in the positions they had gained for themselves,
and ridiculed the thought of renouncing them at the bidding of a few
enthusiasts and dreamers, as if anyone had ever thought of placing
such an alternative before them. They considered this idea _mauvais
ton_, and thought that it might endanger their newly acquired social
position, such as it was. These motives, and others like them, induced
most of the prominent Jews to turn away from a movement with which
they could have no sympathy.
Illustration:
ELIM H. _d’_AVIGDOR _Col._ ALBERT E. W. GOLDSMID
JEAN HENRI DUNANT _Father_ IGNATIUS
_Dr._ E. W. TSCHLENOW _Dr._ MAX MANDELSTAMM
Not so _d’_Avigdor. His intuitive mind showed him the futility of such
fears and the possibility of attaining the grand results hoped for
and partly achieved already by kindred societies, if only the efforts
made were kept within the bounds of prudence. He took up the cause of
the Jewish colonization of Palestine with ardour and energy. When he
began work the “Lovers of _Zion_” Association did not yet exist, but
numerous meetings had already been held in support of the movement
for colonizing Palestine by Jews, though no steps had until then been
taken to give the agitation a practical turn. It was necessary first
of all that a proper organization should be established, not only for
the purpose of utilizing the energies of the more practical promoters
of the scheme, but also to prevent rash measures, which would have had
the effect of destroying the undertaking at its very birth.
With both these objects clearly in view, _d’_Avigdor urged the speedy
completion of a constitution calculated to give the movement shape and
substance, and to establish a system of work on defined and methodical
lines. To this end he brought his organizing abilities into full play,
and together with Colonel Goldsmid drafted a set of rules, which was
made the basis of future procedure. The services rendered by him to
the society were innumerable. He addressed public meetings in various
parts of London, and travelled to the provinces for the purpose of
rousing general interest in the work. He went to Paris and carried
on important negotiations for the acquisition of land in Palestine,
a task for which he was eminently fitted by reason of his wide
experience and great business ability. He secured 10,000 dunams of
land in the Hauran on favourable terms. The departure of Colonel
Goldsmid for the Argentine made his work more arduous. _d’_Avigdor
was then elected chief of the Association, while at the same time,
as Commander of the Western Tent, he attended to the working of that
particular branch.
A prominent feature in his activity was his chairmanship of the
Central Committee of the “Lovers of _Zion_” in Paris. The idea had
seized hold of some branches of the Association on the Continent
and in America, that valuable results might be achieved by united
efforts in various countries. A meeting to consider proposals for the
realization of this idea was held in Paris, and some progress was made
in the direction of co-ordination (Appendix lxxv).
CHAPTER XLII.
THE MOVEMENT IN ENGLAND
William Ewart Gladstone――_Father_ Ignatius――Gladstone’s ideas
on Judaism――Concessions of the Jewish opposition――Goldsmid’s
and _d’_Avigdor’s nationalistic replies.
WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE (1809‒1898), the “Grand Old Man,” statesman,
orator, and scholar, gained the undying gratitude of humanity for his
championship of right against might in countries which were striving
for freedom from the iron grip of tyrannical government. He stood
for liberty, liberty of race and creed. Wherever liberty had to
be championed he was always to the fore as one of its most valiant
defenders. It fell to him to help the cause of the English Jews rather
than that of the Jews of the world. Powerful as were his efforts in
the cause of national righteousness, he did nothing on behalf of the
Jews as a people. But we have it on the authority of _Father_ Ignatius
(1837‒1908) that he was “a friend of the Zionist movement.”
_Father_ Ignatius himself was for many years an enthusiastic supporter
of the movement from the religious standpoint, but without any
conversionist tendency. He defended the national idea of _Israel_ for
many years in numerous addresses, speeches and pamphlets. In one of
his lectures¹ he said:――
¹ “The World’s Debt to the Jews,” 14 Oct., 1896.
“... he was sorry to say that the magnificent truth respecting the
Chosen People has been set aside by certain Jews themselves. There
were some who were unconscious of the miracle of the preservation
of the Jewish race, in spite of the efforts of the whole world
to assimilate them――of the miracle of their distinct existence
unassimilated with the other nations of the earth. Where was there a
literature produced by any nation that had had that moral civilising
and enfranchising power over the hearts and minds and lives of men
that the literature of _Israel_ had exercised?...”
“... It was necessary to incite the national idea and national
ambition in the heart of _Israel_ throughout the world. Why should an
intelligent and powerful race be content to be vagrants on the face of
the earth? Why should they be content to be a homeless race now that
circumstances were pointing to facilities for giving them a home?...”
“... The national movement was a reality and a fact. It is not a
spasmodic movement, but one that was being carried on with great
practical business-like skill and determination....”
“... Let the world give the Jews their home. Palestine was the cradle
of their race, its ancient and proper home, the centre of its great
and glorious history, and it was the outpourings of sorrow for it
that has rendered the literature of the Jews the most precious and
beautiful one extant. The Jews had a right to Palestine, it was God’s
gift to them, and that was a greater right than an Englishman’s right
to England....”
“Stir yourselves up, agitate, work, labour for your cause. I know such
a man as Mr. Gladstone is a friend of this movement....”¹
¹ No. 18 ... Palestina, The _Chovevi Zion_ Quarterly....
――December, 1896. _pp._ 14‒16.
In confirmation of this evidence as to Gladstone’s attitude towards
Jewish national distinctiveness, we find in his writings an eloquent
recognition of the “Hebrew genius.”
81. “But indeed there is no need, in order to a due appreciation
of our debt to the ancient Greeks, that we should either forget or
disparage the function, which was assigned by the Almighty Father to
this most favoured people. Much profit, says St. Paul, had the Jew
in every way. He had the oracles of God: he had the custody of the
promises: he was the steward of the great and fundamental conception
of the unity of God, the sole and absolute condition under which the
Divine idea could be upheld among men at its just elevation. No poetry,
no philosophy, no art of Greece ever embraced, in its most soaring and
widest conceptions, that simple law of love towards God and towards
our neighbour, on which ‘two commandments hang all the law and the
prophets,’ and which supplied the moral basis of the new dispensation.”
82. “There is one history, and that the most touching and most
profound of all, for which we should search in vain through all the
pages of the classics,――I mean the history of the human soul in its
relations with its Maker; the history of its sin, and grief, and death,
and of the way of its recovery to hope and life and to enduring joy.
For the exercises of strength and skill, for the achievements and
for the enchantments of wit, of eloquence, of art, of genius, for
the imperial games of politics and of war let us seek them on the
shores of Greece.... All the wonders of the Greek civilisation heaped
together are less wonderful, than the single Book of Psalms.”
83. “Palestine was weak and despised, always obscure, oftentimes and
long trodden down beneath the feet of imperious masters. On the other
hand, Greece, for a thousand years, ... repelled every invader from
her shores. Fostering her strength in the keen air of freedom, she
defied, and at length overthrew, the mightiest of empires; and when
finally she felt the resistless grasp of the masters of all the world,
then too, at the very moment of her subjugation, she herself subdued
them to her literature, language, arts, and manners. Palestine, in
a word, had no share in the glories of our race; while they blaze on
every page of the history of Greece with an overpowering splendour.
Greece had valour, policy, renown, genius, wisdom, wit; she had all,
in a word, that this world could give her; but the flowers of Paradise,
which blossom at the best but thinly, blossomed in Palestine alone.”¹
¹ Place of Ancient Greece in the Providential Order, 1865,
in Gleanings of Past Years 1860‒79. By the Right Hon.
W. E. Gladstone, M.P., vol. vii. ... London: ... 1879.
_pp._ 79‒80.
Here we have again the closest connection between Zionism and Biblical
ideas.
At the Great Assembly Hall, Mile End, on the 29th May, 1891, on the
occasion when the petition to be presented to the _Sultan_ of Turkey,
composed in _Hebrew_ and English, was communicated to the public
by Mr. S. Montagu, M.P. (afterwards Lord Swaythling), Mr. Elim H.
_d’_Avigdor declared:――
“... His objection to colonising America was that the farther west
they went, the greater the distance they placed between them and
_Zion_. He wished rather that they should go to a country that was
once _Israel’s_ homestead, where brother might work with brother,
where the _Sabbath_ would be the _Sabbath_ of all, and where _Yom
Kippur_ would be the day of abstention from food throughout the
country. He was convinced that many wealthy co-religionists were
willing to surrender cheerfully all their worldly possessions, and
resign all their hopes of worldly aggrandisement, in order to return
with their brethren to the land of their fathers. They express the
hope every _Passover_, ‘Next year in _Jerusalem_.’ Was this utterance
merely a lip service, or did it spring from their hearts?...”
Lieut.-Col. Goldsmid followed, and said:――
“... The seed of _Israel_ was meant for something more than a
commercial people. Let them not only strive to find a home for their
outcast brethren, but let it be their aim and object to resuscitate
the national idea in _Israel_.”¹
¹ No. 4 ... Palestina, The _Chovevi Zion_ Quarterly.... June,
1893 (History of the _Chovevi Zion_ Rise of the Movement),
_pp._ 10‒13.
In an address delivered in Edinburgh he struck the same note:――
“... there was no nation on the earth nearer akin to the Jewish
nation than the Scottish, both in their love of the Bible and in their
sympathy with all that is best in Judaism. The _Chovevi Zion_, he
said, was not a charitable institution, the main object was to foster
the national idea in _Israel_. Had it not been for the national idea
we would have been wiped off the face of the earth long before now.¹
Colonel Goldsmid went on to show how we Jews, who are the descendants
of the faithful minority in Babylon, continue to exist as heirs to the
promises through all ages, while the descendants of the majority, who
turned away from the national idea, no longer exist. Some people said
that members of the _Chovevi Zion_ could not be good citizens, but he
maintained that the true lover of _Zion_, who could be faithful after
two thousand years, would die in defence of the _country_ he lived
in.... When I visited Palestine in 1883, colonies were just beginning
to be formed. People laughed at the idea of Jewish agriculturists.
There were three small colonies, but for want of implements to
work, things were at a standstill, some were actually tearing up the
ground with their fingers. Through the kindness of Baron Edmond _de_
Rothschild, matters are now very different. In future, colonisation,
from the experience which has been gained, would start with enormous
advantages....”²
¹ Christian Englishmen have ever considered the Jews to be
a historical unit, and appreciated their distinctiveness.
Sir Isambard Owen, Vice-Chancellor of Bristol University,
addressing a meeting of the Union of Jewish Literary
Societies at Bristol in 1914, said that the work of the
Union was of interest to him because it was a work which
he himself had spent a good many years of his life in
endeavouring to carry out amongst a nationality far smaller
in numbers and far less known in history than the Jewish
nationality――he meant the nationality of Wales.
² _Ibid._, No. 5.... September ... _p._ 16.
Illustration:
JUDAH TOURO EMMA LAZARUS
MORDECAI MANUEL NOAH _Rabbi Dr._ MORRIS JACOB RAPHALL
CHAPTER XLIII.
THE MOVEMENT IN AMERICA
Zionism echoed in America――Emma Lazarus――A call――Emma Lazarus
and George Eliot――Mrs. Rose Sonnenshein――The Opposition――A
Tour to Palestine――The Colonies.
THESE ideas were echoed in a sublime form in English-speaking American
Jewry by the poetess Emma Lazarus (1849‒1887), one of the most
eloquent champions of the Jewish national idea in the English language.
The story of Emma Lazarus’ life is the story of a soul ever striving
and pressing ahead towards truth and the light. Her works clearly
reflect the progress of her ideas. She was a born songstress, yet she
did not sing like the nightingale for the joy of being alive. There
was a shadow of sadness resting on her entire being, something born
with her as part of her disposition and temperament, the stamp and
heritage of a suffering race. _Hebraism_ lay dormant in this Jewish
poetess. She was much influenced by Heinrich Heine (1797‒1856).
Charmed by the beauty of his poetry, the whimsical play of his
imagination and the heart’s muffled outburst audible through it all,
she was nevertheless unaware of the actual bond that united them: the
relationship in the blood, the unquenchable flame of the tragic Jewish
passion of eighteen hundred years, which was smouldering in her own
heart, and was soon to break forth and change the entire tendency of
her thoughts and feelings.
The persecutions of the Jews in 1880‒1884 were for Emma Lazarus
a clarion call that awoke slumbering and unrealised feelings and
aspirations. She was an assimilated Jewess herself at the beginning
of her literary career. She had been in search of heroic ideals in
alien fields, in Pagan mythology and in mystic, mediæval Christianity,
ignoring all the time her birthright――the glorious vista of a great
past and of a still greater future for the Jewish nation. Judaism had
been a dead letter to her. But with the outbreak of the persecutions
she found herself again. From this time dated the mission which
she undertook on behalf of her race, and the expansion of all her
faculties, that growth of spiritual power which is always stimulated
when a great cause is championed and strong convictions awaken the
soul. Emma Lazarus became an inspired poetess of the Jewish national
idea. Her whole being had reshaped itself and found nourishment at an
inexhaustible source. She threw herself into the study of her race,
its language, its literature and history. Breaking the outward shell,
she soon reached the kernel of the faith and the “miracle” of its
survival. What was it other than the ever-present, ever life-inspiring
spirit itself, which cannot die――the religious and ethical zeal which
fills the whole history of the Jewish people, and of which she herself
felt the living glow within her own soul? She had discovered the
secret and the genius of Judaism――that complete transfusion of spirit
with body and substance which, taken literally, often reduces itself
to rites and ceremonies, but viewed in a proper light takes a nobler
shape and form, and spreads its light over humanity in the prophets,
teachers and saviours of mankind.
The idea that aroused the imagination of Emma Lazarus was a restored
and independent nationality and the repatriation of the Jews in
Palestine. In an article on the “Jewish Problem,” she wrote:――
“I am fully persuaded that all suggested solutions other than this of
the Jewish problem are but temporary palliatives.¹
¹ _Century_, February, 1883, _p._ 610.
“The idea formulated by George Eliot has already sunk into the minds
of many Jewish enthusiasts, and it germinates with miraculous rapidity.
‘The idea that I am possessed with,’ says Mordecai, ‘is that of
restoring a political existence to my people, making them a nation
again, giving them a national centre, such as the English have, though
they, too, are scattered over the face of the globe. That is a task
which presents itself to me as a duty.... I am resolved to devote my
life to it. At the least, I may awaken a movement in other minds such
as has been awakened in my own.’” Could the noble poetess who wrote
these words have lived until to-day, she would have been astonished
at the flame which her torch has kindled and the practical shape which
the movement brought to public notice by her has begun to assume.
In November, 1882, her first _Epistle to the Hebrews_ appeared as one
of a series of articles written for the _American Hebrew_. Addressing
herself to a Jewish audience, she unfolded her views and hopes
for Judaism without reserve, on the one hand passionately urging
its claims and its high ideals, and on the other dispassionately
describing the shortcomings and peculiarities of her race. She says:
“Every student of the _Hebrew_ language is aware that we have in
conjugation of our verbs a mode known as the _intensive voice_, which,
by means of an almost imperceptible modification of vowel-points,
intensifies the meaning of the primitive root. A similar significance
seems to attach to the Jews themselves in connection with the
people among whom they dwell. They are the _intensive form_ of any
nationality whose language and customs they adopt.... Influenced
by the same causes, they represent the same results: but the deeper
lights and shadows of the Oriental temperament throw their failings,
as well as their virtues, into more prominent relief.”
In drawing the Epistles to a close,¹ she summarized the special
objects she had in view: “My chief aim has been to contribute my mite
towards arousing that spirit of Jewish enthusiasm which might manifest
itself:――
¹ February 24, 1883.
“_First._ In a return to the world pursuits and broad asylum of
physical and intellectual education adopted by our ancestors:
“_Second._ In a more fraternal and practical movement towards
alleviating the sufferings of oppressed Jews in countries less
favoured than our own:
“_Third._ In a closer and wider study of _Hebrew_ literature and
history: and, finally, in a truer recognition of the large principles
of religion, liberty and law upon which Judaism is founded, and which
should draw into harmonious unity Jews of every shade of opinion.”
Her verses rang out as they had never sounded before, like
clarion notes, calling a people to heroic action and unity, to the
consciousness and realization of a great destiny.
What the annals of the “Lovers of _Zion_” in America tell us
concerning the rise and progress of the Zionist idea shows that the
seed sown by Emma Lazarus took deep root in the hearts of the Jews,
and brought forth abundant fruit. She created a high sense of Jewish
self-consciousness, and spread a holy love and devotion to a great
ideal in the hearts of those who had not hitherto reflected on their
national duty and its importance.
In the _American Jewess_¹ an article appeared on the “Dream of
Nationality,” by Mrs. Rose Sonnenshein, the editress, one of the
few Jewesses who had as yet written a word on this question. She
wrote: “To our mind there is no loftier ideal worth realization
than _Israel’s_ dream of Nationality.... What Jew has not dreamed of
_Israel_ again as a nation? It can be confidently asserted that among
the sons and daughters of the Covenant it is an exceptional one who
has not at some time dwelt upon such a possibility. Who has not given
the loose rein to fancy and indulged in visions of _Judah_ re-born,
free, great and glorious, one of the Sister States in a modern
federation of nations? ... has not had visions of ourselves as
patriotic Jews, proudly pointing to the Eagle of _Judah_, the emblem
of a free and happy people? To the wandering son of _Israel_ the
knowledge that a recognized government stood behind him to protect
him in his rights when he demands reparations of insult or injury and
sustain him as the equal of citizens of other nations would endow him
with a dignity of which centuries of oppression have robbed him, and
which not even the widest modern freedom has fully restored.”
¹ April, 1897.
The question of the attitude of the Jews, particularly of “the
leading and wealthy Jews,” towards Zionism arose at different times
in the English Press. Amid much friendly criticism called forth by
the publication of Emma Lazarus’ writings, two plausible objections
were raised. The first was that before an appeal to the world, an
appeal should be made to the Jews themselves, in order to elicit some
evidence as to their feelings on the question. The second was that,
even were the Jews to be restored, a difficulty would immediately
arise as to the means of subsistence or the kind of employment to be
found for them.
It was not an easy task to gain the sympathy and the support of many
“leading and wealthy Jews” for the national idea in Western Europe
and America. Many who were ready to admit the truth of the Zionist
conclusion were troubled by their ideas about humanity. It must be
borne in mind that only in the nineteenth century did the idea of
nationality reappear in its ancient form, and that as late as the end
of the eighteenth century it was considered a sign of advanced culture
to have triumphed over national narrow-mindedness and to desire
emancipation for the whole of humanity. The Middle Ages knew nothing
of nationality in our sense, and therefore a sense of nationality
could not be expected of the Jews. But in the nineteenth century first
hatred and then science began to recognize the nationality of the Jews.
On the one hand antagonists zealously put forth new arguments to prove
that the Jews were a distinct people, who had never yet been absorbed
by their environment; on the other hand scientific research brought
forward undeniable proofs of the physical, intellectual and moral
peculiarities of the Jewish race. And just because separatism was
emphasized and made use of by their enemies, some Jews considered
that for the purpose of self-defence it was best to deny it: or at
any rate their unjustifiable timidity and unreasonable sensitiveness
prevented them from admitting it. They forgot that for centuries the
furious storms of invective and calumny had been raging around their
people, and that there were no malignant suspicions, no treacherous
insinuations, no absurd accusations, that had not been levelled at
them, whether they admitted the fact of their distinctiveness or not.
Anti-Semitism raged most against those Jews who showed particularly
assimilative tendencies, and aroused against them every kind of hatred
and rancour, regardless of the question whether they were faithful to
their past and to their ideals, or otherwise.
Some Jews imagined erroneously that the question at issue was one of
their rights in different countries. They forgot that they must demand
equality of rights as Jews, and not as a prize for giving up what they
could not give up――their history, their distinctiveness. Others, again,
confounded Jewish national self-consciousness with what the gentiles
regard as nationalism――aspirations generally of an aggressive and
reactionary character. Some wealthy Jews were unfortunately lulled
into a pernicious feeling of security or fatal indifference. What did
they give to the masses? A cheque for charity, whenever it was wanted,
of course; but that was all. Insurance money or conscience money,
whichever it may be called, they gave; but of personal devotion,
of serious anxiety or steady resolve to ameliorate the lot of
_Israel_――nothing. They asked, how can a national ideal help poor
people? They did not understand that it can help them more than
money: that it eases their sufferings, renders their sorrows and
disappointments less distressing, teaches them to search their own
hearts, to consider their own ways.
It is clear that the “Lovers of _Zion_” in England and America had a
hard fight. They knew that if they attempted to satisfy all sections
of Jews they could not remain faithful to the nation, whose greatest
interest and immediate concern it is to pave the way for a final
solution of its problem. The truth had dawned upon them that for
thousands of years there had always been a restless desire on the part
of the Jews to get back to Palestine, and that this wish arose from
deep religious, traditional and national principles and hopes. It is a
feeling inherited by the Jew and fostered in him from the cradle. The
ancient home of the ancient nation is Palestine: to that land their
eyes, their hopes and their hearts are always turned. This attachment
does not interfere with their sincere patriotism and loyalty to
the countries wherein they live. Those who live in other countries,
and are satisfied, may remain there. The Jewish masses will go to
Palestine as soon as they have the possibility of doing so. Palestine
must become the home of the nation, not merely of individuals. It
did not matter to the “Lovers of _Zion_” that some wealthy Jews did
not wish for the national re-birth; they simply emulated careful and
prudent physicians, who, when they visit their patients, do not ask
them what they like best, and then prescribe what is most pleasing
to their palates, though perhaps most hurtful, but, having carefully
studied the ailments of their patients, order them to take what
they deem most necessary for them, even though it be not pleasing or
acceptable.
In 1897 Mr. Herbert Bentwich, LL.B., organized in London the
“_Maccabean_” tour to Palestine, in which twenty-one persons took
part. Under his guidance this party of Jewish travellers proceeded
to Palestine, and got into close touch with the Jewish population of
the country, especially with the colonists. On _Sabbath Hachodesh_
(3 April, 5657), the late Chief _Rabbi_, the Very Rev. Dr. Hermann
Adler (1839‒1911), delivered an eloquent sermon¹ at the Hampstead
synagogue, in which he said:――
¹ “God-speed to the Pilgrims.”
“... But one of the most attractive portions of your tour will, I
think, be your visits to some of the colonies. And in this connection
I may give an illustration of the vivid interest taken in your journey
by the residents in the Holy Land. A well-informed correspondent
writes to the _Jüdische Presse_ expressing his regret that the only
Jewish colony you contemplate inspecting is _Rosh Pinah_, certainly
the most romantically situated, and that you will not see the
prosperous settlement ‘_Rishon-le-Zion_,’ nor the agricultural school
‘_Mikveh Israel_,’ and he advises a route which would enable you to
see a number of new settlements, and some thirteen Jewish villages
that have sprung up within the last ten years. Now undoubtedly
great things have already been accomplished in training the hapless
immigrants from Russia and Roumania to become hardy tillers of the
soil ... well-trained Jewish horticulturists are at the head of each
settlement, that Jewish farmers, peasants and labourers toil with
splendid diligence ... 50, 000 eucalyptus trees planted in _Gadra_
to counteract malarial influences; 2,000,000 of vines that have been
grafted by Jews in _Rishon-le-Zion_, _Petach Tikvah_ and _Zichron
Jacob_, and of the excellent wine that is produced there. In
_Rishon-le-Zion_ there are numbers of smiths and coopers.... But yet
I feel confident that this pilgrimage will exercise an abiding effect
on your spiritual life. It is a well-authenticated fact that _de_
Saulcy [L. F. J. Cagnart] (1807‒1880), the great Oriental traveller,
confessed that he went to Palestine as an unbeliever, and that he
returned from there with a profound faith in the truth of the Bible.
You, I hope, do not need to have your faith thus strengthened. But
I ardently trust that by this pilgrimage there will be engendered
in your hearts ... a stronger sentiment of brotherhood, ... a more
enthusiastic devotion to ... _Zion_ and _Jerusalem_,...”¹
¹ _Jewish Chronicle_, 9th April, 1897, _p._ 21.
Illustration: 5657 * THE MACCABÆAN PILGRIMAGE * 1897
The visit of this party was a new feature in the Jewish history of
Palestine. It was looked upon with satisfaction, as indicating the
growing interest of English Jews in Palestine. It took place at the
very moment when modern Zionism entered upon the scene, on the eve of
the first Congress, and, so far as English Jews were concerned, it had
a good moral influence.
CHAPTER XLIV.
BARON _DE_ HIRSCH
His philanthropic activity――The Oriental Jews and the
“Alliance”――Emanuel Felix Veneziani――Lord Swaythling――Dr. A.
Asher――Laurence Oliphant.
BARON MAURICE (Moritz) _de_ HIRSCH (_Freiherr auf Gereuth_) was born
on December 9th, 1831, at Munich. His father, Baron Joseph _de_ Hirsch
(1805‒1895), was a native of that city, and son of Baron Jacob _de_
Hirsch (1764‒1841), the founder of the family fortune. His mother
(_née_ Caroline Wertheimer of Frankfort) belonged to an old Jewish
family which was universally known for its charitable work and sincere
piety. Hirsch cherished very affectionate recollections of his parents,
and particularly of his mother, who is said to have seen to it that he
received good instruction in the Jewish religion.
The scope of his studies was somewhat narrow. He received his
education in Munich and Brussels. Being of a practical turn of
mind, he engaged early in life in several business ventures. In 1855
he married Clara (1833‒1899), eldest daughter of Senator Raphael
Jonathan Bischoffsheim (1808‒1883), of the firm of Bischoffsheim and
Goldschmidt, Brussels, which had branches in Paris and London. He
did not, however, join this firm, as its business methods appeared
to him too conservative to suit his enterprising temperament. Having
inherited a considerable fortune from his parents, and received a
handsome dowry with his wife, he embarked on railway enterprises
in Austria, in Russia, and――with most success――in the Balkans.
These enterprises, which consisted mainly in the construction of
light railways, were only the beginning of his activities. A huge
undertaking came in his way. A Brussels banking firm, which had
received from the Ottoman Government a concession for building
a railway through the Balkans to Constantinople, was unable to
carry the project through. Hirsch acquired the concession, went
to Constantinople, and succeeded in getting some of the conditions
altered for the better. He then formed a company, and made all the
necessary arrangements for the building of this great railway, which
was, for the first time in history, to connect Europe with the Near
East. In certain financial circles his optimism was ridiculed. But
those who laugh last laugh loudest. It soon became apparent that
he knew what he was about when he secured the concession. By a bold
practical stroke he obtained the necessary funds, and his success
was as immediate as it was complete. This was really the making of
his career. The success of this transaction gained him recognition
as one of the greatest financiers of Europe. He became not only a
multi-millionaire, but also a recognized authority on large industrial
undertakings.
His philanthropic activity, which began early in the seventies, was on
a scale hitherto unequalled, and showed great originality of method.
This activity may be divided into five branches:――
1. The East, in connection with the “Alliance Israélite
Universelle” of Paris.
2. Relief for the Russian Jews.
3. Emigration from Russia.
4. Foundation of the Jewish Colonization Association, and
5. Various other philanthropic institutions.
While engaged in working out his plans for the construction of his
railway in Turkey, Hirsch had become acquainted with the deplorable
condition of the Jews in the Orient, and had come to the conclusion
that their sufferings were mainly due to the lack of modern education
and of opportunities to earn a livelihood. He considered European
education a great necessity in the East, and therefore admired the
educational work of the “Alliance Israélite.” It struck him that
too little was done in this direction. He consequently placed large
sums at the disposal of the “Alliance,” of which he became a powerful
supporter. In 1873 he gave the “Alliance” 1,000,000 francs to form
new schools, and from 1880 till his death he undertook to make good
the deficit of the organisation, which amounted annually to several
hundred thousand francs. Finding that the ordinary schools were not
sufficient for the purpose in view, he encouraged the “Alliance” to
establish trade schools, the entire expense of which he bore from 1878
until his death. In 1899, in place of his annual grant, he gave the
“Alliance” a capital sum, which yielded a yearly income of 400,000
francs; but, none the less, he continued to meet the deficit year by
year.
All this time, as indeed throughout his life, he was keenly interested
in the Jews of the Orient. He procured in the seventies the services
of an excellent Jew, _M._ Emanuel Felix Veneziani (1825‒1889), who
made investigations for him, and became his almoner in the East, and
afterwards also in other parts of the world.
The year 1882, with its pogroms and the atrocious Jewish
disabilities which it introduced, was a turning-point in Hirsch’s
philanthropic activities as much as in the activities of all the
Jewish organizations and of individual philanthropists. When 40‒50,000
pogrom refugees in a starving condition crowded into the already
crowded Galician Ghettoes, adding their starvation and agonies to
the misery already there, and the great Jewish organizations and
communities sent their representatives to afford protection to the
suffering (Mr. Samuel Montagu――afterwards Lord Swaythling――and Dr.
Asher Asher (1837‒1889) came from London, also Mr. Laurence Oliphant),
_M._ Veneziani appeared as representative of Baron _de_ Hirsch, and
offered enormous sums――by which, however, only a small part of the
appalling distress was met. Baron _de_ Hirsch also sent money to
Russia for years.
At that period Baron _de_ Hirsch, like most other emancipated Jews in
Western Europe, believed that a solution of the Jewish problem could
be achieved by steps taken in Russia itself. Like the others, he knew
very little of the great complexity and peculiar conditions of the
problem. So with the assistance of a Commission he devoted much of his
time to drawing up a scheme for the improvement of the condition of
the Jews in Russia. Bearing in mind the activity of the “Alliance” in
the East, he paid due regard to the need for providing Russian Jews
with modern education, and his scheme contemplated a fund of 50,000,
000 francs to be used for educational purposes――under his own control.
But this was a Utopian idea. Anyone acquainted with the conditions
could easily have shown him that this offer would be declined.
He was finally and unalterably convinced that the only hope lay in
emigration. With the adoption of this view began the third period of
his activity, in which he supported emigration in every shape and form.
It is difficult to estimate how much he spent for this purpose; but
by far the greatest part of the support given by the “Alliance” and
other organizations to emigration came from him. Later, however, he
realized that this support, useful as it was to individuals, was of no
permanent value, and then, entering upon the fourth and most important
period of his activity, he became the Baron _de_ Hirsch who will for
ever be remembered in Jewish history――the man who endeavoured to solve
the Jewish problem not by charities, schools, contributions to the
“Alliance” or schemes for the benefit of Russia, but by a single great
effort for Jewish Emancipation.
CHAPTER XLV.
AN ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THE JEWISH PROBLEM
The “Jewish Colonization Association” (1891)――Statutes and
shareholders――Baron _de_ Hirsch’s letter to the Russian Jews
――His articles in the _Forum_ and the _North American Review_
――Baroness Clara _de_ Hirsch.
BARON _de_ HIRSCH was not a Zionist, nor do we desire to claim him as
a national Jew. Had he been asked whether he recognized the national
idea, he would undoubtedly have replied that he was opposed to it.
He was not much interested in abstract ideas, and it is questionable
whether he could be made to fit in with any cut-and-dried theory
at all. Nevertheless, his activities became those of a national Jew
when once he was made fully conscious of the Jewish tragedy. Born in
Munich, heir to an Austrian title, distinguished for his industrial
undertakings in the East, resident in Paris, with powerful connections
in England, he devoted himself at last almost entirely to his brethren
in Russia. Was the impelling feeling a colourless cosmopolitan
humanism? One might have called it so as long as he merely supported
education and sent contributions to charities. But one cannot, without
doing violence to facts, regard the work of what we have called his
fourth period――which was the very climax of his activity――as the mere
charitable routine which is characteristic of Jews whose purpose and
hope is “assimilation.” Hirsch was more than a Jew of that type. The
tendency towards assimilation destroys the Jew, discourages the man,
kills his individuality, “and thus the native hue of resolution is
sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,” and the Jew becomes an
emulator of what other people do, a slave of other people’s opinions.
If a personality like that of Hirsch could develop in such an
environment, it was because his inquiring mind, the experience gained
in his travels and his absorption during youth of the old traditions
of his people carried him far beyond his actual surroundings. It
was due to his individual gifts that he took up the great idea of
concentration of the persecuted Jewish people by means of colonization.
He directed all his energies to the investigation of the best places
for colonization, and the result was the formation of an international
association, incorporated under English law, and known as the Jewish
Colonization Association, whose Memorandum of Association includes the
following clauses:――
“To assist and promote the emigration of Jews from any part of Europe
or Asia――and principally from countries in which they may for the
time being be subjected to any special taxes or political or other
disabilities――to any parts of the world, and to form and establish
colonies in various parts of North and South America and other
countries for agricultural, commercial and other purposes.
“To purchase and acquire, by donation or otherwise, from any
Governments, States, municipal or local authorities, corporations,
firms, or persons any territories, lands, or other property, as
concessions, powers and privileges, which may be necessary or
convenient for developing the resources of the same and rendering
the same available for colonization.
“To accept gifts, donations and bequests of money and other property,
on the terms of the same being applied for all or some one or more of
the purposes of the company, or such other terms as may be consistent
with the objects of the company.”
The Articles of Association provide, among other things, that no more
than half the capital is to be employed in the purchase of land, that
the governing body shall consist of a Council of Administration, who
in their turn shall elect Directors, and these shall be paid officials
and carry out all the executive work. The machinery provided by the
Articles enables representative Jewish institutions to become members
of the Company, and thereby to have a certain voice in the management.
The constitution further provides that under no circumstances shall
any of the members derive any profit from the undertaking.
With regard to the objects of the Company, the last clause was
amplified at an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Company by the
addition before “or on such terms” of the following words: “or for any
other philanthropical purposes specified by the donor or testator for
the benefit of Jewish communities or individuals either in Europe or
in America.”
The Jewish Colonization Association was founded with a capital of £2,
000,000 divided into 20,000 non-dividend bearing shares of £100 each.
Baron _de_ Hirsch subscribed for 19,993 shares; and Lord Rothschild
(1840‒1915), Sir Julian Goldsmid (1838‒1896), Ernest (afterwards
Sir Ernest) Cassel, Frederic David Mocatta (1828‒1905), and Benjamin
Louis (afterwards Sir Benjamin Louis) Cohen (1844‒1909) of London, and
Salomon H. Goldschmidt (1814‒1898) and Solomon Reinach of Paris for
one share each.¹
¹ Before his death Baron _de_ Hirsch divided his shares among
the following corporations: the Synagogues of Brussels and
the Jewish communities of Berlin and Frankfort-on-the-Main,
3600 each; the Anglo-Jewish Association of London and the
Alliance Israélite Universelle, Paris, 4595 shares each.
About the time when the Jewish Colonization Association was formed,
Baron _de_ Hirsch addressed an appeal to the Jews in Russia concerning
the emigration schemes which he intended to carry out under the
auspices of the Company. The following is a translation of this
appeal:――
“To my co-religionists in Russia: You know that I am endeavouring to
better your lot. It is, therefore, my duty to speak plainly to you,
and to tell you what it is necessary for you to know.
“I am acquainted with the reasons which oblige many of you to emigrate,
and I will gladly do all in my power to assist you in your hour of
distress. But you must make this possible for me. Your emigration
must not resemble a rash and reckless flight by which the endeavour
to escape danger ends in destruction. You know that properly organized
committees are shortly to be established in Russia, with the consent
and under the supervision of the Imperial Russian Government. The
duty of these committees will be to organize the emigration in a
business-like way. All persons desirous of emigrating will have to
apply to the local committees, who alone will be authorized to give
you the necessary facilities. Only those persons who have been elected
by the committees can have the advantage of the assistance of myself
and of those who are working with me. Any one who leaves the country
without the concurrence of the committees will do so at his own risk,
and must not count on any aid from me.
“It is obvious that in the beginning the number of emigrants cannot
be large; for not only must places of refuge be found for those who
first depart, but the necessary preparations must be made for those
who follow. Later on the emigration will be able to assume larger
proportions.
“Remember that I can do nothing for you without the benevolent and
gracious support of the Imperial Russian Government.
“In conclusion, I appeal to you. You are the inheritors of your
fathers, who for centuries have suffered so much. Bear this
inheritance yet awhile with equal resignation. Have also further
patience, and thus make it possible for those who are anxious to help
you to do so effectively.
“I send you these words of warning and of encouragement in my own name
and in the name of thousands of your co-religionists. Take them to
heart and understand them.
“May the good God help you and me, and also the many who work with us
for your benefit with so much devotion.”
This appeal, though it only urged the Jewish masses to assist the
great work by obeying certain necessary prescribed regulations,
had the effect of rousing the entire Jewish population to a new
hopefulness and of stimulating communal workers, leaders and
publicists to further activity. There was not a poor Jewish home in
Russia where the name of Hirsch did not receive a daily blessing――not
for what he had given or for what he was about to give, but because
he had stretched out a hand to them in their misery, because they no
longer felt themselves forsaken, and because a touch of kindness from
an unseen hand gave them fresh courage, new resolution, and new hope.
As is usual in such cases, no warnings or denials could correct the
estimate formed by the popular imagination of the possibilities of
the undertaking. Baron _de_ Hirsch himself was supposed to have said
or written that he was going to transmigrate five million Jews from
Russia in twenty years; and this statement, which was published in an
official Russian paper, though in the unofficial part of it, gained
currency at once, and remained in the minds of the people as a kind of
programme. And, though the immediate excitement abated, and gave way
to disappointment among those who had looked forward to a new gigantic
exodus, it was evident that the chances of a partial solution of the
Jewish problem were immensely greater than they had ever been before.
Baron _de_ Hirsch caused careful inquiries and investigations to
be made in countries which offered suitable land for agricultural
development. It may be observed that, though the wording of the
statutes contemplates commercial colonies and the encouragement of
artisans, and speaks of “any parts of the world,” in reality Hirsch
had never thought of commercial colonies nor of artisans nor of small
groups scattered all over the world, since first he started dealing
with the Jewish problem in Russia. Commercial colonies for Jews
are as unnecessary as they are impossible, because Jews engaged in
commerce need not and would not congregate in colonies; and as to the
industrial education and encouragement of artisans, it is true that
Hirsch was interested in useful work of this kind, but this was at
an earlier period, and belongs to the kind of philanthropic activity
which he carried on, particularly in the East, through the “Alliance,”
_etc._ As to Russia, anybody who had any conversation with him, or
read his articles¹ on the subject, or was in touch with his advisers
at that period, will testify that what Hirsch had decided to initiate
was a great undertaking for the persecuted Jewish people. Since he
had received, much to his surprise, the reply that he would not be
allowed to work in Russia, he had systematically declined to undertake
anything there except the support of emigration. Petitions poured into
his office at Paris, rue d’Elysée 2, from innumerable Jewish societies
and communities in Russia, but he refused to pay any attention to all
these schemes for the encouragement of artisans and industries. He was
devoted to the idea of concentrating masses of Russian Jews elsewhere,
and of making them agriculturists. Since 1887 he had practically
decided to make the Jewish people the principal heirs of his fortune,
in order to enable them radically to change their status.
¹ _North American Review_, July, 1891: _Forum_, August, 1891.
Personal experiences of a sentimental nature had contributed to this
decision. The terrible and unexpected blow, in losing his only son
Lucien (1851‒1887), a young man of exceptional gifts and promise,
touched his most tender affections and gave a fresh impetus to his
desire to succour human misery. It was feared for a moment that he
would be overwhelmed by the weight of a catastrophe which had ruined
so many hopes. But he possessed such energy, such powerful resources
of character, that he soon recovered. His very natural grief found
sanctification in the noble diversion of devoting himself more eagerly
than before to his immense task. His wife, a keenly idealistic Jewess,
exerted a strong Jewish influence upon him, encouraging to the utmost
the great work which he started. The unfortunate mother, after having
lost her only child, found comfort in the idea of “establishing a home
for the oppressed Jewish people.”
Another personal experience which had some influence on Hirsch was
the anti-Semitic attitude of the Jockey Club of Paris towards him,
an attitude that made him realize the futility of dreams of unity.
There is no need, however, to lay particular stress on these personal
experiences. Apart from them, he could not fail to notice the workings
of anti-Semitism, not only in its violent and brutal forms, but also
in its subtler manifestations; and this brought home to his mind the
necessity of a solution which should prove more practical than the old
methods.
But the thing that did most to bring him nearer to Zionism than to
assimilation, in spite of his dissent from Zionist views, was his
belief in the Jewish people. He was a believer in the regeneration of
the Russian Jews through agriculture, from which occupation they were
barred in the country in which they lived. What, unfortunately, was
lacking in him was the sense of historic tradition and the love of
Palestine.
CHAPTER XLVI.
THE ARGENTINE _VERSUS_ PALESTINE
Expeditions and investigations in various countries――The
decision in favour of The Argentine――Dr. G. Löwenthal――Col.
A. E. W. Goldsmid――The “Lovers of _Zion_” and Baron _de_
Hirsch in 1891――Baron and Baroness _de_ Hirsch’s charitable
works.
BARON _de_ HIRSCH sent agents to make investigations in various
parts of America――in Brazil, Mexico, Canada and The Argentine. On the
advice of Dr. Guillaume Löwenthal, who was mainly entrusted with these
inquiries, he arrived at the conclusion that The Argentine presented
conditions most favourable for a plan of colonization. Large tracts
of land were consequently purchased in the districts of Buenos Ayres,
Santa Fé and Entre Rios. The Russian Government, which had rejected
his offer for the amelioration of the condition of the Jews in the
Empire, co-operated with him in the organization of a system of
emigration. A central committee, selected by the Baron, and various
provincial committees were formed in St. Petersburg, Warsaw, Odessa,
Kiew and other centres. He formed also a governing body in The
Argentine; and――for a short time――the personal direction of the
colonies was entrusted to Colonel A. E. W. Goldsmid, who obtained
temporary leave of absence from the British War Office for this purpose.
Baron _de_ Hirsch, who did not always find the most prudent, devoted
and trustworthy agents, had in Colonel Goldsmid, the ardent Zionist, an
inspired and enthusiastic coadjutor; but Goldsmid remained there only a
short time.
The gigantic plan of colonization met with the measure of failure
and of success to be expected by such enterprises. The work was
enormous, and, as far as finance and responsibility were concerned,
it fell almost entirely upon Hirsch’s shoulders. Hirsch created all
the necessary machinery, and sent out agent after agent to furnish
him with a correct account of the facts. He sent Mr. Arnold White
to Russia four times to negotiate with the Russian Government. A
number of influential Russian Jews, including Baron Horace Günzburg
(1833‒1909), a well-known philanthropist and a recognized leader of
Russian Jewry, as well as Poliakoff, Warschawsky, and others, devoted
their energies to the organization in Russia. David Feinberg, a
generous and devoted Russian Jew, who had considerable experience in
Jewish communal affairs in the Russian capital, and had given many
years’ service in connection with Baron Günzburg’s public activities,
was appointed general secretary.
At first the conditions in The Argentine were somewhat chaotic;
afterwards matters proceeded in an apparently satisfactory manner.
Appearances, however, were deceptive. Not that success was wanting:
far from it. Colonies were established; the Baron convinced himself
that Russian Jews could really become successful agriculturists.
But the task of transporting great masses there proved to be an
impossibility. Undoubtedly a few thousand families were helped, and
the colonies, some of which are in a flourishing condition, are a
credit to Jewish agriculture. But this was not the original object.
These colonies had really been intended to form the nucleus of one
great home, if not for millions, at least for hundreds of thousands
of Jews. This could not be achieved without popular enthusiasm. The
Jew could not be expected to love the soil of “The Argentine” as he
loves the soil of the Promised Land. He went there, as he would go
to Brazil, or to Mexico, to improve his material condition, but the
moment other possibilities were offered to him, he would give up his
trying occupation and go elsewhere. From the national point of view,
if he had to become an Argentinian Spaniard of the Jewish persuasion,
he might as easily, and perhaps more easily, become an American. If
he had to build up a centre for Judaism, he could not look forward to
any success there, being so far removed from his traditional centres.
Moreover, Zionism is an ideal which to a certain extent regenerates
even the Jew of the Diaspora, who does not go to Palestine himself,
because of its national aspect, its historic associations, its
influence on education. All this was lacking in The Argentine
undertaking. It was, therefore, bound to remain a matter of economic
improvement, if not of ordinary charity.
In 1891 the “Lovers of _Zion_” tried to persuade Hirsch to turn his
activities to Palestine. Herzl tried again in 1896, unfortunately
without success. The fact that Hirsch had met with a repulse at the
time of his earlier transactions with the _Sultan_, Abdul Hamid,
may have made the difficulty of obtaining a charter from the Ottoman
Government seem a greater obstacle to him than it would have seemed to
others. In his negotiations with the “Lovers of _Zion_” in 1891 he was
not altogether an opponent; he wavered for a while between different
countries, considering exclusively the quality of the soil, the
price, facilities and so on; but he overlooked the essential fact. The
question for him was not one of history and national desire, but of
the soil, the income, and, above all, the extension of his scheme. The
able and ingenious business man wanted to be practical. The builder
of a great railway wanted to establish a colony for millions, and
he believed in the lustre of his gem. Had he known that in “The
Argentine,” in spite of its apparently unlimited possibilities,
only some ten thousand Jews would settle, he would undoubtedly have
preferred Palestine, where even ten thousand, as true representatives
of a nation in its old country, have a far greater value. But he felt
himself called upon to accomplish great things in the economic sphere.
It was the very instinct of the man, his nature, the bent of his
genius. If we wish to understand him, we must make full allowance
for his surroundings, his education and the times in which he lived.
His idea was a long step towards Zionism, but some would not have
it for that particular reason. It is significant that his enormous
munificence remained quite isolated; he had no followers, though he
was very anxious to find some. Could anybody imagine a National Fund
for Jewish agriculture in “The Argentine”? The masses, it is true,
were interested in his scheme, but their interest was one of curiosity,
of the wish to be helped, not of self-help. And not only the masses,
but the wealthy people too held aloof. A short time before he died,
he received a few hundred pounds from two or three people for his
undertaking, and he felt very happy!
During his negotiations with the “Lovers of _Zion_” he revealed
his idea of creating a Jewish Commonwealth,¹ saying that he was
endeavouring to prepare the conditions for such a scheme. On another
occasion, discussing the difficulties of administration, _etc._, he
exclaimed:――
¹ He used the term “_Gemeinwesen_.”
“_Give me Jewish apostles, and I shall succeed!_
It dawned upon him that something was missing.
The fifth period of his activity comprises various philanthropic works.
The large number of Russian Jews who emigrated to the United States
attracted his benevolent interest; and in 1891 he was instrumental
in organizing under the laws of the state of New York the Baron
_de_ Hirsch Fund, with a capital of 2,500,000 dollars, which sum
was afterwards increased. The national Jewish character of Hirsch’s
activity lies here again in the fact that he identified himself with
his suffering brethren all over the world.
Many men of his immense wealth and distinguished position would no
doubt have used such advantages chiefly, if not exclusively, for the
promotion of causes that fill a large place in the popular estimation.
The cause of the Russian Jews would have been too remote, too
intricate, or too small to engage all their sympathies and efforts.
He made it his life-work to undertake something big on behalf of the
Russian Jews. His benevolence was not that weak sentimentalism which
too often obscures the plain behests of duty. He liked society, but he
never stooped to win a cheap popularity by an unbecoming complaisance.
There have been Jews enjoying the same high station, who have put
it to quite a different use. But to him wealth and social power were
simply one continuous challenge――a challenge to his nobler self, to
his reverence for duty. And never could his higher self stand forth
more conspicuously than when it impelled him to think and to work
for his disinherited people. His leading idea was not to combat the
persecutors of the Jews, but to emancipate the Jews themselves――to
extricate them from their mediæval life, to revitalize them with
the breath of “Western culture,” to give them a wider range
of occupations, to transform the pedlar into an artisan and the
shopkeeper into an agriculturist, in short, to render their political
emancipation a necessity by convincing their oppressors of their sound
economic worth. It was a repetition of the programme of the “Alliance
Israélite Universelle” and the Anglo-Jewish Association (Appendix
lxxvi), but it had the merit of being in the hands of a man who knew
nothing of the difficulty of collecting resources from an inert public.
As he lived the greater part of his life in Austria, it is quite
natural that the deplorable condition of the Jews in that empire
appealed strongly to him. In 1889, after consultation with Dr. Adolf
Jellinek (1821‒1893) of Vienna, he formulated a plan to aid the
Jews of Galicia by educational work, support for handicraftsmen
and agriculturists, loans to artisans, _etc._ In 1891 the Austrian
Government agreed to the plan, and Baron _de_ Hirsch thereupon placed
12,000, 000 francs at the disposal of the trustees.
The foregoing are only a few of the foundations established by Baron
_de_ Hirsch. In addition may be mentioned the Canadian Baron _de_
Hirsch Fund, and the large sum given to the London hospitals, to
which he also devoted the entire proceeds of his winnings on the turf.
He always said that his horses ran for charity. It is impossible to
form an accurate estimate of the amount of money that he devoted to
benevolent purposes. Including the large legacy of about 250,000,000
francs left to the Jewish Colonization Association, it exceeded 800,
000,000 francs, is an estimate justified by the amounts given by him
from time to time to the foundations already referred to. He died in
1896, having built for himself a monument more lasting than one of
brass or marble:――
_The Jewish Colonization Association._
The Baroness died in 1899. The amount devoted by her to benevolent
purposes exceeded fifteen million dollars,¹ and she further endowed
her various foundations by leaving them ten million dollars in her
will.
¹ Baron _de_ Hirsch Trade School in New York City; Clara _de_
Hirsch Home for Working Girls in New York; Fund for the
Officials of the Oriental Railways, _etc._
The present possessors of the shares of the Jewish Colonization
Association are: The Alliance Israélite Universelle, the Anglo-Jewish
Association, and the Jewish Communities of Brussels, Berlin and
Frankfort-on-the-Main. The administrative council now numbers
eleven members: five are appointed directly, one each by the five
corporations, each of which holds approximately one-fifth of the
capital; the other six are elected for a period of five years by a
vote of the general assembly of the stockholders, convened once a
year. Since 1900 the Association has been entrusted by Baron Edmond
_de_ Rothschild with the care of his Palestine colonization schemes,
and it is to be hoped that this great Jewish institution will turn its
attention more and more to work in Palestine.
Illustration: _THE CONGRESS PORTRAIT_
_Leopold Pilichowski_
בנימן ואב בן יעקב
(_THEODOR HERZL_)
CHAPTER XLVII.
MODERN ZIONISM
Theodor Herzl――The first conception and the acceptance of
Palestine――Max Nordau――The ideas of Modern Zionism.
ZIONISM, an idea as old as the Jewish nation, preached by the
representatives of Jewish thought, accepted and supported by prominent
Christians in England and France and elsewhere, expressed and carried
into effect in the colonization work in Palestine, was still in need
of a great leader. There had been many eminent champions, thinkers and
enthusiasts, but no great leader. Theodor Herzl (1860‒1904) then came
upon the scene――a born leader of men.
There had been no one before him with his indomitable energy, his
magnificent determination and his inspired restlessness. He had at his
command all the intellectual pleasures which the combination of Vienna
and Paris could offer. He was welcome in society and in literary
and artistic circles. His outlook on life before Zionism dawned upon
him had been that of the usual type of the modern, denationalized,
assimilated Jew. But the old spirit of the Jewish nation awoke in him
and removed him from this world of illusions. At the height of his
literary popularity in the gay Austrian capital, in the prime of youth
and success, he put aside everything else to champion the cause of his
people. He created the politics of a state unborn. He began his Jewish
career with almost the whole of official Jewry in Western Europe
opposed to him and intent on silencing him, until he succeeded in
outshining his adversaries. Then the public conscience awakened,
the force of truth prevailed, and he found adherents. He imparted to
the Jews the greatest national impulse that they have had since the
_Galuth_ began.
He found the word which crystallized all the yearnings and hopes
of centuries. He spoke the truth, although four hundred and fifty
priests¹ of assimilation clamoured for falsehood. He brought freedom
to the Jewish soul and kindled Jewish enthusiasm to a flame. He
reminded the Jews that they were still unalterably attached to the old
centre of Jewish national life, that Zionism remained the ultimate aim
of their aspirations, and that the old prophecies were still a living
force. He devoted all his determination and skill to his people, and
his endurance and ability to the work of organizing the masses. It was
the influence of his personality over men that made him a great leader.
His nobility of character shone forth in his actions, found expression
in his speech, and flashed in his eyes.
¹ Then said Elijah unto the people: “I,” even I only, am left
a prophet of the Lord; but Baal’s prophets are four hundred
and fifty men. 1 Kings xviii. 22.
The simplicity and modesty of the truly great man showed themselves in
all that Herzl conceived and achieved. He was a man of vast knowledge,
of irresistible logic, a brilliant writer and a great artist; but in
Jewish affairs he was a _homo novus_. He was almost ignorant of Jewish
learning, of Jewish literature, even of Zionism before his time.
During a discussion on Jewish culture at one of the Zionist Congresses,
he frankly admitted that he did not know exactly what “Jewish
culture” meant. But he was the embodiment of the old Jewish genius,
a re-incarnation of those times when there were Jewish heroes, kings
and statesmen. It was hardly necessary for him to plead for the ideal
of “Jewish culture,” because his personality supplied the argument
required. His high-minded disinterestedness, his unselfish devotion,
his unceasing self-sacrifice, his magnificent energy, his wonderful
gift of seizing opportunities for the furtherance of his great ideal,
his high sense of duty, his sincere kindness and modesty of heart,
marked him out to be the first Zionist leader in the Diaspora.
The depth, tenderness and sincerity of the love he bore his nation,
his passionate yearning for the achievement of the great object before
him――these found expression in every word he uttered and every action
he undertook. These noble sentiments, together with the magnetism of
his personality, accounted for his tremendous influence over so large
a section of modern Jewry. He sacrificed his whole being and all his
possessions in furtherance of the ideal which he faithfully upheld,
satisfied with the prospect of bringing his people gradually nearer
the sacred goal of their wanderings.
Illustration: _Elliott and Fry_
_Dr._ MAX SIMON NORDAU
Dr. Max Simon Nordau, a son of _Rabbi_ Gabriel Südfeld of Krotoschin,
already at that time a writer of international reputation, was one of
the first to respond when Herzl started the Zionist movement; and he
was practically second to Herzl in building up the organization. These
two men came to be looked upon as the natural leaders and the foremost
representatives of the new Zionism. Nordau was Herzl’s faithful
friend and assistant from the commencement. He placed his genius, his
enthusiasm and his powerful eloquence at the service of the Zionist
idea and organization. His authority and influence in the propaganda
of Zionism became the most powerful and influential force in the
movement. Nothing could surpass the overwhelming logic and the
admirable spirit of his speeches, pamphlets, essays and articles. From
the very beginning he played the part of a great leader with splendid
confidence, inspiration, and dignity. No Zionist has exercised a
stronger or a loftier influence by sheer strength of character and
sound judgment. No orator or writer in modern times has so forcibly
portrayed the great tragedy of his people as he has done in his
memorable speeches at the Zionist Congresses, and none has voiced so
eloquently the claims and hopes of his nation. He had always a message
to deliver, and delivered it always effectively. He helped to make
Zionism a world-wide movement, with an appeal not only to the Jewish
people but also to other nations. His forcible eloquence and untiring
zeal in the service of Zionism are generally known. Nor does his
public activity exhaust his services to the cause. He gave much useful
advice to Herzl, who never undertook anything of importance in Zionist
politics without consulting him. Nordau exercised enormous influence
during the whole period of Herzl’s and Wolffsohn’s presidency, and
is still doing so at the present moment. A man of great literary
and journalistic achievement, with extensive associations and wide
interests, a champion of all great causes of humanity and justice,
zealously engaged in various domains of human thought, he has always
placed his time, his pen, and his matchless eloquence at the service
of Zionism.
Herzl fathomed the causes of the sufferings of his people, and saw a
radical solution of the Jewish problem of two thousand years in the
national regeneration of the Jew. Like his great predecessor Pinsker,
he thought at first that it was immaterial where the proposed Jewish
centre was situated. He had then no opportunity of knowing the real
feeling of the Jewish people on this point. When he tested that
feeling he quickly discovered that Palestine was the only possible
country. Wishing to see a Jewish centre established, and knowing that
elsewhere it was impossible, because contrary to history and tradition,
he concentrated his efforts on Palestine, and although he realized the
difficulties more than anyone else, he remained till the day of his
death (notwithstanding the East African scheme, which he considered
only from the point of view of preparation for Palestine) a convinced
and ardent Palestinian.
To repopulate this ancient country, to make it a centre of human
civilization, was his object. He did not think that the solution of
the problem lay in emigration _per se_. He saw that, however carefully
emigration was carried out, the result in the long run must be a mere
shifting from place to place. Colonization on a large scale, in any
territory that might be found for the purpose, taking no account of
the historic national sentiment of the Jewish people, and lacking the
attractiveness necessary to make it more than a philanthropic scheme,
cannot solve the problem. And philanthropy will not solve the Jewish
question. Zionism alone――the Jewish National Movement――seeks to
grapple with the Jewish question effectually once and for all. It
proposes to establish for the Jewish people a secure and recognized
national home in Palestine――the land to which the Jew during two
thousand years of exile has never relinquished his moral claim.
While providing a refuge for oppressed Jews from other lands, a home
in Palestine would become a centre for the Jews throughout the world,
thereby raising their status everywhere, and saving them from the
degradation to which they are now constantly subjected, merely because
they are Jews. Such a plan has a spiritual appeal, and rallies to
its aid such energy, enthusiasm and driving power as no scheme of
colonization in any other country would ever command. And in spite
of the contention of the different philanthropic Jewish societies
that the immediate needs of the Jewish masses are best satisfied by
improving their condition in the countries in which they live and by
offering them opportunities of emigrating to other countries, it was
felt in all quarters where intense Jewish feeling was still alive that
the new vision of Herzl must not be allowed to fade away.
This new Zionism differs widely from all Jewish philanthropic
efforts. It was based not on charity, but on an appreciation of
history――political, economic, social and ethical. It proposed the
rebuilding of a nation and the repopulating of a country. It meant
a logical and morally satisfactory solution of the general Jewish
problem. It was not a measure for the moment, but an achievement
for the benefit of untold generations. It did not profit merely the
poverty-stricken or persecuted section of our people, but affected
the whole of Jewry by a complete change in its position. It taught
again the old lesson that no Jew, conscious of his duty towards the
unborn generations of his people, should ever lose sight of the fact
that Palestine, and Palestine alone, is the country to which he has a
historic claim for all time, that in the old country of his ancestors,
and there alone, it is possible to work out his people’s destiny, and
that nothing short of this ideal can be accepted.
CHAPTER XLVIII.
THE FIRST ZIONIST CONGRESS
The general impression――The proclamation of the Jewish
national idea――The Basle Programme――The first Executive
Central Committee――Prof. ♦Hermann Schapira――Christian visitors
at the first Congress――Letters of the Grand _Rabbin_ of
France, _M._ Zadoc Kahn, and of the _Haham_ of the Spanish
and Portuguese Jewish community of London, Dr. Moses Gaster.
♦ “Herman” replaced with “Hermann”
THE first Zionist Congress met in Basle on August 29th, 1897.
This gathering will one day be surrounded by a halo of mythical
significance and glory. There were about 200 delegates from almost
every country in the world at this Jewish national assembly, the
first convened since the Exile by the Jewish people themselves. The
enthusiasm was beyond description. For the first time in the Diaspora
the Jewish people felt strong and free. Divided by exile, it was again
united by national ties as well as by those of a history of common
suffering and common hopes. The convener of the Congress received
endless ovations. All those present realized the historic event in
which they were taking part. The Congress solemnly proclaimed to the
listening world that the Jews are a nation. It pictured accurately the
Jewish situation.
This picture was black. It was terrible, but it was true. Regarding
it to-day, we must confess it to be prophetic. And it was not unfolded
for the purpose of lamentation or protest, but with the object of
impelling to strenuous action and self-help. The Congress formulated
its intentions in the following programme, which was carried
unanimously with the greatest enthusiasm:
The aim of Zionism is to create for the Jewish people a home in
Palestine secured by public law. The Congress contemplates the
following means to the attainment of this end:――
1. The promotion, on suitable lines, of the colonization of Palestine
by Jewish agricultural and industrial workers.
2. The organization and binding together of the whole of Jewry by
means of appropriate institutions, local and international, in
accordance with the laws of each country.
3. The strengthening and fostering of Jewish national sentiment and
consciousness.
4. Preparatory steps towards obtaining Government consent, where
necessary, to the attainment of the aim of Zionism.
Illustration:
_Dr._ LOUIS LOEWE _Rabbi_ _Dr._ N. M. ADLER
_Baron_ M. _de_ HIRSCH
_Prof. Dr._ HERMANN SCHAPIRA MOSES HESS
Dr. Theodor Herzl was elected President of the Congress and Dr.
Max Nordau, Dr. Salz and M. Samuel Pineles first, second and third
Vice-Presidents respectively. The Executive Central Committee elected
by the First Congress consisted of:――
_Vienna_: Dr. Theodor Herzl, Dr. Schnirer, Dr. Oser Kokesch, Dr. Müntz,
Julius M. Kremenezky. _Austria_ (other than Galicia): Dr. Sigmund
Kornfield. _Galicia_: Dr. Salz, Dr. Korkis. _Bukovina_: Dr. Meyer
Ebner. _France_: M. Bernard Lazare. _Germany_: _Rabbi_ Dr. Isaac J.
Rülf, Dr. Bodenheimer. _Russia_: _Rabbi_ Samuel Mohilewer, Prof. Max
Mandelstamm, Dr. Jacob Kohan-Bernstein, Isidor Jasinowski. _Roumania_:
Dr. Karl Lippe, Samuel Pineles. _Bulgaria and Servia_: Prof. Gregor
Belkovsky. _Orient_: Jacques Behar.
One of the most prominent members of the First Congress was Dr.
Hermann Schapira (1840‒1898), Professor of Mathematics at the
University of Heidelberg. He was a native of Russia, and had a most
remarkable career. Being too poor to study, he turned to trade, and
when he had saved sufficient money became a student once more. He was
then already forty years of age, but his keen intellect and industry
soon brought him to the forefront in mathematics, which he had studied
privately without the help of a school or a teacher. He first learned
his science from old _Hebrew_ books, and then from books written
in other languages. So much was his pre-eminence recognized that,
notwithstanding his being a Jew and a foreigner――a Russian subject――he
was appointed to the Professorship of Mathematics at Heidelberg
University. He remained in appearance, in manners and in mentality as
typical and picturesque a member of his people as any old _Rabbi_. He
was an excellent _Hebrew_ scholar, and well versed not only in ancient
Jewish history and literature, but also in modern _Hebrew_ literature.
Like the whole modern _Hebraist_ school, he regarded _Hebrew_ as
a living tongue. His heart and soul were in the “Lovers of _Zion_”
movement and in the _Hebrew_ revival. At the first Zionist Congress he
solemnly called upon the delegates to declare allegiance to the cause.
When differences of opinion arose, the old Professor in impassioned
language appealed to all to sink their differences and personal
prejudices and to work unitedly with one heart and soul for the common
cause. A dramatic scene followed. The Professor called upon every
delegate present to raise his right hand, and they all did so and
repeated after him:――
“אם־אשכחך ירושלם תשכח ימיני׃”¹
¹ “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem,
Let my right hand forget her cunning”
(Psalm cxxxvii. 5).
This was one of the most solemn moments of the Congress. On the other
hand, when Professor Schapira first spoke about the necessity of
a Jewish National Fund, an idea which he had advocated some time
earlier in _Hebrew_ articles, the proposal was regarded as a chimera
rather than as a practical scheme. But he did not feel discouraged
by the opposition of the “practical people.” During the first year
of the Zionist organization, between the first and second Congresses,
he devoted himself entirely to Zionist work. He died on a Zionist
propaganda tour, during a stay at Cologne.
The first Christian clergyman to encourage Herzl was the Chaplain to
the British Embassy in Vienna, the Rev. Dr. W. H. Hechler, who is an
ardent student of the Bible and a Christian “Lover of _Zion_.” With
the full knowledge of his chief, the British Ambassador, he supported
the Zionist movement, and introduced Herzl to several of his Royal and
Imperial pupils and friends. He was the first English clergyman to go
to Russia and help the persecuted Jews on the spot: he visited at that
time Odessa, Mohilew, Kishinew and Balta. He visited the Holy Land
several times, and regularly attended the Zionist Congresses.
Among the most interesting visitors at the Congress were, the famous
pioneer of Zionism, Henri Dunant; and the Protestant pastor Dr.
Johannes Lepsius, son of Carl Richard Lepsius (1810‒1884), the famous
Egyptologist, who is thoroughly acquainted with the East, and had
been pastor of a small community in the Harz Mountains. Dr. Lepsius
warmly espoused the cause of the Armenians in 1895, and when, as the
result of his agitation, the German Government sent him a warning,
he resigned his post. He placed his views on the Zionist Congress
before a meeting held on the 7th September, 1897, at Basle, in a paper
entitled, “Armenians and Jews in Exile; or, the Future of the East
with Reference to the Armenian Question and the Zionist Movement.”
After referring to points of similarity between Jews and Armenians,
both persecuted races, he said: “When the time comes ... will Jewry
lay their hands on Palestine and say: this is our land? Will anyone be
able to prevent them? Even if the Zionist movement has an exclusively
national character, there is yet a strong religious undercurrent.
We believe that the Jewish nation has a future before it, and that
this future will be a glorious one.” The address was followed by
an interesting discussion, in the course of which Professor Carl
Friedrich Heman, the Orientalist, of Basle University, heartily
endorsed Dr. Lepsius’ views.
The greatest achievement of the new Zionism was the Jewish
Congress――the supreme authority in the movement based upon democratic
principles――and the creation of a world-wide organization for the
resuscitation of the Jewish nationality and for the regaining of
Palestine, not by brute force or political adventure, and not by any
act against the government or the population of the country or any
other government or nation, but by force of conviction, enthusiasm,
devotion and self-sacrifice.
_M._ Zadoc Kahn (1839‒1905), Grand _Rabbin_ of France, addressed a
letter of congratulation to the first Zionist Congress. The Grand
_Rabbin_ wrote that he would not fail to follow with much interest
the deliberations of the Congress. Whatever might be thought as to the
utility and opportuneness of the Congress, it could not be denied that
it merited every attention. Differences of opinion were inevitable,
but he prayed with all his might that God might guide and inspire all
the leaders of the movement, and that the debates and the resolutions
which would be arrived at would be for the benefit of Judaism
throughout the world.
In an interview on the subject of the Zionist movement, which took
place immediately after the first Zionist Congress, _M._ Zadoc Kahn
spoke in the highest terms of Dr. Herzl.
“This man of faith is also a man of action. He is an apostle, but
an apostle who is doctor of political economy. I know he occupies a
distinguished place in the Austrian Press, and that he has excellent
relations in the highest political spheres. But he appears ready to
sacrifice all for the triumph of his ideas.” _M._ Zadoc Kahn then
criticized in very mild terms the exaggerated “pessimism” of Herzl’s
pamphlet, “The Jewish State,” and after dwelling on the religious
aspects of the question, he concluded:――
“The sympathy of the French Jews, now awakened, is assured to the
Zionists. To ridicule or condemn a project when this project carries
with it hope, and thus consolation, to thousands of co-religionists
who are molested in their quality as Jews, this the French Jews have
not the right to do.”
In opening the proceedings of the final day of the Congress, Herzl
announced that several letters and telegrams had been received. The
only one he would mention was that sent by the Rev. Dr. Moses Gaster,
_Haham_ of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews in England, who wrote to
express his sympathy with the objects of the Congress.
CHAPTER XLIX.
THE MOTIVE FORCES OF ZIONISM
Modern _Hebrew_ literature――The _Chovevé Zion_――The pioneers
in Palestine.
THUS the Zionist Movement was launched. Before we follow its progress
during the intervening twenty years, it will be as well to give some
account of the forces at work in Jewish life which made the movement
and its success possible. For Zionism cannot be properly understood if
it is regarded merely as a result of certain political combinations or
as a reaction against anti-Semitism. It must be traced to its roots,
which lie deep in the national consciousness of the Jewish people; and
that national consciousness is not simply a vague sentiment, but has
long had its concrete expressions in connection with the revival of
Palestine and of the _Hebrew_ language. The inner history of Zionism,
then, is to be traced along the lines of Palestinian colonization
and the _Hebrew_ renascence. For convenience we may divide our brief
survey into three main headings:
1. Modern _Hebrew_ Literature.
2. The _Chovevé Zion_ and University Zionist Groups in various
countries.
3. The pioneers of the _Hebrew_ Revival in Palestine.
It must be remembered, however, that these are not watertight
divisions, and we naturally meet with the same men in different fields
of work.
The aim of the present chapter is to trace the development of each
of these three forces (so far as that has not been done in earlier
chapters), giving some account of the outstanding figures in each
department. There is in each field a host of less distinguished but
not less devoted workers. Of some of these mention is made in Appendix
lxxv.
1. _Modern Hebrew Literature_
From a linguistic and literary point of view, no less than from a
moral and religious standpoint, the Bible is a great and wonderful
book:
¹בן בג בג אומר הפך בה והפך בה דכלא בה
פּרקי אבות. ה׳ כה.
¹ Ben Bag Bag said, ponder in it, and ponder in it, for all is
in it. _Ethics of the Fathers_, v., 25.
Not that modern _Hebrew_ writers use the Bible merely as a storehouse
of words and phrases, depending on reminiscence for their effect.
The practice of cramming _Hebrew_ writings with scriptural quotations
so as to give them an artificial brilliance and a second-hand wealth
of idiom and grandeur of diction was characteristic of the so-called
_M’lizah_.¹ In our time there is no more of this patchwork writing.
The _Hebrew_ language has become independent of quotations, but none
the less the traditional spirit continues to live, and the Bible
is the corner-stone of modern _Hebrew_ literature. It could not be
otherwise, for in the Jewish view the Bible must enter into every
phase of man’s life, must exert an influence upon the words of his
mouth, the thoughts of his mind, and the feelings of his heart.
This is the result not of any dogma, but of the tradition of Jewish
learning, which is a sort of intellectual devotion, a reverent feeling,
a particular worship of the _Torah_ as knowledge, teaching, thought.
¹ _M’lizah_ = “flower of speech.”
The revival of the _Hebrew_ language was thus able to become the
foremost factor in the Jewish national revival. Yet little attention
has been paid to this part of the history of Zionism. Perhaps the most
important reason is the general ignorance of the _Hebrew_ language or
of its modern literature and Press. Some writers on Zionism are quite
ignorant of the whole of this literature, others are misinformed as to
its past, and often imperfectly and insufficiently conversant with its
present, and are only capable of repeating mechanically a few names
and titles which have gained currency. Few have an adequate conception
of the real activity of hundreds of writers, of the amount of work
which has been done, or of the succession of the different stages
of development. This lack of knowledge is the main reason for the
strange opinion so often expressed by anti-Zionists in Western
Europe, particularly in England, that Zionism is a mere political or
materialistic movement.
Our object here is not to write a history of _Hebrew_ literature
as such, but only to illustrate a part of Zionist history which has
hitherto been very imperfectly surveyed, and a certain knowledge of
which is necessary for a real and adequate conception of the inner
intellectual forces which have made Zionism what it is. The fact of
importance from our point of view is that the best, the noblest, and
the soundest ideas were brought into Zionism from _Hebrew_ literature,
that certain _Hebrew_ writers are prominent nationalists, that from
them have gone forth “the thoughts that inspire” and “the words
that ignite,” and that the wide dissemination of the Zionist idea
among hundreds of thousands of Jews (Russian Jews or those who came
from Russia) could not have been produced merely by organization
and business institutions, had they not been prepared for it by
the knowledge and every-day use of the _Hebrew_ language with its
innumerable national, historical and Palestinian reminiscences
and associations. And not only that: in our view even the better
elements of the _Hebrew_ literature of the period which preceded the
Zionist movement, and which is commonly known as the “_Haskalah_”
(enlightenment) period, as well as the writings of those modern
authors who do not support Zionism, have contributed to that great
regeneration which has enabled the national language and literature
to reach such an advanced stage of development.
For the beginnings of modern _Hebrew_ literature we must go back at
least as far as Abraham Dob Bär (1789‒1878) _ben_ Chayyim Lebensohn
(surnamed Michailishker; _pseudonym_ Adam), the Hebrew Klopstock――a
serious and somewhat dry poet and his son Micah Joseph (1818‒1852),
a graceful singer cut off in his early bloom. Contemporary with them
was F. Rothstein, an almost unknown Polish _Chassid_ and _Maskil_,¹
who translated _Hermann and Dorothea_ of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
(1749‒1832) in stanzas of laconic beauty which in precision of outline
and completeness of impression are as sublime as the original. These
men founded a school of poets, the tradition of which was carried
on by men like Solomon _ben_ Baruch Salkind (1805?‒1868); Bernhard
Nathansohn (_b._ 1832); David Moses Mitzkun (1836‒1887); and Isaachar
Berush Hurwitz (_b._ 1835). Contemporaneously, the beginnings of a
modern prose literature were being created. To Mordecai Aaron _ben_
Judah Asher Günzburg (1795‒1846) we owe a _Hebrew_ style at once
forceful and condensed, in great contrast to the limp and diffuse
style prevalent before him. Abraham Mapu (1808‒1867), master of a
pure biblical style and a wonderful imaginative sympathy with the life
of Bible times, created in his romantic novel _The Love of Zion_ a
gossamer web in evanescent hues of gold and silver. Kalman Schulman
(1819‒1899), a versatile translator and popularizer, did much to
break ground for the ideas of the _Haskalah_. Isaac Erter (1792‒1851),
of Galicia, wrote satires which are masterpieces of art in their
epigrammatic beauty. These and a host of lesser men laid the
substantial foundations on which later a more specifically nationalist
_Hebrew_ literature could be built up. For themselves they were too
busy with their task of acclimatizing European culture on _Hebrew_
soil to trouble overmuch about nationalism. Their tendency was
even towards assimilation, so strong was their reaction against the
conservatism of their environment. This tendency is seen most strongly
in the greatest of these _Maskilim_, Judah Löb (Leon) _ben_ Asher
Gordon (1831‒1892), a poet, essayist and story-teller, who united
lightness of touch, clearness and elegance of diction with a great
gift of expression, and combined in one harmonious whole accurate
reflection and vivid imagination――an exceedingly keen satirist, and
the most profound among writers of the _Haskalah_ in the knowledge
and use as well of the biblical as of the post-biblical _Hebrew_
idiom. The recently deceased veteran novelist Solomon (Shalom) Jacob
Abramowitsch (1836‒1918) “_Mendele Mocher Sephorim_”² still continued
to carry on the _Haskalah_ tradition; and although dubbed “Grandfather
of _Yiddish_,” he also produced _Hebrew_ works of immortal value,
the works of a giant artist in language and imagination. But broadly
speaking the ideals of the _Haskalah_ have given place since about
1880 to a more distinctly nationalist tendency.
¹ _Chassid_――member of the sect of _Chassidim_ or
“Pious.” _Maskil_――upholder of the ideals of _Haskalah_
(“enlightenment”), as against strict traditionalism
with its restriction of intellectual interest to ancient
_Hebrew_ literature.
² The Jewish Cervantes.
The historical and philosophical bases of modern Jewish nationalism
were laid in the earlier half of the nineteenth century by a number of
Jewish scholars who wrote in _Hebrew_, and of whom the most noteworthy
are Nachman Cohen Krochmal (1785‒1840), Samuel David _ben_ Hezekiah
Luzzatto (1800‒1865) and Solomon Judah Löb Rapaport (1790‒1867).
Krochmal in his _Modern Guide for the Perplexed_ (a title which
alludes, of course, to the great work of Maimonides), strove to effect
a synthesis ♦between traditional Judaism and Hegelianism. The national
idea is a postulate of his method, and he presents it in a rational
and constructive manner, entirely free from sentimentality. Luzzatto,
who studied deeply and wrote much in the fields of history, religious
ideas and exegesis, was more of a mystic in temperament, but not
less fundamentally nationalist in outlook. Rapaport, an encyclopædic
scholar and one of the pioneers of the so-called “Jewish Science”
(scientific study of Judaism and Jewish history), was perhaps less
directly and consciously concerned with the national idea, but
his hostile attitude to the extravagances of the “Reform” movement
sufficiently indicates his leaning. Another profound scholar who has
received too scant attention is Jacob Reifmann (1818‒1895), whose
_Hebrew_ pamphlet _The Mission of Israel_――one of a hundred treatises
and articles――is an eloquent exposition of the national idea and a
thoroughgoing condemnation of radical “Reform,” not from a theological,
but from a purely nationalist and historical point of view. We may
remark in passing that some of the later representatives of “Jewish
Science,” though they wrote mostly in other languages than _Hebrew_
(principally German), were essentially nationalist in feeling:
especially Heinrich Hirsch Graetz (1817‒1891), the historian, who
was influenced by Moses (Moritz) Hess (1812‒1875), and really――though
perhaps unconsciously――laid the foundations of Jewish nationalism in
Western Europe, and David Kaufmann (1852‒1899), whose learning and
instinct combined made him welcome Zionism and defend its leaders on
occasion. Important, however, as was the work of these scholars in
giving Jewish nationalism the necessary philosophical foundation,
the spread of the national idea among the people is more directly
due to the popular _Hebrew_ writers of Russia, who, growing up during
the _Haskalah_ period, abandoned the vague, universalistic idea of
“enlightenment” for the conception of a modernized and progressive
Jewish people.
♦ “beween” replaced with “between”
Of these David _ben_ Dob Baer Gordon (1826‒1886) was one of the
earliest. In 1856 he became assistant editor of the first _Hebrew_
weekly paper, _Ha’magid_. He also assisted in the formation and
conduct of the Society _Mekize Nirdamim_ (1864), established for the
purpose of publishing old and valuable _Hebrew_ works. In 1884 he went
to London as the representative of the _Chovevé Zion_ to congratulate
Sir Moses Montefiore on the hundredth anniversary of his birth.
Peter (Perez) _ben_ Moses Smolenskin (1842‒1885), the most popular
_Hebrew_ writer of his time, was an ardent nationalist and Zionist
during the second period of his literary activity. He rejected the
theory associated with the name of Mendelssohn, which makes Judaism
nothing more than a religious confession; and against this theory
he wrote a series of articles and essays. About 1880 he began to
be interested in the colonization of Palestine. He joined Laurence
Oliphant, through whom he hoped to secure the intervention of European
Powers in favour of the Jews. His realistic Hebrew novels, as well as
his monthly _Ha’shachar_ (The Dawn), exercised a wide influence.
Moses Löb Lilienblum (1843‒1910) was a progressive “radical” during
the first half of his literary career. But the anti-Jewish riots of
1880 and 1881 aroused him to a consciousness of the unsafe position
of the Jews in exile, and he started writing articles in _Hebrew_ and
in Russian, in which he pointed to the re-establishment of the Jews
in Palestine as the only solution of the Jewish question. He wrote
several pamphlets, and as Secretary of the _Chovevé Zion_ took a most
earnest and energetic part in their activity.
Alexander Ossypovitch Zederbaum of St. Petersburg (1816‒1892)
indefatigably advocated the colonization of Palestine by Jews in his
_Hebrew_ paper _Ha’melitz_. He did not confine his labours in the cause
of Jewish nationalism to such editorial efforts. He took an active part
in obtaining the permission of the Russian Government for the formation
of an Association of _Chovevé Zion_ in Russia, with its centre in
Odessa, and afterwards in organizing the Association.
Samuel Joseph Fuenn (1819‒1891) of Wilna was an admirable scholar and
a _Hebrew_ writer of wide outlook. For many years he was editor of the
_Hebrew_ weekly _Ha’carmel_. His _Kiria Neemana_ (the History of the
Jews in Wilna) is a standard work. He was also author of _Ha’otzar_
(_Hebrew_ dictionary), of a biographical lexicon, and of many other
books of reference. During the last years of his life he was engaged
in the _Chovevé Zion_ movement.
Jechiel Mendelssohn (1817‒1892) of Lublin, was a distinguished
_Hebraist_. The diversity as well as the extent of his reading was
remarkable. He knew the whole of _Hebrew_ literature as well as the
classical writers of antiquity, and had a wide knowledge of Jewish
history. His _Hebrew_ style was of great exactitude and beauty. He
contributed to _Hàboker Or_, _Ha’melitz_ and _Ha’assif_, and preached
with artistic skill and historical discrimination the national idea of
the _Chovevé Zion_.
Asher Ginzberg――“_Achad Ha’am_”――deserves a special chapter in the
history of Zionism. He was the most prominent literary figure in the
_Chovevé Zion_ movement, and he is the most respected and influential
representative of modern _Hebrew_ literature. Born in Russia, and
educated in the traditional religious way, he went through a carefully
arranged course of studies in “Jewish Science” and in philosophy and
literature. He first attracted notice by his articles in _Ha’melitz_
about the condition of the colonies in Palestine. He had the clearness
of mind to see things as they were, and the courage to publish what he
believed to be the truth. The absence of exaggeration, the earnestness,
and the steadfast truth-seeking which are the characteristic features
of all his writings, and give them peculiar weight, were already
clearly developed and evident in his first essays. He founded the
_Hebrew_ monthly _Ha’shiloach_, which became a creative force in the
modern _Hebrew_ revival. He grouped around himself young men of talent,
and discovered, stimulated and guided many young writers and students,
who looked upon him as their spiritual father. _Ha’shiloach_ soon
became the leading literary _Hebrew_ review, principally owing to
his philosophical and publicistic articles. A deep and clear thinker,
he expounded with convincing logic, and in calm, noble and dignified
language the ideology of Jewish nationalism. His principal ideal is
Jewish national distinctiveness in the Diaspora, based upon _Hebrew_
culture, and making Palestine a spiritual centre or “nidus.” Some of
his essays can be read in an English version by Leon Simon of London,
published by the Jewish Publication Society of America. We should,
however, form a very inadequate estimate of the services which this
distinguished writer has rendered to Zionism, and of the influence
which he has exerted on his readers, were we to confine our attention
solely to his writings. It is the combination of a writer and a
personality that gives him his unique position. He was successfully
active in the _Chovevé Zion_ movement, he has visited Palestine
several times, and he founded in 1889 the Order “_B’nai Moshé_,”
a group of intellectual Jewish Nationalists. This Order, which
existed for eight years, gave rise to the foundation of the _Hebrew_
Publication Society “_Achiasaf_” in Warsaw, of the first modern
_Hebrew_ school in _Jaffa_, and of the Palestinian colony _Rechoboth_.
Out of these grew many other institutions for colonization, _Hebrew_
literature and education.
Chaim Nachman Bialik is the greatest living _Hebrew_ poet, and with
his name the national revival is inseparably connected. Born in
Volhynia, Russia, he had a _Talmudical_ education. He started his
literary career in the _Ha’shiloach_ and other _Hebrew_ reviews. He
rose quickly to great fame, making a new era in _Hebrew_ poetry. He
has an epic as well as a lyric gift. His marvellous artistic instinct,
his harmonious _Hebrew_, his liveliness of imagination, the melody
of his verse place him in the highest rank. He is a national poet in
the noblest sense of the term. He voices the feelings and traditions
of generations. He has measured the groans of our people, has counted
their sighs and tears, has gathered and sung them and played them
upon the celestial harp of his _Hebrew_ muse. Sometimes, like a rebel
_cherub_, he sounds the trumpet of judgment against tyranny. He is
familiar with every phase of Jewish thought and life, ancient as well
as modern, in the _Ghetto_ as well as in nature, but his heart is in
_Zion_, and here the freshness and vividness of his colouring, the
truth and life-like reality of his pictures, the enthusiasm of his
hopes are unsurpassed. He is also distinguished as a writer of prose,
and is active in the _Hebrew_ Publication Society “_Moriah_,” at
Odessa, which has enriched _Hebrew_ literature by many valuable works.
Saul Tschernichowsky, born in Michailovka, Russia, by profession a
physician, is, next to Bialik, the greatest living _Hebrew_ poet.
He is distinguished by depth and tenderness of feeling, fertile and
ingenious fancy, profound knowledge of the classical world, the easy
transition by which he passes from nature to man, exquisite sense of
beauty and a highly developed taste for music, which makes his verse
exceedingly melodious.
2. _The Chovevé Zion and University Zionist Groups_
We have more than once had occasion to mention the groups of
_Chovevé Zion_ (“Lovers of _Zion_”) which sprang up in Russia in the
early eighties for the support of the pioneers of immigration into
Palestine. Some account of the most important of these groups and
of the outstanding personalities connected with them will indicate
both the rapidity with which the movement spread, and the continuity
of development between the _Chovevé Zion_ and the new Zionist
organization founded by Herzl. We shall find throughout that those who
came into prominence in Herzl’s movement were almost without exception
men who had been active for years before as “Lovers of _Zion_.”
We shall find also that everywhere it was the Jewish University
Student――and particularly the Russian Jewish Student, whether at a
Russian or at a German or Swiss University――who, captured by the idea
of the national revival, became the life and the driving force of the
movement.
The first place among the _Chovevé Zion_ groups belongs to that of
Odessa, which became and has remained the headquarters of the whole
organization. We have already mentioned three prominent members
of this group――Pinsker, _Achad Ha’am_ and Lilienblum (the last two
in connection with their services to _Hebrew_ literature). Among
a host of other Odessa Zionists who have earned distinction, _M._
M. Ussishkin stands out most prominently because of the influence
which his energy and determination have won for him. He graduated
in engineering at Moscow, where he was instrumental in founding the
_B’nai Zion_ (“Sons of _Zion_”)――one of the earliest and strongest of
the _Chovevé Zion_ groups. Afterwards he went to Ekaterinoslaw, and
only later to Odessa, where he has been the centre of Jewish national
work in all its branches for some years. To him perhaps more than
to any single man is due the return of Zionist effort to practical
colonizing work in Palestine after the temporary concentration on
political negotiation under Herzl. He has worked strenuously for
the financial institutions of Zionism as well as for Palestinian
colonization and the _Hebrew_ revival.
Of the brilliant group of leaders which received its training in the
_B’nai Zion_ of Moscow we mention here the recently deceased Dr. Ephim
Wladimirovitch [Jechiel] Tschlenow (1865‒1918), Vice-President of the
Inner Actions Committee of the Zionist Movement. After graduating in
medicine at Moscow University, he settled in that city, and divided
his life between the claims of his profession and those of Zionist
work. He combined appreciation of the value of practical work in
Palestine with a sound sense of political values. He had been twice
to the Holy Land, and in a brochure, _Five Years’ Work in Palestine_
(written in Russian and translated into German), produced an admirably
clear and comprehensive record of recent Jewish achievements in the
country.
Scarcely less important than the Odessa and the Moscow Societies were
those of St. Petersburg, of Bialystok, of Pinsk, of Minsk and of Wilna,
every one of which was a training-ground for men who afterwards became
prominent in the Zionist movement. It was at Pinsk, his birthplace,
that Dr. Chaim Weizmann, now President of the English Zionist
Federation, began his Zionist activity, which was continued afterwards
with such fruitful results at German and Swiss Universities and in
this country. Wilna is the home of two Zionists, the brothers Isaac
and Boris Goldberg, who hold a specially distinguished place both
in Russian Zionism and in the movement at large. So in every Jewish
centre in Russia the “Lovers of _Zion_” movement attracted the best of
Jewish energy and idealism, especially among the youth, and the idea
of the return to _Zion_ took a firmer and firmer hold on the people
and demanded more and more imperatively an outlet in practical work.
In Poland and Galicia and Roumania, and to a lesser extent in Germany,
the movement spread during the eighties and nineties of last century,
so that when Herzl came on the scene the national consciousness to
which he appealed was largely awakened (though not in those elements
of Jewry to which he first addressed his call). In countries further
west there was little progress until after the creation of Herzl’s
organization. True there were _Chovevé Zion_ groups in England and
France, but the idea of the return had not really struck root in
the Jewish communities of those countries. One of the great services
rendered by Herzl’s organization to the cause of Jewish nationalism
is that it has provided a bridge over which the Jewish spirit and the
idealism of the reawakened Jewries of Eastern Europe could make their
way into the Western communities and give them new life and a new
sense of the realities of Judaism. Thus in Anglo-Jewry during the last
decade or so there has been a marked tendency away from the polite
conventions of assimilation towards a realization of the deeper and
more serious implications of Jewishness; and only a remnant of the
“old guard” still repeats the _shibboleths_ of an earlier generation
about Judaism as a “persuasion” and “emancipation” as a cure for all
the ills of Jewry.
We have spoken of the part that the Jewish student has played in this
evolution, and it is so important as to merit further examination.
The position of the Jewish students at the Universities of Western
Europe at the beginning of the third quarter of the last century was a
most deplorable one from a Jewish point of view. They had increased in
numbers, belonging partly to the native Jewish populations and partly
to Eastern Europe, nevertheless they were a negligible quantity. They
were scattered all over Germany, Austria and Switzerland as units
without cohesion or organization. Nationally they did not count: the
chief principle of assimilation――which was at the time the general
tendency of Western European Jewry――was to abandon Jewish national
claims. Their attitude towards the religion of their fathers was one
of indifference, want of faith, if not hostility. What marked them
out as Jews was in fact only the treatment meted out to them by the
anti-Semitic Students’ Societies, which hated and insulted them. And
while the Jews born in the Western European countries were regarded
as outcasts by the non-Jewish corporations and societies, the foreign
Jewish students――mostly from Russia――were regarded as outcasts by
the outcasts. The Western European and the Eastern European Jewish
students were thus divided into two fractions.
Then the new spirit of Zionism made itself felt. A group of Jewish
students at the Vienna University founded, in 1882, a National Jewish
Students’ Association called “_Kadima_,”¹ which was later, as we
have seen, the first organization to extend a welcome to Herzl.
These Vienna students have a better claim than any other similar
organization in Western Europe to be regarded as the pioneers of the
Jewish national idea.
¹ “Eastward,” “Forward.”
One of the leaders of the _Kadima_ was Nathan Birnbaum, known also by
his _nom de plume_ of “Mathias Acher,” who was born in Galicia and
graduated at Vienna University. A powerful writer and a keen thinker,
he became, in course of time, a considerable figure in German-Jewish
literature. In recent years he has become a Jewish democrat,
championing the cause of _Yiddish_. But in the early days of the
_Kadima_ he was heart and soul devoted to this Association, of which
he was the philosophical leader.
The members of the _Kadima_ soon attracted attention owing to their
courageous attitude, and steadily increased in number. They had become
conscious Jews, and derived from this fact a great access of moral
strength. They were no longer weak, downtrodden, degraded young men,
feeling helpless and demoralized; they began to be men, jealous of
their honour, demanding their rights as Jews among the nationalities.
The _Chovevé Zion_ movement appealed strongly to their emotions and
energies. The idea, a mere spark at first, developed into a blazing
fire that seized upon several Universities. Young Jews speaking
different languages and of many different habits and customs became
united by invisible ties all over the Continent of Europe. At the
end of the eighties there existed an important Association in Berlin,
which was at first somewhat theoretical in character, but very soon
afterwards became a sister society of the Vienna Association, taking
also the name of “_Kadima_” (Appendix lxxvii). The members of this
group include a great number of workers whose names are inseparably
bound up with the history of the Zionist Organization and with Jewish
national literature. Most of them were of Russian birth, as might
be expected; for it was the Russian Jewish student who, moving from
one German University to another, carried with him the torch of the
national revival. Besides Dr. Chaim Weizmann, already mentioned, we
find in the Berlin Students’ group two of the present members of the
Inner Actions Committee――Dr. Shemaryah Levin, a powerful speaker and
one of the most energetic propagandists of the movement, and Victor
Jacobsohn, who for some years represented Zionism at Constantinople.
Martin Buber and Berthold Feiwel, two gifted littérateurs, were
both members of the Vienna _Kadima_ who worked later in Berlin.
Davis Trietsch, not himself a University student, worked in close
co-operation with the Berlin group. An indefatigable advocate of
colonization schemes, he has given a great impetus to the study of
Palestine and has originated many fruitful ideas. Associated with
him on the staff of the _Jüdischer Verlag_, the Zionist publishing
house, was the artist Ephraim Moses _ben_ Jacob _Hacohen_ Lilien,
who together with Hermann Struck, an artist of a very different type,
best represents Jewish national development on the æsthetic side.
It remains to mention two Berlin Zionists who became members of the
Inner Actions Committee in 1911――Arthur Hantke, distinguished for
his services to the organization of the movement, and Professor Otto
Warburg, a well-known botanist and founder of the Palestine Land
Development Company.
Similar associations to the _Kadima_ were founded at many German and
Swiss Universities――Heidelberg, Munich, Leipzig, Königsberg, Breslau,
Berne, Zürich, Geneva and Lausanne. To them is due the national
awakening which has led to so great an improvement in the spiritual
condition of Jewry in Western Europe. In Germany especially the
progress of the national idea among the younger generation was
phenomenal. The sons of the most assimilated and denationalized
families became the most ardent champions of the new movement back
to the Jewish land and Jewish ideals. But much the same thing has
happened in all countries which have a considerable Jewish population.
In Russia it goes without saying that Jewish Students’ groups were to
the fore in the national work. Even in the Polish cities of Warsaw and
Lodz, the homes of the most extreme and disintegrating assimilation,
numbers of Jewish students at the Universities were kindled by the
national idea and did it valuable service. In Anglo-Jewry, isolated by
distance and by difference of language and environment from the main
currents of Jewish life, the university Zionist movement developed
later and has not gone so far. Its history belongs entirely to the
last dozen years, and its adherents are still a small band. But
it is one of the most remarkable and promising features of Zionist
development in England in recent years. While the older generation of
Zionists in this country worked mainly in the field of organization,
a group of younger men, largely of University training, has paid more
attention to the spread of the Zionist idea by means of literature and
education. Most of these younger men have been influenced by the ideas
of _Achad Ha’am_. They have produced monthly journals, pamphlets and
books on Zionism and in the Zionist spirit, and have contributed in
various ways to the spread of Jewish knowledge and the improvement
of _Hebrew_ education. They have also taken their share in the work
of organization, and one of them, Mr. H. Sacher, has recently become
Grand Commander of the Order of Ancient _Maccabæans_, a Zionist
association organised on Friendly Society lines.
3. _The Pioneers of the Hebrew Revival in Palestine_
While modern _Hebrew_ literature and the propaganda of the Return to
Zion were quickening the Jews of the Diaspora to new life and new hope,
there were not wanting men who were prepared to throw up their careers
and prospects in Europe in order themselves to help in laying the
foundations of the revival in Palestine. It is not our purpose here
to tell the almost miraculous story of the foundation of the earliest
Jewish settlements or “colonies” in the eighties, how by sheer
endurance the pioneer settlers maintained their hold in the face of
appalling difficulties, and how by the time when the great war broke
out there had been created the nucleus of a thriving _Hebrew_ nation,
firmly attached once more to its ancestral soil, and repossessed
of its ancestral tongue.¹ We have merely to glance at a few of the
outstanding facts and personalities of this revival (Appendix lxxviii).
¹ For an account of Jewish colonization in Palestine the
reader may be referred to _Palestine: the Rebirth of an
Ancient People_, by A. M. Hyamson (London: Sidgwick and
Jackson, 1917), _chs._ 11‒14.
The revival is not wholly, though it is largely, a result of the
terrible events which drove large masses of Jews to emigrate from
Russia in 1880‒1881. Even before that date there were a few Jews
in Palestine who, if they were not strong enough of themselves to
initiate a national revival, were able to help when new forces came
from without. Of these were Jechiel Brill (1836‒1886), who, born in
Russia and educated in Constantinople and _Jerusalem_, established a
_Hebrew_ monthly, _Ha’lebanon_, in Palestine in 1863, and later was
commissioned by Baron Edmond _de_ Rothschild to conduct a group of
experienced farmers from Russia through Palestine; Jechiel Michael
_ben_ Noah Pines (1842‒1912), also of Russian birth, who in 1878 was
sent to _Jerusalem_ to establish charitable institutions associated
with the name of Sir Moses Montefiore, and lived thenceforward in
Palestine, interesting himself in the welfare of the Jewish community
and the organization of the Jewish agricultural colonies; David
Yellin, a native of Palestine and one of the most eminent of living
_Hebraists_, who has devoted himself mainly to education, and has
played a large part in the development of _Hebrew_ as a living
language through his contributions to the perfection of the “natural
method” of teaching _Hebrew_; and the late Abraham Moses Luncz
(1854‒1918), who had lived in Palestine from early youth, and whose
long-established _Hebrew_ Palestine Annual has done much for the
historical and geographical study of the country. But it was not till
the immigration which followed on the Russian massacres of 1880‒1881
that Jewish life in Palestine really began to take a new direction.
Among the stalwarts of those early days a group of Russian students
known as _Bilu_ (Appendix lxxix) (from the initials of the four
_Hebrew_ words meaning “Come, let us go up to the house of Jacob,”
which they chose as their motto) will always be held in affectionate
remembrance. Their example of stubborn endurance and unfailing
optimism did much to rescue the colonization movement from the ruin
which threatened it in its early days, when the natural effects of
insufficient knowledge and resources began to be felt. Most of the
group died young, but a few still survive――among them Israel Belkind,
who is still at work in Palestine as a teacher. Elieser Ben-Jehuda,
who settled in _Jerusalem_ in 1881, is associated principally with
the revival of _Hebrew_. It is thanks largely to him that out of the
welter of languages spoken by Jews in Palestine _Hebrew_ has once
and for all won its place as _the_ national language. His monumental
_Hebrew_ dictionary, _Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis_, in ten volumes,
was in course of publication when the war broke out. Another side of
the revival is represented by Boris Schatz, the founder and head of
the _Bezalel_ School of Arts and Crafts at _Jerusalem_, whose idea
of creating a distinctively Jewish art has already borne good fruit
(Appendix lxxx). And in yet other spheres the young Jewish settlement
owes much to David Levontin, Manager of the Anglo-Palestine Company,
the Jewish banking concern in Palestine; to Aaron Aaronsohn, head of
the valuable Agricultural Experiment Station at Atlit, near _Haifa_;
to Dr. Benzion Mossinsohn and his colleagues at the _Jaffa_ Hebrew
Secondary School, where an education similar to that of a Grammar
School is given entirely in _Hebrew_. Each of these men has done
pioneer work in one field or another. They have stood in the van of
a movement which has transformed Jewish life in Palestine as Zionist
propaganda has transformed Jewish life in the Diaspora, not only
creating new types and values of its own, but surely if slowly
breaking down the resistance of the anti-national Jewish agencies
which were at work in Palestine before Zionism came on the scene. And
if the propaganda and organization of Zionism have been essential to
the existence and growth of the Palestinian settlement, it is no less
true that if not for the work of those who built up the new Jewish
life in Palestine, there would have been no inspiring force behind the
propaganda of Zionism, and no solid basis for its organization.
CHAPTER L.
ZIONISM IN FRANCE
David Wolffsohn――France――_M._ Léon Bourgeois――Michel Erlanger
――Zadoc Kahn――Baron Edmond _de_ Rothschild――Professor Joseph
Halévy――Dr. Emil Meyersohn――Dr. Waldemar Haffkine――The
brothers Marmorek――Bernard Lazare.
IN its early years the new Zionist movement showed perhaps
insufficient appreciation of the importance of Palestinian colonizing
work. Its attention was turned mainly in another direction, that of
paving the way for a great resettlement of the Jewish people by the
creation of favourable political conditions; and the plodding and
often blundering work of the _Chovevé Zion_ seemed to some of its
leaders and many of their followers to be poor, petty and uninspiring
by comparison with the wide sweep and the brilliance of their own
ideal. But as time went on, and it became obvious that in the main
the new movement must look for support to those who had worked for the
same end as “Lovers of _Zion_,” the necessary adjustment between the
new and the older methods had to be made; and the internal history of
Zionism since 1897 is one of the penetration of _Chovevé Zion_ ideas
into the large framework created by the master-mind of Herzl under
the stress of ideas somewhat different. It is not our intention to
trace this history here¹ (Appendix lxxxi): we are concerned less with
the inner history of the movement than with its repercussions in the
literature and the politics of England and France. It may suffice to
say that the Congresses, held first annually and afterwards biennially,
attracted an ever-growing number of delegates and an ever-increasing
amount of attention; that in its early years the movement established
a Jewish National Fund for the purpose of buying land in Palestine on
a great scale, and a financial instrument, the Jewish Colonial Trust,
which in turn founded the Anglo-Palestine Company for the conduct of
actual banking business in Palestine (Appendix lxxxii); that after the
death of Herzl in 1904, and the rejection of the offer by the British
Government of a piece of territory in East Africa, there developed a
somewhat serious fissure between the two tendencies in the movement,
the one looking to political activity and the other to Palestinian
colonization as the right line of progress; that Herzl’s friend
and follower, David Wolffsohn (1856‒1914) (Appendix lxxxiii), who
succeeded him as President, was able by a rare combination of gifts to
hold the movement together during the period of crisis; that after the
Turkish Revolution in 1908, which seemed to make political activity
impossible or useless, there was a marked concentration of effort
on Palestinian development; that meanwhile the Zionist organization
spread to the four corners of the globe, and societies and federations
were formed not only in every country in Europe, but also in all parts
of the British Dominions, and particularly in the United States of
America; and that the outbreak of war found the movement in a position
to point both to a large membership――about a quarter of a million――and
to substantial achievements in Palestine in support of its claim for
the definite reconstitution of the Jews as a nation in their ancient
land.
¹ For a general history of the movement see _Zionism_, by
Prof. R. Gottheil (Jewish Publication Society of America,
Philadelphia, 1914).
Illustration: DAVID WOLFFSOHN
We turn from this brief summary to the impression made by the new
movement in France and in England.
In France, where there had always been statesmen and writers who
had a proper understanding of the Zionist idea, the most notable
pronouncement from a non-Jewish source came from M. Léon Bourgeois,
one of the greatest French statesmen of the present generation. His
views, as imparted to Baroness Bertha _von_ Suttner (1843‒1914), were
published by her in 1899:――¹
¹ Zionisten und Christen ... Emil Kronberger ... Leipzig ...
1900. _pp._ 117‒119.
“Bourgeois held forth to me enthusiastically and explained the
various reasons why according to his view the movement should be
supported. Complete assimilation――not altogether impossible after
a long time――looms still in the far distance; until then very many
individuals――if they do not break away――must suffer. The individual
is still everywhere the highest consideration, collectivism is only
an abstract conception. Until now the Jews have been too strongly
differentiated from their surroundings to assimilate without being
noticed. They are recognizable for their shortcomings as well as for
their most outstanding virtues. Difference does not mean inferiority;
no one will allow himself to be insulted because he belongs to this
or that ethnical group. To be a Zionist means to make a stand against
anti-Semitism. The people among whom they live are even more injured
by Jew-hatred than the Jews; it is opposed to culture, and prevents
the realization of the ideal of peace. Culture happily unites all
its objects more closely and aims at an unattainable ideal, but all
good works are directed towards paving the way to future success.
Therefore every fresh sign of energy is welcome. From a nation newly
reconstituted, full of energy, and composed of such intelligent,
capable and talented elements, an increase in the general work of
culture may be expected. Therefore Zionism is to be encouraged. It
is self-understood that the first necessity is to bring relief to a
persecuted and unfortunate people. But I wish to clear up this side
of the question, which belongs to the future; to bring forward such
arguments as are debated. In our Chauvinistic circles, the following
argument will be brought forward: Let us be glad that in the Jews we
possess a cosmopolitan element; that the scholar, the artist and the
thinker amongst them work and create without reference to national
ideas. But that kind of argument is false, because to be cosmopolitan,
to recognize that the interests of humanity outweigh those of one’s
fatherland, or still more to understand this, one must, before all
things, have a fatherland.”
What is remarkable about these views is their similarity in some
respects to those expressed in 1866 by Moses Hess in his _Rom und
Jerusalem_. Hess, though himself a German Jew writing in German,
connected Zionism with the political rôle of France. He regarded the
French Revolution as one of the great events that were to prepare the
restoration of Israel, and therefore he looked to France for help.
France had extended her protection to the Roman Catholics of Syria,
and was the _beau idéal_ and the _avant courier_ of human progress.
The renationalization of humanity was his aim. He realized the
distinctiveness of the Jew. He said that Jews and Germans were as the
poles asunder in thought and conceptions of life, and the logic of
history and the necessities of humanity made him plead for _Zion_ to
be restored. Nature’s economy, he said, demands that the Jew should
lead his own life, in his own fashion, and in his own country. He
pleaded in the first place for a reaction against Hellenistic theories
of life: to him family life was sacred; the mother’s love was the
real sacred source of Jewish persistence, because it was spiritual yet
not unreal. From the family to the nation was but a step; the family
should possess in the individual what the nation should uphold in the
mass. He attacked most scornfully the German-Jewish Reform movement,
not because he was of the ultra-orthodox school, but because there
had been no real Reformation in Judaism. He believed in the upholding
of traditional observances not because of their religious utility,
but because they were expressive of the Jewish nation, because many
of them link us to the remote past. Seeing the gradual disappearance
of the little groups of emancipated Jews, and the great misery of the
bulk of the Jewish people, he watched most jealously and anxiously
over their destiny, desiring to preserve their original purity and
ancestral dignity. “The Jew should live his own life,” said Hess:
“Welcome to all fresh and sound symptoms of energy,” said Bourgeois.
It is the same idea, bespeaking the same sense of humanity and real
equality.
As regards the Jews of France, we have already shown how real were the
Zionist sympathies of the leaders of the “Alliance” in the sixties.
Their successors did not fall below them in this respect. Thus Michel
Erlanger (1828‒1892), an active member of the Central Committee of
the “Alliance” and Vice-President of the “_Consistoire_” _de Paris_,
promoted most energetically the colonization of Palestine. It was to a
great extent through his invitation that Baron Edmond _de_ Rothschild
came to assist the colonies. The success of the Baron’s undertakings
was largely due to Erlanger’s knowledge of the localities and their
conditions, to his practical understanding and to the energy which
he brought to bear upon the work, inspired by a love for the sacred
cause which triumphed over difficulties. His practical mind saw that
the Holy Land was far better suited than any other country to be a
real home for the Jew. We have already mentioned the Grand _Rabbin_ of
France, M. Zadoc Kahn, in connection with the first Zionist Congress.
No man played a more important part in the early colonization of
Palestine than this admirable spiritual leader, with his great
strength of character, personal influence and immense popularity. A
man of great dignity and wisdom, a fine personality in the noblest
sense of the term, he helped all undertakings in favour of Palestine.
All the Palestinian deputations, and those from other countries with
schemes for the benefit of Palestine, addressed themselves to him; all
their cares and troubles fell upon his shoulders. He was engaged in
this herculean task for some years, and rendered invaluable service
to the work of colonization. And there was always at Paris a group of
influential supporters of the Palestinian idea. Besides Baron Edmond
_de_ Rothschild, the great benefactor of Palestine, there were the
famous scholar, Professor Joseph Halévy (1827‒1918), who was already
half a century ago one of the pioneers of a _Hebrew_ Revival in the
East; Dr. Waldemar Mordecai Wolff Haffkine, C.I.E., member of the
Institut Pasteur, who afterwards made a great name for himself by his
important medical work in India; and Dr. Emil Meyersohn (at present
one of the directors of the Jewish Colonization Association), an
eminent scholar who, thanks to his exceptional experience, was able
to reorganize the old system of colonization in Palestine.
Thus French Jewry has never been the impregnable citadel of
assimilation which it is sometimes represented as being. Herzl’s
movement evoked a response in quarters which hitherto had been
strangers to the Palestinian idea; and though a fusion between the old
and the new Zionists was not effected for some time, yet essentially
the two sections stood for one and the same thing. The new Zionist
organization gained its footing in France through the formation, soon
after the first Congress, of the “_Fédération Sioniste_,” the chief
pillar of which was, of course, Max Nordau.
Dr. Alexander Marmorek, a well-known physician, and one of the most
prominent Zionists since the very beginning of the movement, was
for several years President of the Federation. Alexander and his
two brothers Oscar and Isidore were the principal advocates of the
national idea in academic circles. The youthful career of Isidore was
unhappily cut short by death. Oscar (1863‒1910) worked for a number
of years with Herzl, but an untimely death robbed the movement of him
also. The most gifted and most enthusiastic of the three brothers is
still active in the movement. These leaders of French Zionism were
assisted by the late M. Berr, Mdlle. Marie Schach, Dr. Jacobsohn, Dr.
Nahum Slousch, and others.
Special notice is due to one of the first followers of Herzl――Bernard
Lazare (1856‒1904).¹
¹ His name was Lazare Bernard.
Born at Nîmes, Bernard Lazare left his native place at an early
age and came to Paris. He studied paleography and history at the
Sorbonne, and was engaged for a time on archæological work, but soon
entered upon a literary and journalistic career. He contributed to
the _Figaro_, the _Echo de Paris_ and other dailies, founded _L’Action
Sociale_, issued a pamphlet about the Panama affair and was the author
of a few novels. The publication of his _L’Antisémitisme, son histoire
et ses causes_ led to a duel with Edouard Drumout.
Lazare was the pioneer of the agitation which led to the release
of Captain Alfred Dreyfus; his pamphlets on the _affaire_ were
undoubtedly the primary causes of the revision. Another subject
in which he was deeply interested was the condition of the Jews
in Roumania. He repeatedly raised his voice on their behalf in the
leading reviews, in that clear, incisive style which was his own. He
was also an enthusiastic adherent of Herzl and an ardent Zionist. He
came back to national Judaism after all his achievements for humanity
in the Socialist movement and in the literature and politics of his
great country, and became an eloquent champion of the new Jew. A clear
thinker and a gifted writer, he contributed brilliant Zionist articles
to the _Flambeau_ and the _Echo Sioniste_. It was surprising how
this real French patriot and intellectual came to lay bare his Jewish
soul and Jewish individuality, and with what power of conviction he
defended the immutable rights of this individuality.
“Le Sionisme,” he wrote in 1900, “c’est l’affirmation de notre
personalité. Nous avons confiance en nous mêmes, en notre génie, en
notre destin pour être dignes de notre passé.... Nous ne serions pas
dignes de notre passé, si notre histoire ne nous inspirait des pensées
pour l’avenir et si nous ne comprendrions pas qu’il faut que nous
ayons un foyer, un centre pour former notre univers, si grand ou
petit qu’il soit, à l’image de notre idéal, de notre civilization,
de notre pensée et de notre sensibilité. C’est la véritable solution
du problème. Nous ne voulons pas l’absorption et l’anéantissement, la
disparition, la paix du cimetière, la mort sans phrase. Pour hurter
avec les loups――est-ce-que c’est notre mission? Non. Nous réclamons
notre titre à nous d’être un ouvrier utile dans le grand atelier
de l’humanité. Notre rôle déjà grand, grandira encore. Ce sera la
triomphe du droit sur la force brutale, du droit de l’individuelle
personne humaine et des collectives personnes qui sont les nations.
On a beau dire que puisqu’il y a certaines groups des israélites
denationalisés, la nation n’existe plus. Mais ces petits groupes ne
comptent pour rien. Il y a un peuple juif qui compte, c’est la grande
majorité, ceux qui ont un passé et des traditions dont ils sont fiers
et dont ils ont la garde.”¹
¹ Le National Juif, Paris, 1898.
M. Lazare displayed a warm interest in the various questions of
Zionism, and always took a national and democratic view. Though
shortly before his death he retired from Zionist activity on account
of a difference of opinion between himself and Herzl on a point of
tactics with regard to Turkey (Lazare proposed an alliance with the
Young Turks), he remained a convinced Zionist. He will live in Jewish
memory much more as a Zionist than as a “Dreyfusard.” His death in
1904 was an irreparable loss to Zionism in France.
CHAPTER LI.
ZIONISM IN ENGLAND
The first leaders――Herzl before the Royal Commission on
Immigration――The East Africa offer――Death of Herzl――Holman
Hunt――Report of United States Consul at Beirut on Zionism
――Lord Robert Cecil――The Palestine Exploration Fund――Colonel
Conder――Lord Gwydyr――Zionism and the Arab question.
WE turn now to England, where the Zionist idea continued to find
influential support after the foundation of the new movement.
Dr. Herzl’s appreciation of the importance of England for Zionism may
be illustrated by quotations from two of his letters:――
“VIENNA, _Feb. 28th_.
“MR. CHAIRMAN,――My friends in England know how much I feel
drawn towards them, and how much I expect from them for the
work common and dear to all of us. From the first moment I
entered the movement my eyes were directed towards England,
because I saw that by reason of the general situation of
things there, that it was the Archimedean point where the
lever could be applied....
“THEODOR HERZL.
“To the Chairman of the English Zionist Conference.”¹
¹ Zionist Conference held at the Clerkenwell Town Hall on
March 6th, 1898. Report of Proceedings. London ... 1898.
_p._ 22. (8º. 94 _pp._ in printed wrapper. [B. M.]) Special
number of Palestina. The _Chovevé Zion_ Quarterly.
Again, in a letter to Viscount Milner, dated January 3, 1903, he
wrote:――
“All the freedom and equality of rights of the British Jews, the
happy situation even of foreign Jews in the British Colonies, and the
humane protection which England’s Government grants, by their protests
against the persecution of our brethren, all this is a bond which
unites us all closely to your glorious nation.... Some day, we shall
be able to prove our gratitude to Great and Greater Britain.”
England was made, almost as a matter of course, the home of the
financial institutions of Zionism: the Jewish National Fund, the
Jewish Colonial Trust and the Anglo-Palestine Company are registered
as English Companies. Hence English Zionists have had a position and
an influence in the movement which would hardly have been warranted
on the ground of mere numbers. Conditions have, however, been
unfavourable to any rapid growth of the organization in this country.
The official Jewish community, with its rather parochial view, long
looked askance at Zionism, and until quite recent years those who
followed Herzl have been a minority struggling hard against a vast
amount of prejudice and of indifference. None the less, such English
Zionists as Dr. M. Gaster (_Haham_ of the Spanish and Portuguese
Congregations), Herbert Bentwich, Joseph Cowen, L. J. Greenberg and
Israel Zangwill (who left the movement after some years to found
the Jewish Territorial Organization) have played a prominent part in
shaping Zionist policy; and more recently, as we have remarked above,
a group of younger men has come forward.
If Herzl had the intuition as to the importance of England, it
may fairly be said that England more rapidly than any other Power
recognized the significance of Herzl’s movement. The holding of the
fourth Congress in London in 1900 evoked a great deal of favourable
comment in the English Press (Appendix lxxxiv). And more official
recognition was not wanting. In 1902 Herzl was invited to give
evidence before the Royal Commission on Immigration. That fact alone
sufficiently indicates that the title of Zionism to a voice on a
question affecting large masses of Jews was accepted in England, even
in those early days of the movement, as a matter of course. But a
still more striking recognition of Zionism on the part of the British
Government was to follow before long.
In October, 1902, the Executive of the Zionist Organization entered
into negotiations with the British Government for part of the _Sinai_
Peninsula to be granted to the Jews with powers of self-government.
These negotiations broke down owing to certain stipulations on the
part of the Egyptian Government, and the Colonial Office then made the
Zionists an offer of territory in British East Africa. The terms of
this offer are contained in a letter of the 14th August, 1903, to Mr.
L. J. Greenberg in regard “to the form of an agreement which Dr. Herzl
proposes should be entered into between His Majesty’s Government and
the Jewish Colonial Trust, Ltd., for the establishment of a Jewish
settlement in East Africa.” The letter states that the Marquis of
Lansdowne (then Foreign Minister) “has studied the question with
the interest which His Majesty’s Government must always take in
any well-considered scheme for the amelioration of the position of
the Jewish race.... If a site can be found which the Trust and H.M.
Commission find suitable, Lord Lansdowne will be prepared to entertain
favourably proposals for the establishment of a Jewish colony or
settlement on conditions which will enable the members to observe
their national customs ... the scheme comprising as its main features
the grant of a considerable area of land, the appointment of a Jewish
Official as the chief of the local administration, and permission
to the colony to have a free hand in regard to municipal legislation
as to the management of religious and purely domestic matters, such
local autonomy being conditional upon the right of H.M. Government to
exercise general control.” This announcement gave rise to considerable
excitement in the Zionist camp. The most ardent Zionists believed that
it meant that Zionism was to give up its efforts for the acquisition
of Palestine and to regard the settlement in East Africa as its goal,
and they accordingly, and rightly, opposed this presumed alteration
of the original programme. Others maintained that this alteration
was never contemplated. British East Africa was not to take the place
of Palestine, but only to serve as a place of temporary refuge for
those unfortunate Jews who, under the horrible conditions imposed
upon them, could not live in the unfriendly countries of their birth,
and wait there until Palestine became a Jewish country. After most
exciting debates, the Sixth Congress finally adopted a proposal to
express the thanks of the Jewish people to the British Government
for its magnanimous offer, which was unique in history, and to send
a commission of experts to East Africa to investigate the territory.
Even this tentative acceptance of the scheme in principle was bitterly
opposed by a large section of delegates, especially those from
Russia, who viewed with profound distrust any deviation from the
pure Palestinian programme. The Commission of enquiry started on its
journey towards the end of the year 1904, and in May, 1905, presented
its report, which was not favourable enough to justify Zionist action
for the purpose of establishing a Jewish colony. The death of Herzl
had taken place in the meantime (3rd July, 1904).
The British East Africa offer not only precipitated a crisis within
Zionism, but also――and herein lies its significance――raised Zionism
to the rank of a political movement of international importance, and
demonstrated the interest of the British Government in a solution of
the Jewish problem. But after this brilliant success circumstances
brought it about that the movement had virtually to leave for a time
the political arena into which Herzl had taken it, and to concentrate
on the strengthening of its organization and the development of the
Jewish holding in Palestine. The results achieved in both fields have
amply compensated Zionism for the comparative absence of _réclame_
and of more sensational triumphs. It is, indeed, largely thanks to the
quiet constructive work of the ten years preceding the outbreak of war,
that the movement is to-day in a position to assert with confidence
its claim to a hearing in the peace settlement.
Meanwhile, however, the opportunity was lacking for any further
co-operation between the British Government and Zionism. This was
partly due to the course taken by British policy in the Near East,
with which we shall deal in the next chapter. But there was no
diminution of the sympathy shown by English thinkers and writers for
the Zionist idea. We quote here a few characteristic utterances of
this later period, the period of Zionism in its modern form.
As early as 1896 Holman Hunt, the famous painter, advocated the
Zionist idea in its most radical form, that of a Jewish state in
Palestine. A contribution to the columns of the _Jewish Chronicle_, 21
February, 1896, _p._ 9, entitled “Mr. Holman Hunt on the Resettlement
of the Jews in Palestine,” contains a letter addressed by him from
Draycott Lodge, Fulham, Jan. 6th, 1896, to an eminent Jew, which
expresses ideas similar in every way to those of Dr. Herzl. He saw
looming in the distance an approaching war “which would entail the
destruction and maiming of countless legions of the choicest men
of the noble races of the civilised world, and with this would come
the disappearance of wealth, and the ruin of the richest....” “He
sought a remedy against the impending evil, and was led to suggest
the restoration of Palestine to the Jews, both for the sake of the
advantages which would accrue to the Jews themselves and in order to
remove a bone of contention out of the way of the European Powers.”
“Palestine will soon become a direful field of contention to the
infernally armed forces of the European Powers, so that it is
calculated to provoke a curse to the world of the most appalling
character. Russia and Greece will contend for the interests of the
Greek Church, France and Italy for the Latin, Prussia and Austria
for the German political interests.... In addition to the above-named
certain contenders for Palestine, there would be England....” Holman
Hunt spoke like a prophet, though not in every detail.
Nor was the actual colonizing work in Palestine without recognition in
the English Press:――¹
¹ _The Times_, Monday, May 8, 1899, p. 12.
_Jewish Colonies in Palestine_
The United States Consul at Beirut, in a report which has lately been
issued by the Department of State in Washington, (on) the condition of
the numerous Jewish colonies in Palestine.... The Consul thinks that,
whether the Zionist movement succeeds in its special aim or not, the
agitation aids in the development of Palestine――a country “which will
generously respond to modern influences....” The Zionist movement,
also, is said to be bringing out new qualities in the Jews inhabiting
the country; they are ... beginning to act on the principle that “to
till the ground is to worship God.”... On the whole, the Consul thinks
“the prospects are brighter than ever for the Jews in Palestine and
for Palestine itself. European influence has obtained a foothold in
the country, and the tide of modern ideas cannot be long debarred.”
It may be added that during the Parliamentary Elections of 1900 the
English Zionist Federation addressed to all candidates a letter asking
for an expression of sympathy with Zionism, and between ninety and a
hundred replies were received, the great majority of an exceedingly
favourable nature; and that in 1906 Lord Robert Cecil wrote: “The
central idea underlying the Zionist movement seems to me worthy of all
support. Apart from all other considerations, it appears to me that
the restoration of the Jewish nation offers a satisfactory solution,
if it can be accomplished, of those problems raised by Jewish
emigration, which are otherwise very difficult of adjustment.”
Naturally, the Palestine Exploration Fund had done a great deal to
keep alive interest in Palestine among Englishmen; and some at least
of those who worked for it were outspoken supporters of the Jewish
national idea. Prominent among these is Colonel C. R. Conder, who
devoted practically the whole of his life to the exploration of the
Holy Land, part of which he surveyed as far back as 1875. He not only
wrote a series of valuable books on Palestine from the standpoint of
the investigator; he did not fail when opportunity offered to identify
himself with Zionist views as to the future of the land. He saw in the
Zionists the natural leaders to whom the destitute and oppressed Jews
turn for counsel and guidance, and recognized that “a nation without
a country must be content with toleration as all that it can expect.”
Englishmen, he said, should be “only too glad to see Palestine
increasing in civilization and prosperity as an outpost in the
neighbourhood of Egypt” (Appendix lxxxv).
Finally, something must be said as to the views put forward by Lord
Gwydyr (1841‒1915) with regard to the relations between Jews and Arabs
(Appendix lxxxvi). In suggesting that Palestine can become Jewish
without any disadvantage to the Arabs, and that in fact the Jews,
being themselves a combination of East and West, are alone capable
of helping the Arabs to take their old place in civilization, Lord
Gwydyr is expressing precisely the sentiments of Zionists themselves.
Zionism has never desired to use its influence to the disadvantage
of non-Jews in Palestine. Its hope is that there will come a day when
even the Chauvinists among the Arabs, whose number is, happily, quite
insignificant compared with the noise that they sometimes cause, will
change their unfriendly policy, and that Jews and Arabs will work
together for the civilization of the East.
It is true that some English authorities are rather pessimistic as to
the possibilities of an Arab administration. One of the best-qualified
students of the Eastern question says:――
“Bad as Turkish government is according to our standards, native Arab
government, when not in tutelage to Europeans, has generally proved
itself worse, when tried in the Ottoman area in modern times. Where it
is of a purely Bedouin barbaric type, as in the countries of Central
Arabia, it does well enough; but if the population be contaminated
ever so little with non-Arab elements, practices or ideas, Arab
administration seems incapable of producing effective government. It
has had trials in the Holy Cities at intervals, and for longer periods
in the Yemen. But a European, long resident in the latter country, who
has groaned under Turkish administration, where it has always been the
most oppressive, bore witness that the rule of the native Imam only
served to replace oppressive government by oppressive anarchy.”
The same author writes concerning the Arab movement:――
“The peoples of the Arab part of the Ottoman Empire are a congeries of
differing races, creeds, sects and social systems, with no common bond
except language. The physical character of their land compels a good
third of them to be nomadic, predatory barbarians, feared by the other
two-thirds. The settled folk are divided into Moslem and Christian,
the cleavage being more abrupt than in Western Turkey, and the
traditions and actual spirit of mutual enmity more separative. Further,
each of these main divisions is subdivided. Even Islam in this region
includes a number of incompatible sects, such as the Ansariyeh, the
Matavcle and the Druses in the Syrian mountains; Shiite Arabs on the
Gulf Coast and the Persian border.... The ‘Arab Movement’ up to the
present has consisted of little more than talk and journalistic
comment.”
But we do not take this pessimistic view. We are inclined to give much
more credit to Arab capacity, and while we admit that the Arab problem
is a serious one, we believe that it can and will be solved.
And as to the alleged rivalry between Jewish and Arab claims we may
quote the opinion of an Arab authority, M. Farid Kassab, as to the
Jewish colonization of Palestine:――
“Nous avons vu de très près les Juifs en Palestine, nous les avons
observés et nous pouvons tranquilliser l’inquiet Azoury¹ et son Église.
Ils ne songent pas à former un empire, à batailler contre les Arabes,
à arracher aux chrétiens un caverne ou un tombeau, devenus pour
quelques-uns l’unique objet du culte, pour d’autres, les fourbes, un
moyen de vivre dans l’abondance et l’oisivité....
¹ One of the opponents of Zionism.
“Les Juifs en Orient sont chez eux; cette terre devient leur unique
patrie; ils n’en connaissent pas d’autres.... Ils ne l’exploitent pas
dans l’oisivité pour des intentions absurdes, comme les congrégations
cléricales, ... Ceux-là sont de vrais brigands et de vrais accapareurs
avec leurs couvents, leurs hôtelleries et leurs domaines....
“Si les juifs et les indigènes avec l’aide du gouvernement ottoman
réussissent à rendre à la Palestine un peu de son ancienne splendeur,
... ils recevront néanmoins les remerciements de l’histoire et des
génération futures.”¹
¹ ♦Le Nouvel Empire Arab et la Curie Romaine et le prétendu
péril juif universal. Résponse à M. N[edjib] Azoury bey
(_i.e._ to his book “Le reveil de la nation arabe”). Par
Farid Kassab. Paris ... 1906. (8º. 2 _ll._ + 47 _pp._ in
printed wrapper), _pp._ 42‒3, 5.
♦ Since this was a quote, none of the words or accents were
corrected.
CHAPTER LII.
BRITISH POLICY IN THE NEAR EAST
The Russo-Turkish War, 1877‒78――The Turkish Revolution
――Disappointed hopes――Jewish colonization and British
commercial interests in Palestine.
IN dealing with the political events of 1839‒40, 1855‒56 and 1860‒61,
we have attempted to show that Great Britain has always stood for the
regeneration of the Near East――an idea of which political Zionism is
an expression, inasmuch as it aims at introducing into the Near East a
new civilizing and harmonizing force in the shape of a revived Hebrew
nation. If we review the events in connection with the next Near
Eastern crisis, that of 1877‒78, we shall find that the guiding idea
of British policy was the same.
On April 24th, 1877, Russia declared war against Turkey. After a war
of eight to nine months, Russia had approached Constantinople. The
treaty of San Stefano was signed on March 3rd, 1878, but it had to
be submitted to the European Powers for revision, and to that end the
European Powers met in Congress at Berlin on June 13th, 1878, where
the whole San Stefano Treaty was to be discussed. Some days before the
Congress met――on the 4th of June――a separate convention was concluded
between Great Britain and Turkey, under which Great Britain agreed
for all time to defend the Asiatic dominions of the Ottoman Empire
“by force of arms,” and in return the Sultan, Abdul Hamid, promised
to introduce all necessary reforms, as agreed upon with his ally, and
to hand over the island of Cyprus for occupation and administration
by England at an annual tribute. This convention with Turkey was one
of the most important measures of foreign policy which have ever been
resolved upon by a British Government. It was a victory, won without
bloodshed by English policy, on the Eastern Question. Cyprus is the
nearest island to the Suez Canal. At that time England had no position
in Egypt close to the Canal itself, and for many reasons the taking
of Egyptian territory was impracticable: hence the possession of
Cyprus was attended with special advantages. But the possession of
Cyprus could not be dissociated from the pledges given by Turkey and
the responsibilities taken on by Great Britain with regard to the
Asiatic provinces. It was clear that the Asiatic provinces could
not be rescued from misrule except by Western agency, and that it
was necessary for English authority to be on the spot. Cyprus was
considered the best station that could be chosen for such a purpose.
The Porte was expected to develop the vast natural resources of its
Asiatic Empire, or, at least, to allow that task to be accomplished
by others. The Marquess of Salisbury (1830‒1903) made that clear in
words of undiplomatic plainness when he stated that the protection
of England must depend on the readiness of the Porte “to introduce
the necessary reform into the government of the Christians and other
subjects of the Porte.” The Jews no less than the Christians and
the more enlightened and progressive Mohammedans of the East looked
to England for a sort of political and economic renaissance. The
occupation of Cyprus brought England into the neighbourhood of
Palestine, and made England in the eyes of Zionists the most important
Western European power in connection with Palestine.
The same idea guided British policy with regard to Egypt.
In 1882, an early year of Gladstone’s government, Egyptian affairs
were growing rapidly worse. On June 11th armed revolt broke out
in Alexandria. On July 30th the British Cabinet decided to take
action. The Porte was informed by our Ambassador at Constantinople,
the Marquess of Dufferin and Ava (1826‒1902), that Great Britain
considered that on her was laid the duty of restoring order in
Egypt, and of safeguarding the Suez Canal. The services of a Turkish
army corps were declined. On August 16th Sir Garnet (afterwards
Viscount) Wolseley (1833‒1913) landed at Alexandria, and in September
the revolt ended. Major Baring (afterwards the Earl of Cromer)
(1841‒1917) was sent to Egypt as British Agent and Consul-General, in
order to assume supreme control of Egyptian foreign and home affairs,
by means of which peace and stability were eventually to be restored
to Egypt, the country was to be freed from external oppression, and
internal prosperity such as she had not known for many centuries was
to be secured. The real mission of Great Britain was to restore to
Egypt a stable Government, which, like that of India, would lead to
a just and wise administration of the country. To pretend that such
an administration could be developed out of the existing conditions,
by giving Egypt a sound constitution by means of the ballot-box, was
to ignore the plainest facts of politics. Egypt’s one chance was to
procure a strong and permanent protectorate capable of shielding her
from rapacious influences from without and from the effects of the
political ignorance and weakness wrought within through centuries of
abject servility.
Thus throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century British
statesmen recognized that the only way to save the near East from
decay was to bring a stronger and more healthy influence to bear
upon the Turkish Government from without. The idea of a spontaneous
regeneration from within was always held to be inadmissible.
But early in the twentieth century events took place which seemed to
indicate that Turkey was going to solve her problems for herself. The
Turkish Revolution, 1908, marked a new epoch.
The overthrow of the autocracy and the establishment of constitutional
government in Turkey were greeted with enthusiasm in England,
where even the most advanced Radicals, the most voluble preachers
against “the unspeakable Turk,” had entirely stopped “their flow
of depreciation.” And on the other side, nothing was so significant
and gratifying during the rejoicings which followed the announcement
of the Constitution in Turkey as the spontaneous demonstrations of
national enthusiasm for Great Britain. Everybody had long been aware
that all sections of the Levant populace were filled with friendly
feelings towards England, and that different races of the Empire
regarded her as their special champion. But in their most sanguine
moments Englishmen could not have anticipated such impressive
demonstrations as were witnessed in every quarter of the Turkish
capital. This friendly feeling was important not only from the
political but also from the commercial point of view. For many years
past the extension of British commerce in Turkey had been slow; the
openings for the development of trade had not been numerous. But under
a progressive and friendly Government, bent on setting its house in
order and raising Turkey to the rank of a great Power, such drawbacks
must immediately disappear.
Unfortunately, the cordial relations at first established between
Great Britain and the new Turkey did not endure. British policy took
on a different orientation, and Turkey came under other influences.
Of the more far-reaching effects of this development it is not
within our province to speak. But from the Zionist point of view it
was undoubtedly a great misfortune that Great Britain seemed to be
abandoning her traditional policy of working for the regeneration
of the Near East through the maintenance of friendly relations with
Turkey. For the promise of spontaneous internal reform, which was
held out for a time by the Turkish revolution, was not fulfilled, and
Zionist effort in Palestine, which might have received an enormous
impetus, was doomed to struggle on against the obstacles imposed by
the inertia and corruptness of a Turkish Government scarcely differing
from the old autocracy except in its greater chauvinism.
None the less, it is a fact that the great growth of Palestinian
commerce which has accompanied the progress of the Jewish settlement
is due mainly to increased trade with the United Kingdom and British
possessions. The Consular Reports (Appendix lxxxvii) show that the
exports from the _Jaffa_ district amounted to £636,000; over £480,000
worth went to England or Egypt. Thus the Jewish colonization movement
has helped in some degree to advance British commercial interests in
the Near East.
CHAPTER LIII.
THE PRINCIPLES OF ZIONISM
Palestine as the Homeland――The rebirth of Jewish civilization
――The security of public law――The aims of Political Zionism
――A modern Commonwealth for the Jewish people.
WE are afraid that some readers may feel a certain disappointment at
the absence in this book of any formulation of what they would call
“definite demands” in respect to Palestine. They may have expected
a detailed scheme, showing what political conditions are proposed,
whether “autonomy” is demanded or certain “privileges,” and so forth.
These details are of course very important, and will have to be
considered in the near future. But we do not enter into them here
for several reasons. In the first place, our aim has been mainly
historical. We have been concerned with the past, and to some extent
with the present, and any predictions with regard to the future would
be out of place. Secondly, the precise nature of the measures that
will be taken to realize Zionist aims must necessarily depend upon
the future political position of Palestine. An arrangement that would
suit one set of circumstances would be quite impossible in another.
It is, therefore, useless to conjecture anything in advance. And,
thirdly――and this is the most important consideration――the form of the
scheme is, to our mind, a secondary matter. When once the principle
of Zionism is ♦accepted――the principle of _a Homeland for the Jewish
people_――the adoption of the best means for carrying out its object
will follow.
♦ “acepted” replaced with “accepted”
We do, however, derive from history and experience certain conclusions
as to the way in which the aim of Zionism can be achieved. These
conclusions may be summarized as follows:――
I. The Homeland of the Jewish people must be in Palestine.
II. Palestine can and must be made capable of fulfilling its function
by the method of patient colonization.
III. The security of public law――that is, of the recognition of the
rightful claim of the Jewish people to regenerate Palestine and itself
through Palestine――is a necessary condition of success.
As to the first point, experience has sufficiently shown that the Jew
as colonist and as pioneer is at home only in Palestine. More or less
successful attempts at settling Jews on the land have been made in the
Argentine and elsewhere; but none of these settlements has any vital
significance for Jewry at large. Their value begins and ends with the
individuals who take part in them. With the Palestinian settlement
it is quite otherwise. The heart of the Jewish people responds to the
efforts of the Palestinian settlers: it recognizes in them not merely
a number of individuals, but its own representatives, the vanguard
of its struggle towards a new life. That is a natural consequence of
the place which Palestine has held for centuries in the Jewish scheme
of things. Opponents of Zionism have sometimes tried to reconcile
conflicting points of view by admitting that “Palestine is not worse
than any other country,” and that, therefore, “Jews should not be
oppressed there,” and that “if there is a chance for colonization it
should be taken.” But this is like telling a man that his mother is
no worse than any other woman, or that his language is no worse than
any other language. Such compromises cannot be seriously discussed.
If Palestine is anything to Jews, it is the Land of _Israel_. But is
Palestine capable of being the Land of _Israel_ in anything but an
ideal sense? and if so, how is this to be brought about?
We have come to think of Palestine as a barren land; but its apparent
barrenness is not to be attributed to defects of soil or climate,
as its productivity is in no degree impaired. The causes are the
scantiness of population, lack of industry, skill, ♦initiative
and intelligence, and the want of a local administrative system to
encourage the labour of husbandmen to productive activity. If these
obstacles were removed and a little exertion bestowed upon it the soil
would soon yield abundant crops of the richest grain, and plantations
of all kinds would flourish; the country still answers the description
given of it in days of old. A stronger proof of its fertility cannot
be adduced than the fact that the territory of Judæa alone, at one
period, brought into the field more than three hundred thousand, and
at another two hundred and four score thousand “mighty men of valour”
(2 Chron. xiv. 7). According to Flavius Josephus¹ (37‒95?), Galilee
alone had hundreds of towns and millions of inhabitants. Even if
we do not accept these as exact figures, there is undoubtedly room
for several millions of people in Palestine, particularly if the
Trans-_Jordanic_ regions are irrigated, the old roads repaired and the
projected railway lines constructed. There may be room in the future
even for several millions. The country only awaits repopulation and
reconstruction.
♦ “initative” replaced with “initiative”
¹ Joseph _ben_ Matthias.
This work of repopulation and reconstruction has already been begun
by Jews, who have created the nucleus of a flourishing settlement in
Palestine during the last thirty years. All this has to be expanded,
increased, developed and protected; but the basis is there, and the
lines of progress are sufficiently marked out. This is the way, and
there is no other. The Zionist Organization, the Baron Edmond _de_
Rothschild administration and the _Chovevé Zion_ are competent, by
virtue of their knowledge and their devotion to the work, to suggest
the necessary improvements. They alone know how much they have had
to suffer through all kinds of obstacles which impeded and delayed
development, through the absence of security in consequence of
disputed title deeds and inability to acquire landed property, through
exorbitant taxes and many other hindrances. Whatever has been done,
in spite of these hindrances, is nothing short of a miracle; and a
hundred times more could be done, and certainly would have been done,
had there been freedom and security. Given those necessary conditions,
the Jewish people could find in Palestine a real Homeland, where
it could live according to its own spirit and work out its own
civilization.
Now, the fundamental notion of civilization is that of a progressive
movement, of a gradual development from the less to the more perfect.
It suggests to us immediately the greatest activity and the best
possible organization of society, an organization calculated to
produce a continual increase of wealth and power and their proper
distribution among its members, so that their condition is kept
in a state of constant improvement. But great as is the influence
which a well-organized civil society must have upon the condition
of its members, the term civilization conveys something still more
comprehensive and more lofty than the mere perfection of social
relations in the economic sphere. In this other aspect the word
embraces the development of the intellectual and moral faculties of
man, of his feelings, his propensities, his natural capacities and
tastes. Civilization in both aspects has to be worked out by the Jews
in their own way. The rebuilding of a Home in the economic sense is
not the sole aim of Zionism. Living, national Judaism on historic
lines, expressing and asserting itself throughout the whole range of
human life, is the principal object of Zionist effort: to procure for
Jewish individuality the possibility of regaining harmony with itself,
and of reaching its highest possible perfection, like any other
national individuality, is an essential part of the Zionist programme.
In this sense Zionism means the rebirth of Jewish civilization (or, as
it is frequently termed, “culture”――“Jewish culture”).
Jews are not anxious to acquire military power; they reject and
condemn the idea of subjugating any other people. On the other hand,
they have grown tired of their rôle of a homeless Chosen People,
and would prefer to be a self-supporting “small nation,” with a
quiet spot of earth for themselves. They want to be united in an
organic community, to feel entirely at home, with their institutions,
congregations, societies, settlements, schools and with their national
language, literature and Press. That, neither more nor less, is what
Zionists look to as the goal of their efforts.
The only serious opposition to a return of the Jews to the Holy
Land――and here we come to our third point――is that which is based
upon the insecurity of political and economic conditions in Palestine.
Zionism, therefore, demands improvement in these respects.
But how is that improvement to be brought about? The answer is
supplied by Political Zionism, with its insistence on the security
of public law.
“Political” Zionism does not mean politics for politics’ sake,
nor does it mean state building as an end in itself. “Political”
Zionists know perfectly well that political recognition by itself
is nothing; one has to be on the spot to toil and to labour, to work
out one’s destiny, and without this systematic work all rights are
futile, all political combinations useless. The Jewish agriculturists,
working-men, artisans, teachers and artists who have gone to Palestine
to settle there, and those who are still to go, know better than all
the preachers of Jewish spirituality what the essence of the Jewish
character and aspirations should be and is: they not only know it,
they help to make it, in the highest sense of the word. They are Jews,
idealists, the People of the Book; all they seek for is life in peace.
Without practical work in Palestine Zionism would have been one of a
thousand futile political schemes, whereas now it is a solid national
movement, the colonies being its most powerful argument, even from
the strictly political point of view. But none the less some guarantee
of security is indispensable. It makes no difference whether we lay
more stress on culture or agriculture (the various activities have
to be judiciously combined and balanced); in practice the importance
of political and legal securities is too obvious to need particular
emphasis. The reader of this book will have realized that this idea
is no new-fangled invention of Zionism: it has been at the root of
the attitude of various Governments which for generations have been
occupied with the Near Eastern question. The innumerable schemes
of reform suggested by England, France and other Powers during last
century; the English projects of 1840; Great Britain’s protection
of the Jews in the East; Lord Shaftesbury’s proposals; Sir Moses
Montefiore’s negotiations with Mehemet Ali; the “Memorandum of the
European Monarchs” of 1840; the suggestions for reform after the
Crimean War――all these schemes and efforts, suggestions and demands
presupposed the point of view which is expressed in “political”
Zionism. The autonomy granted in 1860 to the Christians of the Lebanon,
owing to the efforts of England and France, was a scheme very similar
to that which Zionism contemplates for the Jews in Palestine. The idea
was much the same as that in the Basle Programme: security, guaranteed
by the Government of the country and other powers, for a successful
settlement and the free development of a particular section of the
population.
The Jewish settlers in Palestine will have to attach themselves to
the soil, and to build up the superstructure of a complete settlement
upon the model of their own ideas and spirit. In place of the existing
forty to fifty Jewish colonies, Zionism wants four hundred to five
hundred colonies. In place of the model town _Tel-Aviv_ Zionists want
a hundred _Tel-Avivs_. They want as many schools and libraries, a
University and factories and workshops. There is a clever saying:――
“_Narrative is linear, action is cubic._”
Happily, the stage of action has been entered in Palestine; we need
only action on a larger scale. And for this enlargement and extension
of its activities, for this colonization work which means the
reopening and regeneration of a neglected country, Zionism needs such
special facilities and protective measures as the Basle Programme
contemplates when it speaks of a home for the Jewish people secured
by public law. The formula may be varied, but the sense is abundantly
clear: it means such rights and assurances as will, in existing
conditions, help to lay the foundations of a modern Commonwealth for
the Jewish people.
It has been thought by many that a Chartered Company would be
the appropriate instrument for achieving this object; others have
thought of concessions to the Zionist Organization and its financial
institutions. But these questions of detail matter little at present.
The _form_ will be decided by general conditions; the _principle_ is
a Home secured as far as possible, and behind this again there is the
great and profound idea of the reunion of the Jewish Nation with its
nobler self. This idea has obtained currency and spread continually:
it has progressed outwardly and inwardly taken shape, and has
done more than any other idea to awaken and rekindle the powers
of the Jewish race. It is an impulse of the national soul towards
self-discovery and self-expression, and history testifies to the fact
that all genuine impulses of this kind have attained their object.
The quotations which we have brought together in this book show us
an unbroken chain of opinion that extends over several generations in
England and in France. Throughout we observe the same convergence of
ideal, practical and political reasons in support of the Zionist idea.
Zionism is, indeed, not less practical for being based on sentiment.
Englishmen have always been practical enough to be idealists, and
it is not surprising that Zionism has always met with the greatest
sympathy in England. This was the case even in the earlier stages
of the Zionist idea, when there was no clear programme and no real
activity. Now, when Zionism has a clear programme and has years
of activity behind it, English interest in Zionism naturally grows
stronger and deeper.
Zionism has, then, every reason to hope for the sympathy and support
of the most enlightened Powers in its effort to secure the conditions
necessary for the prosecution of its work in Palestine. But the
achievement of a political success with this or that Power must
never be mistaken for the real aim of Zionism. Its real aim is the
regeneration――physical, economic, moral――of the Jewish people. That
is a constructive task of the highest value from the point of view of
humanity, and those who set their hands to such a task need many high
qualities――patience and tenacity of purpose, experience and foresight.
Above all, they need the gifts of imagination and optimism, without
which no great object has ever been achieved. So at last the great day
will dawn, and the task of Zionism will be accomplished.
INDEX
[The Volumes are indicated by I and II respectively.]
Aaronsohn, Aaron, Palestinian agriculturist, I, 287; II, 141
Abdallah, Pasha of Acre, I, 73‒4
Abdul Aziz, Sultan, I, 171, 186
Abdul Hamid, Sultan, I, 259, 303;
a petition to, I, 231; II, xxxviii, 279‒81
Abdul Medjid, Sultan, I, 104, 107, 108, 150, 153, 180
Abela, Mr. P., British Vice-Consul, on trade of Haifa, II, 398
Aberdeen, Lord, and Sir Moses Montefiore, I, 117‒18
Aboab, Rabbi Isaac, I, 44, 45; II, 183‒4
Aboo, Samuel, on Palestinian agriculture, I, 115
Abrabanel (Dormido), David, I, 16‒17; II, 170 note 1
Abrabanel, Don Isaac, I, 18, 24‒6, 45 note; II, 170 note 1
Abrabanel, Jona, I, 44 note 5
Abrahams, Dr. Israel, II, 67;
on the British and Foreign Bible Society, II, 218
Abrahams, Sir Lionel, II, 67
♦Abramowitsch, S. J. _See_ Mendele Mocher Sepharim
♦ “Abramowitch” replaced with “Abramowitsch”
“Achad Ha’am” (U. Ginzberg), Hebrew thinker and essayist, I, 279,
280, 281, 285; II, 51, 293, 422, 425;
on Pinsker, I, 224‒5
Acher, Matthias. _See_ Birnbaum, Nathan
Achmet Pasha, of Damascus, I, 170
_Achuzah_ Company, the first London, II, 378‒9
Actions Committee, the Zionist, II, 359‒60
Adams, President John, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 59, 136
Addison, Joseph, on the influence of the Bible on English
Literature, I, 11
Adler, Dr. Cyrus, and the British Declaration, II, 136
Adler, Mr. Elkan N., I, xi‒xii, ♦22 note 1, 46; II, 62, 237‒8
♦ These 2 references are in Volume 1, not Volume 2
Adler, Hermann, II, xxxvii;
on the Jewish colonies in Palestine, I, 246‒7; II, 319, 321
Adler, Marcus N., II, 321
Adler, Nathan M., and Palestine Colonization, I, xii, 135;
II, xxxviii f., 237 ff., 306
Adrichomus, Christianus, I, 61
Ahmad Jazzâr, Pasha of Acre, I, 67 ff.
Ahroni, Dr., Palestinian zoologist, II, 316, 328
Akenside, Mark, I, 11
Akiba, Rabbi, I, 223
Aktuaryus, J. F., I, xxxix
Aleinikoff, M., Russian Zionist leader, II, 98, 283, 293
Alexander, Mr. David L., and Zionism, II, 61, 62, 69
Alexander, J. A., on the Restoration of Israel, I, 165
Alexander the Great, I, xxiii, 173
Alexander II., Tsar, I, 150, 217
Alexeieff, General, and Russian Zionist soldiers, II, 40
Algazi, Rabbi, of Jerusalem, I, 73, 77‒79
Algerian Jews, Emancipation of, I, 180‒1
Alkalai, Rabbi Jehouda, II, 297 note 1
Allenby, General, II, 85, 152‒3
_Alliance Israélite Universelle_, the, I, 112, 181 ff., 191 note 1,
202, 205, 249, 250, 262, 291; II, 262, 318‒24, 383
Alperin, II, 284
Alroy, David, I, 143‒4
Altmann, Jewish painter, II, 344
Ambrose, on Pythagoras and Jewish learning, I, 29
America, admission of Jews to, I, 49‒51;
the “Lovers of Zion” in, I, 241 ff.;
Zionism in, II, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 49, 79‒82, 133‒4, 355‒7
American Jewish Committee, the, on the British Declaration, II,
136‒7
American Jewry and Palestine, II, 39;
and War Relief Work, II, 37
American Zionist Medical Unit for Palestine, the, II, 131, 133 ff.
Amos, the prophet, and the Restoration of Israel, II, 163‒4
Amzulak, M. Haymen, British Consular Agent at Jaffa, II, 307‒8
Anaxagoras, quoted, I, 30
Anglo-Israelism, the theory of, II, 404
Anglo-Jewish Association, the, and Zionism, II, xxxix, 58 ff.,
318‒24
Anglo-Jewish Zionism, I, 115 ff.
Anglo-Levantine Banking Company, the, II, 374
Anglo-Palestine Company, the, I, 287, 288, 296; II, 373‒4
Annual Conference, the Zionist, II, xli, 360
Anspach, the Margravine of, I, 58
Anti-Semitism, I, 225‒6, 245, 290; II, xli;
and philo-Semitism, II, xxi
Anti-Socinus. _See_ Bayly, Rev. A.
Anti-Zionists, the, I, xx ff., 244‒6;
manifesto by, II, 58 ff.
Antokolski, Mark, II, 340, 346
Arab Question, the, I, 300‒2; II, 52, 107‒8, 109‒10, 121, 141,
392 ff.
Arama, Rabbi Isaac, I, 26
Argentine, Jewish Colonies in the, I, 258 ff.
Argyll, the Duke of, on the Earl of Shaftesbury, I, 121 note 1
el-Arish Expedition, the, II, xlv, 44
Aristotle, I, 27;
reputed to have been influenced by Jewish learning, I, 29
Armenian Question, the, I, 271; II, 19
Armenians and Jews, II, 107, 112, 116, 121
Arnold, Sir B., on Palestine, II, xlv‒xlvi
Arnold, Matthew, on the Old Testament, I, 3; II, 169
Arnold, Dr. Thomas, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 165
Aronovitz, M., Palestinian editor, II, 317, 387
Art, Jewish, and Zionism, I, 287; II, 333‒46
Artom, Benjamin, II, 140
Asch, Shalom, Hebrew and Yiddish writer, II, 316
Asher, Asher, I, 250
Asser, M. S., I, 81
Assimilation, Jewish school of, I, 128, 178, 254;
and English Jewry, I, 194‒5;
versus Zionism, I, 188 ff.;
Luzzatto on, II, 420
Athanasius, quoted, I, 28
Atlas, Eleasar, II, 315
Auberlen, Carl August, Swiss divine, on the Restoration of Israel,
I, 164
Auerbach, the brothers Elias and Israel, II, 302
Augustine on Miracles, I, 28
Australia, Zionism in, II, 23, 27
d’Avigdor, Elim, leader of the “Lovers of Zion,” I, 234‒6;
on Palestine Colonization, I, 239‒40
Azoury, M., anti-Zionist Arab, I, 301
Babkow, S. S., II, 293
Bacon, Lord, influenced by Scripture, I, 7‒8
Bahar, Jacques, I, 269
Bahia ibn Pakuda, I, 222
Balfour, Mr. A. J., on Zionism, I, xxix‒xxxiv; II, viii, xxvi,
xxxi, 82, 83 ff., 131, 143, 147;
and American Zionist Medical Unit, II, 136;
and Hebrew University, II, 151‒2
Balfour of Burleigh, Lord, on the British Declaration, II, 115
Balkan War, the, II, lv‒lvi
Bambus, Willy, II, 302
Barbasch, S. N., II, 293
Barlaeus, C., I, 42
Barnes, Mr. G. N., on the British Declaration, II, 131;
speech at Zionist Demonstration, II, 134‒5
Barrow, Isaac, and the Bible, I, 10, 13;
Basle Programme, the Zionist, I, xxiv, 134, 153, 311‒2
Bayly, the Rev. Anselm, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 93
Beaconsfield, Lord. _See_ Disraeli, Benjamin
Beaufort d’Hautpoul, General, I, 170
Bechir, Sheehab, Emir, I, 167
Beck, Mr., II, xxxiii
Becker, J., II, 304‒5
Bedersi, Rabbi Jedaiah, I, 26
Beer, F., Jewish artist, II, 344
Begley, the Rev. Walter, I, 52 note 1; II, 176‒9
Behar, Nissim, II, 216, 218, 321
Behm, Dr. A., Russian Zionist, II, 385
Beilis, the trial of, II, xix‒xx
Belgian Zionists, the, II, xlix, 25, 27, 358
Belkind, Deborah, II, 307
Belkind, Israel, I, 287; II, 80, 81, 306‒8, 316, 333
Belkovsky, Prof. Gregor, I, 269; II, 285‒6, 293
Benas, Baron Louis, account of journey to Palestine, II, 319 ff.
Ben-Avigdor, Hebrew writer and editor, II, 309
Bendemann, Edward, II, 335, 336
Bendetsohn, Hebrew writer, II, 315
Benisch, Abraham, and Palestine, I, 152 f., 174, 185 note 1;
II, xxxix‒xl, 319
Ben-Jehuda, Elieser, I, 287; II, 81, 284, 384
Bentwich, Mr. Herbert, I, 246, 296; II, xxxvii, xlii, xliii, liv,
lvi, lvii, 50, 51, 52, 349, 425
Bentwich, Major Norman, II, liv, 51
Benzion (Gutmann), S., II, 293, 309
Berditchewski, Dr., Hebrew writer, II, 309
Berkman, P., Hebrew educationist, II, 318
Berkowitsch, J. D., Hebrew writer, II, 318
Berkowitz, Hebrew novelist, II, 315
Berkowitz, Dr., Hebrew writer, II, 318
Berman, S., Hebrew educationist, II, 318
Bermann, Vassyli, II, 284‒5
Bernfeld, Dr. Simon, II, 309
Bernstamm, Leopold, Jewish sculptor, II, 340
Berr, M. Michael, I, 82‒83
Berr, M., I, 292
Berschadski, Hebrew novelist, II, 315
Bertinoro, Rabbi Obadiah, I, 224
Beshir Shehaab, prince of the Lebanon, I, 167
Beverwijck, Jan van, I, 24
Bezalel, the, Hebrew art school in Jerusalem, I, 287; II, 346,
381‒2
Bialik, Hebrew poet, I, 280, 293; II, 422
Bianchini, Commandante, II, 140
Bible, the, I, 91, 165;
its influence on English history, literature and character,
I, 2‒3;
its translation into English, I, 4;
and Lord Byron, I, 95 note 1;
and modern Hebrew writers, I, 273‒4
Bible Societies, British, I, 61; II, 218
Bicheno, the Rev. James, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 65,
88‒89, 92; II, 223‒4
Bierer, Ruben, II, 305
“Bilu,” the, agricultural pioneers in Palestine, I, 286‒7; II,
10, 147, 306‒8;
manifesto of, II, 332‒3;
“The Advanced Guard,” II, 401
Birnbaum, Bernard, II, xxxvii
Birnbaum, Nathan (Matthias Acher), I, 283; II, 296
Black, W. H., I, 185 note 1
Bloch, F., II, 344
Blondel, David, I, 42
Blood Libel, the, in Damascus, I, 110 ff., 119, 158, 159, 180
Blosz, K., II, 335
Board of Deputies of British Jews, the, and Zionism, II, 58 ff.
Bodenheimer, Dr. Max, I, 269; II, 302, 303, 357, 359
Boghos Nubar Pasha, on the British Declaration, II, 116, 409
note 1
Boghoz Bey, and Sir Moses Montefiore, I, 118; II, 409
Bogratschow, Dr., II, 304
Bohemia, Zionism in, II, 25
Bomesch, Ch., II, 293
Bonar Law, Mr. A. _See_ Law
Bornstein, Ch. J., Hebrew writer, I, 8 note; II, 315
Boruchow, A. U., II, 304
Boselli, Signor Paolo, and Zionism, II, 53
Bourgeois, M. Léon, on Zionism, I, 289‒91
Bowring, Sir John, on the Farhis of Damascus, I, 75
Braham, John, I, 97; II, 228
Brainin, Reuben, II, 309‒10
Brandeis, Justice L. D., II, 80, 355
Braude, Jacob, II, 294
Braude, Dr. M., II, 295, 305
Braun, M. Hirsch, II, 308
Braunstein, M., II, 317‒18
Brenner, Hebrew novelist, II, 315
Bright, John, and the Bible, I, 14 note 1
Brightman, Thomas, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 42‒3
Brill, Jechiel M., Hebrew editor in Palestine, I, 286; II, 286,
306
Britain, mission and policy in the East, I, viii, 155, 207;
and Palestine, II, 56;
and Turkey, I, 303‒4
British Declaration, the, II, xxxi, 83 ff.;
and the Entente Governments, II, 127‒31
British Palestine Committee (in Manchester), II, 54, 424‒5
British Protection of the Palestinian and the Eastern Jews, I,
112, 116 ff., 132, 134, 158 ff., 161 ff.
Brodetzky, Dr. Selig, II, 116
Brodski, J. J., II, 344
Brody, Dr. H., II, 286
Broides, R. A., II, 310
Brothers, Richard, and Anglo-Israelism, II, 404
Brown, Dr. David, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 164
Browne, Prof. E. G., II, xxii, xxiii
Browne, Sir Thomas, and the Bible, I, 12
Browning, and the Hebrew language, I, 14 note 1
Brutzkus, Julius, II, 281, 283
Bryce, Lord, on Zionism, I, xxxv‒xxxvii;
on the British Declaration, II, 114
Buber, Martin, I, 284; II, 286
Bueno, Dr. Ephraim H., I, 44‒45
Bulgaria, Zionism in, II, 1, 358
Bunny, Edmund, on ancient Israel, I, 41
Burghas Bey. _See_ Boghoz Bey
Burnet, Thomas, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 43
Busher, Leonard, on religious liberty, I, 19
Bychowski, Dr., II, 294
Byron, Lord, and the Bible, I, 12;
his “Hebrew Melodies,” I, 95‒99, 108; II, 228
Cabbala, the, I, 23, 28
Cadman, the Rev. Williams, on the Restoration of Israel, II, 411
Cahen, Isidore, on Dumas’s “La Femme du Claude,” II, 264
Calmet, Augustin, I, 61
Cambon, M. Jules, and Zionism, II, 53
Canada, General Conference of Jews in, II, lxii f.
Canada, Zionism in, II, xliv, lvii, 22, 29, 354
Canton, Mr. Wm., II, 218
Capitulations, the Turkish, I, 149‒50
Carcassone, Rabbi David, I, 31, 32, 33
Carlile, the Rev. W., and the Restoration of Israel to Palestine,
II, 405 ff.
Carlow, the inhabitants of, petition to Lord Palmerston for
Restoration of Israel to Palestine, II, 405 ff.
Carlyle, Thos., I, 3
Carnarvon, the Earl of, on the Eastern Question, I, 172‒3
Cartwright, Johanna and Ebenezer, petition for readmission of Jews
to England, I, 51; II, 210
Cassel, Sir Ernest, I, 254
Cattaui Pasha, II, 146
Catzius, Josias, II, 181‒2
Cazalet, Edward, on the Eastern Question, I, 207; II, 267‒9
Cecil, Lord Hugh, on the British Declaration, II, 115
Cecil, Lord Robert, and Zionism, I, 299; II, 62, 101‒3, 116
Cellarius, Christophorus, I, 61
Cerf-Berr, Lipman, I, 83
Challemel-Lacour, M., on Disraeli and Heine, II, 248‒9
Chamberlain, Joseph, I, xxix; II, xlv
Chaneles, Rabbi, II, 296
Charles I., I, 40
Charles II., I, 45
Chauvinism and Zionism, II, 403
Chazanovitch, Dr. Joseph, II, 293‒4, 344
Chissin, Dr., Palestinian educationist, II, 304, 333
Christadelphians, the, II, lxiii
Christian propaganda for the Restoration of Israel, I, 163 ff.;
II, lxiii
“Christian Observer,” the (1838), on the Restoration of Israel,
I, 99‒100
Christian, Prince and Princess, and Palestine Colonization, I, 208
Christina, Queen, of Sweden, I, 44
Church of Scotland, memorial for the Restoration of Israel (1840),
I, 131‒2
Churchill, Colonel Charles H., on England and the East, I, 155‒7
Citizenship and Jewish Nationalism, I, 92;
and the Torah, I, 194
Claff, Mr. S., II, xlii
Clarke, Dr. Thos., on the Restoration of Israel, I, 138‒9
Clearchus, quoted, I, 29
Clement, of Alexandria, I, 29
Cohen, Sir Benjamin Louis, I, 254
Cohen, the Rev. F. L., on Isaac Nathan, II, 227
Cohen, Mr. Israel, II, 116
Cohen, Mr. Leonard L., II, 67
Cohen, Mordecai, in “Daniel Deronda,” I, 210‒11
Cohen, Mr. S. J., II, 133
Cohn, Albert, I, 182
Colonization of Palestine: _see_ Palestine Colonization
Columbus, and Abraham Zacuto, II, 185
Conder, Colonel Claude R., I, 62;
on Palestine Colonization, I, 230; II, 274‒6;
on Zionism, I, 299‒300; II, lii‒liii, 391‒2
Conjoint Committee, the, and Zionism, II, 58 ff.;
protests against, II, 67 ff.
Conversionist tendencies, in the Christian propaganda for the
Restoration of Israel, I, 93
Cooper, the Rt. Rev. James, on the British Declaration, II, 115‒16
Cossacks, massacres of Jews by, I, 31, 32, 33
Cowen, Mr. Joseph, I, 296; II, xliii, liv, lvi, lvii, 50, 51, 52,
116, 140, 349, 425
Cowley, Abraham, and the Bible, I, 9‒10
Cowper, and the Bible, I, 11‒12
Crémieux, Isaac Moses Adolphe, I, 173, 180‒2; II, 262, 319;
Circular Letter to the Jews in Western Europe, II, 400
Cresson, Warder, American consul in Jerusalem, I, 136‒7
Crewe, the Marquess of, on the British Declaration, II, 114
Crimean War, the, I, 176 ff.
Cromer, Lord, I, 304;
and Zionism, II, 73
Cromwell, Oliver, I, 4‒5, 14, 40, 44, 52; II, 87
Cromwell, Richard, I, 44
Cunningham, Wm., and the Restoration of Israel, II, 404
Cylkow, Jewish artist, II, 344
Cyprus, I, 142, 303‒4;
and Palestine, II, 247‒8
Dagutzky, Rabbi, II, xliii
Daher, Sheikh, Pasha of Acre, I, 67
Dahl, Basil, I, 8 note 1
Daiches, Rabbi Israel H., II, 286‒7, 351
Daiches, Dr. Salis, II, lvi, 351
Daiches, Dr. Samuel, II, liv, lvi, 351;
on Lord Kitchener and the Palestine Exploration Fund, II, 219
Dallas, the Rev. Alex. B. C., on the Restoration of Israel,
II, 410
Damascus, the Jews of (1860), I, 173‒4;
massacres of Jews of, I, 110‒11;
massacres of Christians, I, 168
Damoiseau, French renegade, I, 74
Daniel, and the Restoration of Israel, II, 167
“Daniel Deronda,” I, 209‒12; II, 43
“David Alroy,” I, 143‒4
David Pasha, I, 170
Davidsohn, Elie, II, 300
Dawson, Sir John Wm., on the future of Palestine, II, 276‒9
Declaration of the British Government, the, I, xxvii; II, xxxi,
83 ff.;
and American Zionists, II, 99;
and Russian Zionists, II, 98‒99
Denmark, Zionism in, II, 358
De Quincey, on the Hebrew language, I, 7
“Der Orient” (1840), on Palestine as the Jewish homeland, I, 114
Dibdin, Sir L. T., on England and the Bible, I, 4
_Die Welt_, Zionist press organ, II, 21, 357
Dight, Mr. M. S., II, xliii
Dillon, M. L., II, 344
D’Israeli, Isaac, I, 140
Disraeli, Benjamin, Earl of Beaconsfield, I, 140‒5, 208 note 3;
II, xvii, 3, 246‒50;
and Heine contrasted, II, 248‒9;
and the Suez Canal, II, 246‒7
Doddridge, Dr. Philip, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 94
Dolitzky, M. M., II, 310
“Doomes-Day,” II, 181‒2
Draxe, the Rev. T., on Palestine under the Jews, I, 42
Dreyfus Affair, the, I, 112, 293
Dreyfus, Dr. Charles, II, 350
Drujanow, Hebrew publicist, II, 310
Drumont, Edouard, I, 293
Druses, the, I, 167 ff.
Dryden, John, and Scripture, I, 10
Dubnow, Shimon, II, 293
Dulberg, Captain, II, 133
Dumas’s “La Femme de Claude,” I, 204; II, 263‒5
Dunant, Jean Henri, I, xxvii, 198‒9;
appeals for Restoration of Israel to Palestine, I, 199‒201,
203‒4, 270; II, 259‒61, 265‒7, 417
Dunlop, Mr., II, xxxiii
Durham, the Rev. James, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 43
Dury, John, and the Readmission of Jews to England, I, 19, 51‒52;
II, 211, 212
Dutch West India Company, the, I, 57
East African Project, _see_ Uganda Offer
Eastern Europe, the Jews of, and the War, II, 2‒3
Eastern Question, the, I, 102 ff.
Ebner, Dr. Meyer, I, 269
Edel, Edmund, II, 335
Eder, Dr. M. D., II, 140
Edersheim, Dr., II, xlix
Edward, King, and Palestine Colonization, I, 208
Edwards, President, and the Restoration of Israel, II, 404
Egmont, Earl of. _See_ Perceval, John
Egypt and Turkey, I, 101 ff.;
British policy in, I, 304‒5
Egypt, Zionism in, II, 355
Ehrenpreis, Dr. Mordecai, II, 310
Eisenberg, Mr., II, 386
Eisenstadt, Rabbi Eleasar, II, 310
Eisenstadt (Barzilai), Joshua, II, 287
Eldad Ha-Dani, I, 25
Eliasberg, Rabbi Mordecai, II, 287
Eliaschew, Isidor, Hebrew and Yiddish writer, II, 300
Eliot, George, and Zionism, I, xxvii, 209‒12
Elizabeth, Queen, I, 4
Eljaschew, J., II, 283
Elyashar, Chief Rabbi Nissim, of Jerusalem, II, 147
Emancipation and Zionism, I, xx‒xxi, 130
Emden, Rabbi Jacob, I, 35 note 1
Emigration, the problem of, in 1906, II, li‒lii
Emmott, Lord, on the British Declaration, II, 115
England and Palestine, II, 43;
and the Restoration of Israel, I, 91 ff.;
and the study of Hebrew, I, 13‒14;
and Syria, I, 104‒6;
and Zionism, I, xxvi‒xxvii, 93, 295 ff.; II, xlii ff., liv,
42 ff., 58 ff.
English art of speaking, the, influenced by Scripture, I, 13
English Clergy, the (in the 17th century), and the Jewish people,
I, 2
English Jewry and Assimilation, I, 194‒5
English Press, the, and Zionism, II, 46‒47
English Reformation, the, I, 4
English Zionist Federation, the, I, 299; II, xl‒xli, 23, 27, 30,
48, 54 ff., 69, 99, 347 ff., 360‒2
Episcopius, Simon, I, 42
Epstein, Isaac, II, 316‒7
Epstein, Jacob, II, 344
Epstein, Jehuda, II, 344
Epstein, Rabbi Zerach, II, 147
Epstein, S. E., Hebrew writer, II, 315
Epstein, Zalman, II, 311
Erlanger, M. Michel, I, 291‒2; II, 290, 308
Erter, Isaac, I, 276
Ester, Julius, II, 335
l’Estrange, Hamon, II, 211
Ettinger, Mr. Jacob, II, 51, 425
Eugenie, ex-Empress, and Palestine Colonization, I, 203
European War, the, and Zionism, II, 1 ff.
Eyre, Joseph, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 99
Ezekiel, the prophet, and the Restoration of Israel, II, 166
Ezekiel, Moses Jacob, Jewish sculptor, II, 336, 345
Fairbairn, the Rev. Patrick, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 165
Fairfax, Lord, I, 51
Farbstein, Dr. David, II, 305
Farbstein, H., II, 295
Farhi, Haim, I, 63, 67‒75
Farhi, Moses, I, 68
Farhi, Mourad, I, 75
Farhi, Raphael, I, 68, 75, 76
Farhi, Saul, I, 67, 68, 69
Farhi, Solomon, I, 68, 75
Faud Pasha, I, 168, 173, 174
Federations, the Zionist, II, 360
Feinberg, David, I, 259
Feinberg, Mr. Is., II, 383
Feinberg, Joseph, II, 306‒8
Feisal, Prince, and Zionism, II, 142
Feiwel, M. Berthold, I, 284; II, 287
Feldstein, Mr. M., II, 294, 378
Felgenhauer, P., I, 42
Fels, Mrs. Mary, II, 134
Ferdinandus, Philip, II, 209
Fersht, Mr. B. A., II, 62
Feuchtwanger, Dr., II, 368
Feuerstein, Hebrew novelist, II, 315
Financial Institutions of Zionism, the, II, 371 ff.
Finburgh, Mr. S., II, 133
Finch, Sir Henry, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 48‒49; II,
207‒9
Finkel, E. D., II, 318
Finn, James, British Consul, in Jerusalem, I, 159, 161 ff.; II,
412‒13
Finn, S. J., II, 296
Finzi, Mr., British Consular agent at Acre, I, 161
Fischel, E. B., II, 335
Fischer, M. Jean, Belgian Zionist leader, II, xlix, 358
Fischer, M. Oscar, II, xlix
♦Fischmann, Hebrew writer, II, 315, 317
♦ The reference to “Frischmann” was corrected to “Fischmann”
and added to this reference.
Fox, Dr. Samuel, II, 351
France, Zionism in, I, 176 ff., 200, 289 ff.
Frank, Dr., II, 303, 359
Frankel, Zacharias, II, 288
Frankfurter, Professor Felix, II, 82
Franklin, Mr. Ernest L., II, 67
Franklin, Mr. Jacob, II, xl
Fremantle, the Rev. W. R., on the Restoration of Israel, II,
410‒11
French Government, the, and the British Declaration, I, xxvii;
II, 127‒8;
and the Hebrew University, II, 152;
and Zionism, II, 52, 53
French Jewry, the, I, 84‒85;
and the Restoration of Israel (in 1798), I, 65‒66; II, 220‒2;
and Zionism, I, 291 ff.
French Revolution, the, I, 178, 290
French Society of the Promised Land, the, I, 182
French West India Company, the, I, 57
Frenk, N. J., II, 317
Friedberg, A. S., II, 311
Friedemann, Dr. Arthur, II, 302, 359
Friedenwald, Dr. Harry, II, 82
Friedlaender, W., II, 335
Friedlaender, Prof. Israel, II, 82
Friedmann, N. M., II, 293
Friedson, Mr. L., II, 133
Frug, Simon, II, 318
Frumkin, M., II, 386
Fuchs, Dr., II, xliv
Fuchs, S. I., II, 311
Fuller, Thomas, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 42 note 4,
52‒53, 61
Furtado, Abraham, I, 82, 87
Gabirol, Solomon ibn, I, 26
Galicia, Zionism in, II, 22‒23;
the Jews of, and Baron de Hirsch, I, 261‒2
Galilee, Josephus on the population of, I, 309
Gasparri, Cardinal, and Zionism, II, 53
Gaster, Haham Moses, I, 272, 296; II, xxxvii, xlii, liv, lvi,
lvii, 45, 48, 50, 51, 52, 106, 108‒9, 307, 348;
letter to “The Times” (1897), II, xli‒xlii
Gawler, Colonel George, on the Restoration of Israel to Palestine,
I, 137‒8, 162, 174‒5; II, 410, 417
George, Mr. D. Lloyd, and Zionism, II, xxxi, 131‒3
Germany, Zionism in, II, 357
Gerondi, Rabbi Moses ben Nachman, I, 223
Gerondi, Rabbi Zerahiah, I, 27
Ghetto, the, I, 191‒2, 215
Gilbert, Mr. S., II, 62, 68, 427
Gill, Dr. John, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 99
Ginsberg, Usher. _See_ Achad Ha’am.
♦Ginzburg, Ilja, II, 340, 346
♦ “Guenzburg” replaced with “Ginzburg”
Gladstone, I, 133, 144;
and Zionism, I, 237‒8;
on the Jewish people, I, 238‒9;
on Palestine and Greece contrasted, I, 239
Glitzenstein, H., II, 342, 343
“Globe,” the, (in 1846), on the Restoration of Israel to Palestine,
I, 129 ff.
Gluskin, M. W., II, 294, 386
Goethe’s “Hermann and Dorothea,” translated into Hebrew, I, 275
Goldberg, Boris and Isaac, I, 282; II, 51, 98, 141, 146, 287,
296, 329, 359
Goldbloom, the Rev. J. K., II, liv, 351
Goldin, E., Hebrew writer, II, 318
Goldschmidt, Salomon H., I, 254
Goldsmid, Lt.-Col. Albert, I, 217 note 1, 233‒4, 258; II,
xxxvii, 43
Goldstein, A., II, 283, 293
Gollancz, Professor (Sir) Israel, II, 67
Gollancz, Rev. Prof. H., II, xxxvii, 353
Goodman, Mr. Paul, II, 51
Gordon, David, I, 227, 277; II, xxxviii, 9, 306, 388
Gordon, General C. G., I, 3
Gordon, Judah Löb, I, 276
Gordon, S. L., I, 8; II, 295
Gorst, Sir John, II, xxii
Gott, Samuel, author of “Nova Solyma,” II, 176 note 2
Gottheil, Prof. Richard, II, 82, 356
Gottlieb, Dr., II, 295
Gottlieb, Leopold and Moritz, II, 341‒2, 344
Gottlober, A. B., Hebrew poet, II, 315
Gouge, the Rev. Dr. Wm., on the Restoration of Israel, I, 47‒49
Graetz, Heinrich, and Jewish Nationalism, II, 320;
influenced by Moses Hess, I, 179 note 1, 277
Gray, Thos., I, 11
Grazowski, J., II, 287
Greece’s influence on mankind, I, 1;
Zionism in Greece, II, 27, 29
Green, John Richard, on the English Reformation, I, 4
Green, Mr. Michael, II, 67
Greenberg, Mr. L. J., I, 296; II, xlii, xliii, liv, 349‒50
Greenwood, Frederick, on Disraeli and the Suez Canal, II, 246‒7
Grégoire, Abbé, I, 41 note 2
Grey of ♦Falloden, Viscount, on the Declaration, II, 113
♦ “Fallodon” replaced with “Falloden” for consistency
Grinberg, Ch., II, 283, 293
Gronemann, Dr., II, 302
Gross, August, II, 335
Grossmann, W., II, 293
Grotius, Hugo, I, 42
Grunbaum, Isaac, II, 283, 294, 295
♦Guedalla, Haim, II, xxxvii, 302
♦ “Guedella” replaced with “Guedalla” for consistency
Günzburg, Baron Horace, I, 258‒9
Günzburg, M. A., I, 275‒6
Gurevitsch, Ch. D., II, 301
Gurevitsch, E. R., II, 293
Gutmacher, Rabbi Elias, appeals to English Jews for Palestine
Colonization, I, 202; II, 262‒3
Gwydyr, Lord, on Arabs and Zionists, I, 300; II, 392 ff.
_Ha’am_, Hebrew-Russian paper, II, 21
de Haas, Mr. Jacob, II, xlii, xliii, 82
Hadassah, American Women Zionists’ Union, II, 133 ff.
Haffkine, Dr. W. M. W., I, 292
Halévy, Joseph, I, 292
Hall, Alfred, I, ♦185 note 1
♦ “note 6” replaced with “note 1”
Hallevi, Jehudah. _See_ Jehudah Hallevi
Halpern, G., II, 301
Hamelsveld, Ijsbrand van, I, 61
Hantke, Dr. Arthur, I, 284; II, 302, 359
Harkavy, Dr. Abraham, Hebraist, II, 315
Harris, Dr. W., and the Restoration of Israel, II, 404
Harrison, John, on Jewish Emancipation, I, 51; II, 210‒11
“Haskalah” writers, the, I, 274‒6
Havelock, Sir H., and the Bible, I, 3
Hebrew Culture, I, 279;
fund for, II, 377‒8
Hebrew Language, the, I, 6 ff., 274;
not a dead language, I, 6;
Luzzatto and, II, 420;
Board at Jerusalem, II, 317, 384;
Revival Societies, II, lvi, 350‒1
Hebrew Library, the, in Jerusalem, II, 293‒4, 384‒5
Hebrew literature (in Holland), I, 23‒24;
modern, I, 273‒80; II, 309 ff.
“Hebrew Melodies,” Byron’s, I, 95 ff.; II, 228
Hebrew music, I, 97, 99
Hebrew printing (in Amsterdam), I, 22
Hebrew Revival in Palestine, the, I, 285 ff.
Hebrew Schools in Palestine, the, II, 380 ff.
Hebrew teachers in Palestine, Union of, II, 384
Hebrew translation of Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” I, 9 note 2;
of Pope’s “Messiah,” I, 10 note 4;
of some of Shakespeare’s plays, I, 8 note 1
Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the, II, xxxiv‒xxxv, 48;
laying of foundation stones of, II, 145 ff.;
President Wilson on, II, 130;
Sir John Gray Hill on, II, lx‒lxi
Hebron, II, 323
Hechler, Rev. Dr. W. H., Christian Zionist, I, 270
Hedjaz, the King of, and Zionism, II, 142
Heine, Heinrich, I, 241;
and Disraeli contrasted, II, 248‒9
Hellenistic theories of life, Hess on the, I, 290
Hellenists, the, I, 223
Heman, Professor C. F., and Zionism, I, 271
Henderson, Mr. Arthur, on the British Declaration, II, 113‒14
Henderson, Dr. Ebenezer, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 165
Henriques, Mr. H. S. Q., II, 67, 68, 69
Henry, Sir Charles S., II, 67
Hermoni, Hebrew writer, II, 318
Herschell, Chief Rabbi Solomon, I, 113 note 2
Hertz, Chief Rabbi J. H., and Zionism, II, 45, 62, 65, 66, 104‒6,
116, 354
Herzberg, Dr. William, II, 288
Herzl, Theodor, I, xxv, 112, 259, 263 ff., 281, 282, 283, 288‒9,
292, 297, 298; II, xxxviii, xlviii, lxii, 5‒6, 10, 13, 84,
98, 122, 146;
and Baron de Hirsch, I, 259;
and England, I, 295, 296; II, xliv, 43‒44;
and Wolffsohn, II, 389
Hess, Moses, I, 277, 290;
on the Mission of Israel, I, 179;
his “Rome and Jerusalem,” I, 179 note 1
Heymann, Dr. H. G., II, 303, 359
Hildesheimer, Dr. Hirsch, II, 302
Hildesheimer, Dr. Israel, II, 302
Hill, Sir J. G., II, 145;
on Palestine Colonization, II, lviii‒lix;
on the Hebrew University, II, lx‒lxi
Hillel, the elder, I, 222
Hillesum, M. J. M., I, 22
Hindes, Dr. T., II, 294
Hirsch, Baron de, I, 248 ff.;
Baroness Clara de, I, 248, 256, 262;
Lucien de, I, 256
Hirsch, Dr. S. A., II, xxxvii, 353
Hirschenberg, Samuel, II, 342
Hirschensohn, Isaac M., II, 288
Hochman, Dr. Joseph, II, lvi
Hochmann, II, 344
Hodge, Mr. John, on the British Declaration, II, 115
Hoga, Stanislaus, I, 10 note 4
Holland, Zionism in, II, xlix, 22, 23, 25‒6, 30, 357‒8
Hollingsworth, the Rev. A. G. H., on the Restoration of Israel,
I, 36 note 3;
on the Jews of Palestine, I, 137
Holy Places, the, in Palestine, I, 157; II, 53, 57;
the Russian guardianship of, I, 146 ff.
Homer, quoted, I, 30
Homes, Dr. Nathanael, I, 44
Horowitz, Leopold, II, 339‒40
Horowitz, Mr. P., II, 116
Horsley, Bishop Samuel, on the Restoration of, I, 56‒7
Horwitz, Rabbi Isaiah, I, 23, 24
Hosea, the prophet, and the Restoration of Israel, II, 164
Hugo, Victor, and the Russian massacres in 1881‒2, I, 213
Hunt, Holman, in Palestine, I, 163;
on the Restoration of Israel to Palestine, I, 298‒9
Hunter, Rev. Dr. Henry, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 99
Hurwitz, J. B., I, 275
Hurwitz, S. J., II, 311
Huszar, Adolf, II, 336
Huxley, Thomas, on the Bible, I, 4
Hyamson, Mr. Albert M., I, 286 note 1; II, vi, 51, 87, 348, 425
Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, and the Bible, I, 12
Ibrahim Pasha, I, 122
Idelsohn, M. A., II, 281, 283, 293, 359
Ignatius, Father, on the Jewish race and Palestine, I, 237‒8
Imperiali, the Marquis, II, 129, 139
India, Zionism in, II, 24
Inquisition, the Spanish, I, 30, 32, 33, 45
Isaiah, the prophet, and the Restoration of Israel, II, 164‒5
Ismail Abdul-al-Akki, Shaikh, on Zionism, II, 109‒10
Israel, the name, “spiritually” explained, I, 165;
use of name, in the 17th century, I, 2
Israel’s national future, I, xv
Israels, Joseph, II, 337‒8, 345
Italian Government, the, and Zionism, II, 53;
and the British Declaration, I, xxvii; II, 129
Jabotinski, Vladimir, Hebrew and Russian journalist, II, 316
Jacobs, Joseph, on “Daniel Deronda,” I, 211 note 1
Jacobs, the Rev. S., II, 319
Jacobsohn, Dr. Victor, I, 284, 292; II, 299, 359
Jacoby, C., II, 335
Jaffa in 1885, II, 320;
the Hebrew High School in, II, 381
Jaffe, L., II, 283, 301
James I., I, 4, 48, 49
Jannaway, Mr. Frank, II, lxiii
Janowski, S. J., II, 283, 293
Jasinowski, M. Isidore, I, 269; II, 294
Jastrow, Dr. Marcus, II, 356
Jatzkan, S., II, 317
Jawitz, M. Wolf, II, 311
Jehoash, II, 318
Jehudah Hallevi, I, 95, 223;
on the Jewish soul, I, 31
Jellicoe, Lord, II, xxxi
Jellinek, Dr. Adolf, and Baron de Hirsch, I, 261‒2
Jelski, Dr., II, 298
Jeremiah, the prophet, and the Restoration of Israel, II, 165‒6
Jerusalem, the consulates in, I, 157;
the Jews of, during Napoleon’s Campaign, I, 72‒73;
statistics of, in 1885, II, 320 ff.
Jessel, Albert H., II, xxxvii
Jessey (Jacie), Henry, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 52; II,
212‒15
Jewish Colonial Trust, the, I, 288, 296; II, 371‒3
Jewish colonies, in America, I, 57‒8;
in Palestine: _see_ Palestine, the colonies in
Jewish Colonization Association, the, I, 249, 253‒4, 262; II,
49, 383
Jewish Colonization in Palestine, and the French Government, II,
53
“Jewish Culture,” I, 264, 310
Jewish emigration, I, 214‒15;
immigration to England, I, 228
Jewish National Fund, the, I, 270, 296; II, 11, 31‒32, 374‒7
Jewish nationalism, the term of, I, xi;
the idea of, I, 188, 190, 193;
and Manasseh Ben-Israel, I, 29
Jewish problem, the, I, 111, 215‒16, 226, 256 (in Russia), 265
ff.; II, 37;
at the conclusion of the War, II, 155 ff.;
Emma Lazarus on, I, 242;
an English publicist on, II, 255‒6;
George Eliot on, I, 211
Jewish race, the, I, 140‒1, 245;
Disraeli on, I, 143;
Laharanne on, I, 189;
Manasseh Ben-Israel on, I, 36 ff.;
Shaftesbury on, I, 123
Jewish soul, the, Jehudah Halevi on, I, 31;
Manasseh Ben-Israel on, I, 29
Jewish sufferings during the War, I, xxii‒xxiii; II, 33 ff.
Jewish Territorial Organization, the, I, 296; II, 140, 349
Jewish tragedy, the, I, 66, 69
Jewish University in Jerusalem, proposed in 1864, I, 182 note 1
Jochelmann, Dr. D., II, 116, 304, 305
Joel, the prophet, and the Restoration of Israel, II, 163
Johnstone, the Rev. W. H., on the Restoration of Israel to
Palestine, I, 153‒4
Jortin, Dr. John, on the Jewish people, I, 56
Josephus, on the population of Galilee, I, 309
Judaism, the spiritual character of, I, xvi‒xvii;
a national tie, I, 188 ff.
_Jüdischer Verlag, der_, II, 357
Junker, Hermann, II, 335
Justin Martyr, I, 28, 29
Justinian, the laws of, I, 1
“Kadima” formed in East London for Palestine Colonization, I, 228
“Kadima,” Jewish-national students’ association, I, 283‒4; II,
296‒8;
appeals for Palestine Colonization, II, 325‒6
Kahn, Grand Rabbin Zadoc, and Zionism, I, 271‒2, 291; II, 290, 308
Kahn, Dr. Leo, II, 382
Kalischer, Rabbi Hirsch, appeals for Palestine Colonization, I,
202; II, 262‒3
Kaliski, Julian, II, 295
Kalonymos ben Kalonymos, quoted, I, 26‒7
Kalwaryjski, M., II, 305
Kaminer, Isaac, II, 311‒12
Kaminka, Aaron, II, 312
Kann, M. Jacobus, II, xlviii‒xlix, 357, 359
Kantor, J. L., Hebrew writer, II, 315
Kantowitz, P., Hebrew educationist, II, 318
Kaplan, Eleasar, II, 294
Karan, Joseph, I, 170
Kassab Farid, on Jewish Colonization in Palestine, I, 301‒2
Katib, the office of, I, 68
Kattowitz Conference, the, of the “Lovers of Zion,” II, 418‒9
Katz, Benzion, Hebrew writer, II, 315
Katzenelsohn, Isaac, Hebrew poet, II, 316
Katzenelsohn, Dr. J. C., II, 312
Katzenelsohn, Dr. N., II, 288‒9
Kauffmann, Isidor, II, 340‒1
Kaufmann, Professor David, and Zionism, I, 277
“Kedem,” Hebrew Literary and Educational Fund, II, 377‒8
Keith, Dr. Alexander, I, 137
Kerry, Lord (Marq. of Lansdowne), on the influence of Scripture
translation on English literature, I, 13
Kerschberg, A. S., Hebrew writer, II, 312
Kesrawani, M. Wadia, on the British Declaration, II, 110
Kessler, Mr. Leopold, II, 350, 425
King Edward, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 56
Kingsborough, Viscount, and proposed Jewish Colonization in
Mexico, I, 58
Kinnaird, the Hon. D. J. W., and Byron’s “Hebrew Melodies,” I, 97
Kirszrot, Jan, II, 294‒5
Kirwan, F. D., on the French “Sanhedrim,” I, 86 ff.; II, 222
Kitchener, Lord, II, xxvi;
and the Palestine Exploration Fund, I, 62; II, ♦liii, 219
♦ moved to Volume II from I
Klausner, Dr. Joseph, II, 293, 312
Klazkin, Dr., II, 304
Klebanow, J., II, 283
Klee, Dr., II, 302, 359
Klein, Max, Jewish sculptor, II, 336
Klein, Rabbi D., and Mizrachi Zionism, II, 368
Kleinmann, Moses, II, 317
Knell, the Rev. Paul, on Israel and England, I, 2; II, 168
Kohan-Bernstein, Dr. J., I, 269; II, 289
Kokesh, Dr. Oser, I, 269
Korkis, Dr., I, 269
Kornfeld, Dr. Sigmund, I, 269
Kramstück, II, 344
Kremenetzky, Julius M., I, 269; II, 308, 359
Krochmal, Nachman, I, 276‒7; II, 422
Lachmann, S., II, 302
Lachower, P., Hebrew writer, II, 318
Lachowski, A. B., II, 344
Laharanne, Ernest, appeals for Restoration of Israel to Palestine,
I, 179‒80;
on Jewish genius, I, 189
Lamartine, M. de, I, 128
Lamb, Lady Caroline, I, 98
Lamington, Lord, on the British Declaration, II, 116‒17
Landau, Miss Annie, II, 383
Landau, Mr. Herman, II, xxxvii
Landau, the Rev. Dr. J. L., II, 354
Landau, Dr. S. R., II, 296
Langdon, Mr. E. H., II, 133
Lansdowne, Lord, and the East African offer, I, 297
La Peyrère, Isaac de, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 41‒42;
II, 180
Laski, Mr. Nathan, II, 133
Laud, Archbishop, I, 42 note 3, 48
Law, Mr. A. Bonar, and Zionist representatives, II, 123‒4
Layard, Sir A. H., on England and Syria, I, 157
Lazar, II, 318
Lazare, Bernard, and Zionism, I, xxvii, 269, 292‒4
Lazarus, Emma, I, 241 ff.;
“The Banner of the Jews,” II, 400‒1
League of Nations, the, II, 160
Lebanon, the, the constitution of, I, 171 ff.;
the, the problem of, I, 167 ff.
Lebensohn, Abraham Dob Bär, I, 275
Lebensohn, Micah Joseph, I, 275
Leibnitz, on the conquest of Egypt, I, 42 note 1
Leibowitz, M., II, 318
Leman, Moses, I, 81
Leon (Templo), Rabbi J. J. A. de, I, 45; II, 185‒6
Lepsius, Dr. Johannes, and Zionism, I, 270‒1
Lesser, Alexander, Jewish painter, II, 339
Leverson, Montague, I, 185 note 1
Levi, Aaron, on the Lost Ten Tribes, I, 18, 19, 25, 29, 40
Levi, David, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 93‒94;
against Dr. Priestley, II, 226
Lévi, Professor Sylvain, II, 140
Levin, Dr. Shemaryah, I, 284; II, 80, 298‒9, 355, 359
Levinski, L., II, 293, 312‒13
Levitan, Isaac, II, 340
Levontin, Mr. David, I, 287; II, 51, 147, 306‒7
Levy, Benoit, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 179
Levy, Dr. Camille, II, 1
Lévy, Emil, II, 335, 336
Levy, H. Leopold, II, 336‒7
Levy, Mr. Joshua M., II, 67, 69
Lévy-Bing, Lazar, on Jewish nationalism, I, 178‒9, 204
Lewin-Epstein, Mr. Elisha, II, 82, 134
Lewis-Barned, Captain H., II, xxxvii
Lewite, J., II, 294
Lewite, Leon, II, 295
Libowitz, M., II, 147, 333
Libuschitzki, A., Hebrew educationist, II, 318
Lichtheim, Richard, II, 303
Liebermann, Professor Max, II, 338‒9
Lightfoot, John, I, 61
Ligne, Prince de, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 90
Lilien, Ephraim M., I, 284; II, 341‒2
Lilienblum, Moses L., I, 278, 281; II, 293
Lima, Mr. de, II, xlix
Lindsay, Lord, and his travels in the Holy Land, I, 122, 124
Lippe, Dr. Karl, I, 269; II, 307
Lipsky, Mr. Louis, II, 82
Litvak, Juda, I, 81
Livingstone, and the Bible, I, 3
Locke, Mr., and the Restoration of Israel, II, 404
Löwe, Dr. H., II, 302
Loewe, Dr. Louis, II, xxxviii, 252‒3, 409
London Opera House, the great Zionist demonstration at the, II,
xxx, 47, 99 ff.
Long, Mr. Walter, on the British Declaration, II, 113
“L’Orient,” appeals for Restoration of Israel to Palestine in 1866,
I, 200‒1
Loudvipol, Abraham, II, 317
“Lovers of Zion” (_Chovevé Zion_), the, I, viii, xxiv, 112, 216,
227, 231 ff., 280 ff., 288; II, 43, 124;
the Kattowitz Conference, II, 418‒19;
in England and America, I, 245‒6; II, xxxvii;
send petition to Sultan, I, 231; II, 279‒81;
in France, I, 232‒3; II, xxxvii;
in Russia, I, 278;
in Odessa, I, 227, 281; II, 293, 383;
in Bialystok, II, 293‒4;
in Warsaw, II, 294‒5;
in Lodz, II, 295;
in Minsk, II, 295‒6;
in Pinsk, II, 296;
in Wilna, II, 296;
in Charkow, II, 306 ff.;
and Baron de Hirsch, I, 259‒60;
and Zionism, II, xxxvii, xl, xlviii
Löwenthal, Dr. G. and Baron de Hirsch, I, 258
Lowth, Bishop, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 94
Löwy, Dr. Albert, II, xxxix, 319
Lubarski, A. E., II, 293
Lucy, Sir Henry, II, 246
Luncz, Abraham Moses, I, 286; II, 289, 385
Luria, Rabbi Isaac, I, 23, 28, 29
Luria, Samuel, II, 294
Lurie, Joseph, II, 289
Luzzatto, S. D., I, 276‒7;
on Assimilation, II, 420;
on the Hebrew language, II, 420;
on the Jewish Mission, II, 420‒1;
on Palestine Colonization, II, 421
“Maccabean” tour in Palestine, I, 246‒7
Maccabean Land Company, the, II, 380
Maccabeans, Order of Ancient, the, I, 285; II, xl, 349
Maccabœans, the, I, 223
M’Caul, Alexander, I, 10 note 4, 126; II, 413
MacInnes, Bishop, of Jerusalem, II, 146, 147
Mack, Judge Julian W., American Zionist leader, II, 82, 136
Magnes, Dr. J. L., II, 356
Magnus, Mr. Laurie, II, 67
Magnus, Sir Philip, II, 68
Mahmud II., Sultan, I, 102, 107, 147
Maighen, Mr., on Palestine and England, II, lxii‒lxiii
Maimon, Moses, II, 343‒4
Maimonides, I, 28, 276
Malachi, the prophet, and the Restoration of Israel, II, 167
Manasseh ben Israel, I, 15 ff., 42, 44, 52, 54, 183; II, 169 ff.,
176, 181, 183, 188‒9, 211, 214, 215;
as Zionist, I, 16;
his Jewish national self-consciousness, I, 26
“Manchester Guardian,” the, and Zionism, II, 46
Mandelkern, Solomon, Hebrew poet and scholar, II, 315
Mandelstamm, Professor Max, I, 269; II, 306
Mane, M. Z., II, 313
Maneritsch, A. A., II, 344
Manifesto to the Jewish people, a Zionist, II, 124‒7
Mann, Mr. Jacob, II, vi
Mapu, Abraham, I, 276
Marks, Mr. Simon, II, 133, 425
Markus, II, 344
Marmorek, Dr. Alexander, I, 292; II, 359
Marmorek, Isidore, I, 292
Marmorek, Oscar, I, 292; II, xliv
Maronites, the, I, 167 ff.
Marranos, the, I, 15, 23, 25, 31, 32‒3
Marschak, Dr., II, 304, 381
Marsh, the Rev. William F., on the Restoration of Israel to
Palestine, I, 113 note 2
Marshall, Mr. Louis, and the British Declaration, II, 136
Massarini, Tullo, II, 335‒6
Massel, J., I, 40 note 1; II, xlii, xliii, 350, 384
Maze, Rabbi Jacob, II, 281
Mazzini, I, xvii
Mead (Mede), the Rev. Joseph, on Sir Henry Finch, II, 208;
on the literal interpretation of the Bible, I, 166
Mehemet Ali, I, 101 ff., 116, 118, 119, 125, 126, 147, 167, 180,
186; II, xxxviii, 409
Melamed, Dr., II, 304
Menasse, Baron Felix, II, 146
“Mendele Mocher Sepharim,” I, 276
Mendelssohn, Jechiel, I, 278‒9
Mendelssohn, Moses, I, 46, 278; II, 189
Menschikoff, Prince A. S., I, 150
Merriman, Rt. Hon. J. X., on Zionism, II, lxi‒lxii
Messianic Hopes, the, I, 18, 24, 40, 45, 51, 94
Methmann-Cohen, Dr., II, 304, 382
Meursius, Johann., I, 42
Meyer, Mr. Walter, II, 141
Meyersohn, Dr. Emil, I, 292
Mexico, proposed Jewish colonies in, I, 58
Meyuchas, Rabbi, of Jerusalem, I, 64, 73, 77‒79
Meyuchas, Palestinian writer, II, 316
Micah, the prophet, and the Restoration of Israel, II, 165
Michaelis, J. H., I, 61
Mikveh Israel, agricultural school in Palestine, I, 182‒3; II,
319‒20, 326 note 1
Milner, Lord, and Dr. Herzl, I, 295
Mills, the Rev. John, I, 185 note 1
Milton, John, influenced by the Hebrew spirit, I, 9, 40, 95;
II, 176;
and the Restoration of Israel, II, 179
Minkowski, II, 344
Mintz, the brothers B. and S., II, 281, 283‒4
Misenberg, Leo, II, 344
Mission of the Jews, the, and Zionism, I, xvii‒xviii, 178;
Luzzatto on, II, 420‒1
Mitzkun, David Moses, I, 275
Mizrachi, Orthodox Zionist party, II, 23, 26, 30, 80, 291, 367‒8
Mocatta, F. D., I, 254
Modern Civilization and Zionism, I, xviii‒xix
Mohilewer, Rabbi Samuel, II, xlii, 186 note 3, 289‒90, 293‒4,
305
Molé, le Comte de, I, 82
Molyneux, the Rev. Capel, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 164
Monk, Henry W., on Jewish nationality, I, 197‒8
Montefiore, Lady, I, 115, 135
Montefiore, Sir Moses, I, xii, xxvii, 112;
pioneer of Anglo-Jewish Zionism, ♦I, 115 ff., 125 ff., 162,
173, 180, 181, 186, 200, 202, 277; II, xxxviii, xxxix, 43,
237 ff., 252‒3, 262, 306, 337 note 1, 409‒10, 419‒20;
aids the Christians of Syria, I, 173
♦ Volume number omitted from original
Montefiore, Mr. C. G., II, 61, 62
Montezinos, Antonio, on the Ten Lost Tribes, I, 18‒19, 29, 40;
II, 211
Moore, Mr., British Consul at Jerusalem, II, 307
Moore, Thomas, and the Bible, I, 12;
“Advent of the Millennium,” II, 399
Mordecai ben Hillel Hacohen, Hebrew publicist, II, 287‒8
Morgenthau, Mr. Henry, II, 40
_Morning Herald_, the, on Zionist propaganda in France (in 1866),
I, 200
Moro, Arthur R., II, 67
Mortara Case, the, I, 112
Mosaic Constitution, the, Manasseh ben Israel on, I, 35‒36
Moscow “Sons of Zion,” the, I, 281; II, 281 ff.
Moser, Mr. Jacob, II, lvi, lvii, 350
Moses and the Restoration of Israel, II, 161‒2
Moses ben Nachman, Rabbi, I, 223 f.
Mosseri, Mr. Victor, II, 146
Mossinsohn, Dr. Ben-Zion, I, 287; II, 80, 304
Mostditschian, M. H. N., Armenian Delegate, on Zionism, II, 112
Motzkin, Dr. Leo, II, 290, 359
Mountain, the Rev. Jacob H. Brooke, on the Restoration of Israel,
II, 411‒12
Müntz, Dr., I, 269
Myersohn, J. M., II, 294
Nacht, Dr., II, 1
Nadelmann, II, 344
Naiditsch, M. I. A., II, 296, 359
Napoleon the First, I, xxiii, 42 note 1, 69, 70;
his call to the Jews of Asia and Africa, I, 63, 66; II, 222;
his campaign in the East, I, 63 ff.;
in Palestine, ♦I, 72 ff., 76;
his “Sanhedrin,” I, 80 ff.
♦ Volume number omitted from original
Napoleon III, I, 198, 200
Narboni, Rabbi Moses, I, 28
Nasi, David, I, 57
Nasi, Don Joseph, I, 224
Nathan, Isaac, II, 227;
and Byron’s “Hebrew Melodies,” I, 97‒99; II, 228
Nathan, Mr. Joseph, II, xxxvii
Nathan, M. D., on Jewish nationalism, I, 179
Nathan, Sir Matthew, II, 67
Nathansohn, B., I, 275
Neil, Rev. James, on Palestine Colonization, II, 272‒4
Neimanowitsch, H., Hebrew Journalist, II, 318
Nelson, Ernst, II, 336
Nemirower, Dr., II, 1
Netter, M. Charles, and Palestine Colonization, I, 182‒3; II, 319
Neumann, Abraham, Jewish artist, II, 344
Neumark, Dr. David, II, 313
Neuschul, II, 296
Neustaeter, L., II, 335
Newdegate, Ch., I, 144
“Newes from Rome,” I, 47; II, 191‒206
Newton, Bishop Thomas, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 56, 108;
II, 216‒17
Nicholas, Edward, I, 44; II, 182‒3
Nicholas I, Tsar, I, 150, 217
Nissenbaum, Isaac, II, 290
Noah, Major M. M., I, 59, 135‒6
Nobel, Rabbi Dr., II, 368
Nordau, Dr. Max, I, 264‒5, 269, 292; II, liv, 6
Nossig, Dr. Alfred, II, 290, 306, 344
_Nova Solyma_, I, 41; II, 176‒8
Numberg, Ch. D., Hebrew and Yiddish writer, II, 316
Nunez da Fonseca, Joseph, I, 57
Odessa group of the “Lovers of Zion,” the, I, 227, 281; II, 293,
383
Oliphant, Laurence, I, 207 ff., 250, 278; II, 289, 306‒7
d’Oliveyra, Rabbi Solomon, I, 23‒24
Oppenheim, M. D., II, 337, 345
Oppenheimer, Professor Franz, II, 303, 357
Oppenheimer, Henry, II, 246
d’Ordel, Major George, II, xxiii
Orenstein, Prof., II, xlix
Oriental Jews, the, and Baron de Hirsch, I, 249‒50;
during the War, II, xxxiii
Origen, on Demons, I, 28
Ormsby-Gore, Major the Hon. W., on the British Declaration,
II, xxxii, 111;
and the Palestine Commission, II, 141;
speech at the Conference of Palestinian Jews, II, 142‒5
Owen, Hugh, I, 185 note 1
Owen, Sir Isambard, I, 240 note 2
Pacifico, Don David, I, 133‒4
“Palestine,” II, 352
Palestine Colonization, the problem of, I, 112, 115 ff., 202,
203, 208, 228, 229‒31, 289; II, xxxix, xl, xlii;
opinions of English Christian authorities on, II, 269‒79;
English Societies for, I, 185; II, 273;
London Hebrew Society for, II, 256‒8;
Berlin Society for, II, 302;
Rumanian Society for, II, 307
Palestine Exploration Fund, the, I, 62, 299‒30; II, lii;
and Lord Kitchener, II, 219
Palestine Land Development Company, the, I, 284; II, 377
Palestine Societies, I, 61‒62; II, 362‒4
Palestine, the Holiness of, I, 31
Palestine, the Jewish Colonies in, I, 112, 161‒2, 246‒7, 262,
279; II, 37, 88, 326‒31 (in 1910 and 1913);
“The Times” (1899) on, I, 299
Palestine, Zionist institutions in, II, 10, 387 ff.
Palestine and England, II, 43;
and Dr. Herzl, I, 266‒7;
and Manasseh ben Israel, I, 22‒24
Palestine as the Jewish homeland, I, xxiii‒xxiv, 195‒6, 307‒10;
meetings in favour of, II, 69 ff.;
Press comments on the meetings, II, 73 ff.
Palestinian Jews helped by Christians, I, 52; II, 212‒13
Palestinian trade with Britain, I, 306;
consular reports, II, 395 ff.
Palmerston, Lord, I, 75, 101 ff., 116 ff., 122, 123‒4, 127, 128,
131, 133, 158, 167; II, 229 ff., 405 ff.
Paperna, A. J., Hebrew writer, II, 315
Parker, Admiral Sir Wm., I, 133
Parliamentary Elections, the, in 1900, and Zionism, I, 299
Parnell, Thomas, and the Bible, I, 10
Pasmanik, Dr. Daniel, II, 283, 290, 305
Pasquier, Baron, I, 82
Pasternak, L., II, 340
Patriotism and Zionism, I, xix‒xx
Peace Conference, the, II, xxxi, xxxvi, 23, 28, 160
Peel, Sir Robert, I, 134
Perceval, John, Earl of Egmont, I, 58
Peretz, J. L., Hebrew and Yiddish writer, II, 316
Pétavel, Dr. A. F., on the Restoration of Israel, I, 179
Peters, Hugh, on the Readmission of Jews to England, I, 44;
II, 183
Pffeffermann, II, 344
Philipps, Major Scott, on the Restoration of Israel, II, 411
Philo, I, 27
Pichon, M. Stéphen, I, xxvii;
on Zionism, II, Introduction, vii‒ix;
on the British Declaration, II, 128
Picot, M. Georges, II, xxvi, xxix, xxxi, 52
Pilgrim Fathers, the, and the Bible, I, 4, 195
Pilichowski, M. Leopold, II, 342‒3
Pineles, M. Samuel, I, 269; II, 1, 307
Pines, Jechiel M., I, 286; II, 290, 306
Pinkus, Dr. Felix, II, 1, 304, 305
Pinsker, Dr. Leo, I, 217 ff., 265, 281; II, 9, 285, 293, 326,
328, 419
Pinsker, Simchah, I, 217
Pitt influenced by Bible, I, 13
Plato, I, 27, 29, 30
_Poale Zion_, II, 24, 25, 29, 30, 80, 81, 364‒7;
and the “Young Worker” in Palestine, II, 387
Podlischewski, M. A., II, 295, 359
Pogroms, the Russian, in 1906, II, li‒liv
Poland, massacres in, I, 31, 32
Zionism in, II, 24‒25, 26, 27, 30
Political Zionism. _See_ Zionism, political
Pollack, Leopold, II, 335
Ponsonby, Lord, I, 126
Pope, the, and Zionism, II, 53
Pope, Alexander, and the Bible, I, 10
Portalis, le Comte J. M., I, 82
Possart, Felix, II, 335
Powel, Senator, on Zionism, II, lxii
Powel, V., on the Restoration of Israel, I, 43
Poznanski, Dr. Samuel, II, 291, 295
Prag, Mr. Joseph, II, xxxvii
Press, the English, comments on the British Declaration, II,
84 ff.;
on the meetings in favour of Palestine as the Jewish homeland,
II, 73 ff.;
and Zionism, II, 21
Priestley, Dr. Joseph, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 93;
II, 225‒6
Prilutzki, Z., II, 318
Prophets, the, and the Restoration of Israel, II, 160 ff.
Pross, M. M., II, 294, 318
Puritan Saints, the, I, 15, 18
Puritans, the, I, 4, 14, 25;
their interpretation of the Bible, I, 55;
their ministers study Hebrew, I, 40
Pym, John, influenced by the Bible, I, 13
Pythagoras, I, 29, 30
Rabbinowicz, Mr. E. W., II, xxxvii
Rabbinowitch, Rabbi, S. J., II, 291
Rabinovitch, Michael, II, 281, 284
Rabinowitsch, Leon, II, 318
Rabinowitsch, Saul Pinchas, II, 294, 313
Rabinowitzsch, Ben-Ami, II, 316
Rabinsohn, II, 318
Raffalovich, the Rev. I., II, 350
Raffalovich, Samuel, I, 9 note 2
Rapaport, A. J., II, 293
Rapaport, Rabbi Salomon Löb, I, 276‒7
Raphall, the Rev. M. J., II, xl
Raudnitz, Albert, II, 336
Raudnitz, Ernest, II, 336
Ravanellus, Petrus, I, 61
Rawnitzki, J. Ch., II, 293, 313‒14
_Razswiet_, the, Russian Zionist paper, II, 21
Readmission of the Jews to England, the, I, 14, 15, 17, 20, 25,
55;
readmission and restoration, I, 53‒4
“Red Cross,” the founding of the, I, 198‒9
Redlich, Joseph, II, 339
Redmond, John, on the British Declaration, II, 114
Reform Movement, the Jewish, I, 291
Reformation, the, I, 19, 40;
and the Bible, I, 14
Reich, Dr. Leon, II, 359
Reichersohn, Moses, Hebrew writer, II, 315
Reifman, Jacob, I, 277
Reinach, M. Solomon, I, 254
Reines, Rabbi I. J., II, 291, 368
Reisin, Abraham, Yiddish writer, II, 316
Religion and Nationalism, II, 163
Rembrandt and Manasseh ben Israel, I, 44; II, 181
Renaissance, the, I, 40
Reshid Pasha, I, 126
Restoration of Israel, the, I, 25, 31, 40, 65, 66, 85;
meaning given to it in the early 19th century, I, 91 ff.;
in the Palmerston period, I, 101 ff., 134‒5;
English appeal for, I, 163, 221; II, 255‒6;
restoration and dispersion, Manasseh ben Israel on, I, 17‒18,
33‒35;
and emancipation, I, 92‒93;
and the prophets, II, 161 ff.;
and the problem of Syria, I, 108‒9
Reuchlin and the Cabbalah, I, 29
Rhodes, the Jews of, in 1840, I, 110
Ribot, M., and Zionism, II, 53
Rigg, Mr. J. M., I, 48
Ritter, Mr. B., II, xlii
Robinson, Dr. Edward, on Palestine, I, 118
Roebuck, J. A., I, 133
Rogers, Edward Thomas, British Vice-Consul at Haifa, I, 161
Rogers, Samuel, and Isaac d’Israeli, I, 140
Rosebery, Lord, I, 231; II, 279, 280
Rosenack, M., II, 141
Rosenbaum, M. S., II, 296, 359
Rosenberg, Mr. Murray, II, xliii
Rosenfeld, S., Hebrew journalist, II, 318
Rosenthal, Toby, II, 335
Rosoff, M. Israel, II, 141, 293, 323
Rosowski, Rabbi Pinchas, II, 291
Roth, Rabbi Dr., II, 368
Rothenstein, Will, II, 344
Rothschild, Baron Edmond de, and Palestine Colonization, I, 232‒3,
240, 262, 286, 291‒2; II, 47‒48, 49, 146, 290, 306, 319;
visits Palestine, II, lviii
Rothschild, Baron James de, II, 48
Rothschild Schools in Jerusalem, the Lionel de, II, 322‒3;
the Evelina de, II, 323
Rothschild, Lord (the 1st), I, 142, 253; II, 247;
and Zionism, II, 48
Rothschild, Lord, and Zionism, II, 48, 52, 62‒3, 65, 83 ff., 99,
122‒3
Rothschild, M. James de, and Zionism, II, xxxi, 52, 99, 112, 123
Rothstein, F., translates “Hermann und Dorothea” into Hebrew,
I, 275
Roumania, the rights of the Jews of, I, 293; II, 131, 137‒9;
Zionism in, II, 1, 22, 358
Rubenstein, S. B., II, xxxvii, lvi, 350
Rülf, Rabbi Dr. Isaac, I, 269; II, 302, 388
Rundstein, Shimon, II, 295
Ruppin, Dr. Arthur, II, 303, 386
Ruskin, John, and the Bible, I, 3
Russell, Lord John, protects Jews of Damascus (in 1869), I, 174
Russia and the guardianship of the Holy Places, I, 146 ff.
Russia, Zionism in, II, 25, 26, 27‒28, 29;
after the Revolution, II, 38 ff.
Russian Jews, the, and Baron de Hirsch, I, 250‒1, 254‒5, 260‒1
Russian massacres, the, in 1881‒2, I, 112, 213 ff.
Russian Revolution, the, I, 193; II, 38 ff., 54 ff., 87
Russo-Japanese War, the, II, 34
Russo-Turkish War (1878), the, I, 303‒4; II, 34
Sabbathai Zebi, the Pseudo-Messiah, I, 45
Sacher, Mr. Harry, I, 285; II, lvi, lvii, 51, 52, 425
Sachs, M., II, 293
Sacrifices, the Mosaic, the Rev. Capel Molyneux on, I, 164
Sadler, John, I, 40, 44; II, 176
Safed, I, 24, 29, 73
St. John, Oliver, I, 20
St. Petersburg, Zionism in, II, 293
Salisbury, Lord, I, 208, 304
Salkind, Solomon, I, 275
Salkinson, I. A., I, 8 note 1
Salomon, A. S. A., II, 336
Salomon, Rabbi Dr. B., II, 133
Salvador, Joseph, I, xxvii;
on Palestine as the Jewish homeland, I, 176‒8
Salz, Dr., I, 269
Samuel, Charles, II, 336
Samuel, Mr. Herbert, and Zionism, II, 47, 52, 103‒4
Samuely, Nathan, Hebrew writer, II, 315
Sandler, Dr., II, 302
Sanhedrin, Napoleon’s, I, 41 note 2, 80 ff.; II, 20, 222;
and Jewish Nationalism, I, 83;
English opinion on, I, 86 ff.
Saphir, Elie, II, 291‒2
Saphir, Jacob, I, 22 note 3; II, 291
Sasportas, Rabbi Jacob, I, 45;
on the Marranos, I, 33 note 1
de Saulcy on Palestine, I, 247
de Saxe, Marshal, proposes a Jewish Commonwealth in South America,
I, 57‒8
Scandinavia, Zionism in, II, 1, 24
Schach, Mdlle. Marie, I, 292
Schachtel, H., II, 303
Schafrom, M. L., II, 344
Schapira, Professor Hermann, I, 269‒70; II, 301, 308
Schatz, Professor Boris, I, 287; II, 346, 382, 386
Schatzkes, M. A., Hebrew writer, II, 315
Schechter, Professor Solomon, on Zionism, II, xli
Schein, M., II, 1, 307
Scheinkin, M. M. M., II, 80, 293, 317
Schereschewski, Hebrew writer, II, 315
Schiff, Mr. Jacob, on the British Declaration, II, 136
Schlesinger, Felix, II, 335
Schloss, Louis, II, xxxvii
Schnirer, Dr. N. T., I, 269; II, 296, 308
Schofman, Hebrew novelist, II, 315
“Scholom Aleichem” (S. Rabinowitsch), Hebrew and Yiddish novelist,
II, 316
Scholz, Professor, M. A., on Haim Farhi’s death, I, 74
Schulman, Kalman J. M. A., I, 276
Schwarz, Rabbi Joseph, on Haim Farhi’s death, I, 74
Scott, Mr. C. P., Editor of “Manchester Guardian,” and Zionism,
II, xxxi, 46‒7, 424
Scott, the Rev. John, on the Preservation of the Jews, I, 99
Scott, Sir Walter, I, 99
Sczernichowsky, Saul, I, 280; II, 301
Sebag-Montefiore, Mr. Edmund, II, 67
Sebastiani, Colonel, on the Jews of Turkey, I, 64 note 1
Seddon, Thomas, in Palestine, I, 163
Seidemann, A., II, 283, 293
Seidemann, S., II, 295
Segal, the Rev. M. H., II, 353
Selborne, the Earl of, on the British Declaration, II, 114
“Self-emancipation,” Pinsker’s theory of Jewish, I, 217 ff.;
the doctrine in the Bible, I, 218‒21;
in Jewish literature, I, 221‒2
Selim I., Sultan, I, 167
Sequerra, Solomon, I, 185 note 1
Sereni, Commendatore, II, 53
Serrarius, Petrus, I, 42
Shaftesbury, the Earl of, I, xxvii;
and the Restoration of Israel, I, 121 ff.;
his project in 1840, I, 125 ff.;
his new appeal in 1876, I, 206‒7;
his memorandum, II, 229 ff.
Shakespeare, influenced by Bible, I, 3, 8;
Hebrew and Yiddish translations of some of his plays, I,
8 note 1
Shelley, influenced by Ezekiel, I, 12
Shoshana, the Rev. Abraham, I, 115
Sichel, Nathanael, II, 335
Sidebotham, Mr. H., and Zionism, II, 424‒5
Sieff, Mr. Israel, II, 109, 140, 425
Silbernagel, J., II, 336
Silberstrom, Dr., II, 295
Simon, Mr. Julius, ♦II, 303, 357, 359
♦ Volume number omitted in original
Simon, Mr. Leon, I, xii, 279; II, liv, lvii, 51, 140, 353, 425
Sinai Peninsula, the, offered to Zionists by the British
Government, I, 296
Sintzheim, Rabbi David, I, 80 ff.
Slouchz, Dr. Nahum, I, 292
Slutzki, A. J., II, 314
Smartt, Sir Thomas, on Zionism, II, lxii
Smilanski, M., II, 292
Smith, Admiral Sir W. Sidney, I, 104, 105
Smolenskin, Perez, I, 39, 278; II, 9, 288, 297, 308;
and Pinsker contrasted, I, 226‒7;
on Manasseh ben Israel, I, 39
Sneersohn, Rabbi Chayim, of Jerusalem, appeals to English Jews
for Palestine Colonization, I, 186, 197, 202‒3, 206; II,
253‒5
Sneur, Hebrew poet, II, 315‒16
Snowman, Abraham, II, xlii
Snowman, Isaac and Louis, Jewish artists, II, 344
Sokolow, M. N., II, 50 ff., 79, 99, 101, 112, 123, 127, 324;
statement on behalf of the Zionist Organization, II, 117‒23
Sola, the Rev. A. de, II, xl
Sola, Mr. Clarence de, II, 22, 82, 354
Solomon, Simeon, II, 337
Solomon, Mr. Solomon J., II, 337, 339
Solomons, Mr. Israel, I, xii, xxxix‒xli
Soloveitschik, M. A., II, 283
Sonnenschein, Mrs. Rose, on the Restoration of Israel to
Palestine, I, 243‒4
Sonnino, Baron Sidney, on the British Declaration, II, 129;
on the rights of the Jews of Roumania, II, 139
Soskin, Dr., II, 300
Soul, the immortality of the, view of Manasseh Ben-Israel on,
I, 27
South Africa, Zionism in, II, 24, 45, 354
Southey and the Bible, I, 12
Spielmann, Sir Isidore, II, 67
Spire, M. André, II, vi
Spitzer, Emanuel, II, 336
Stand, Adolf, II, 22, 306, 359
Stanley, Lord, and the Don Pacifico case, I, 133
Steinberg, Jehuda, Hebrew novelist, II, 315
Steinschneider, Moritz, II, xxxix, 319 Stoics, the, I, 27
Stopford, Admiral Sir Robert, I, 104‒5
Stratford de Redcliffe, Viscount, and Sir M. Montefiore, I, 117
Straus, Mr. Nathan, II, 82, 385
Stricker, M. Robert, II, 359
Struck, Hermann, I, 284; II, 303, 343
Stungo, Mr. S., II, xliii
Suez Canal shares, the, and Disraeli, I, 142, 303; II, 246‒7
Suleiman Pasha, of Acre, I, 73
Sulzberger, ex-Judge Mayer, and the British Declaration, II, 136
Sutta, M., II, 381
Suttner, Baroness Bertha von, and Zionism, I, 289‒91
Suwalski, J., II, 351
Swaythling, the first Lord, and the “Lovers of Zion,” I, 231,
239, 250; II, xxxvii, 279‒81, 289
Swaythling, Lord, II, 67
Switzerland, Zionism in, II, 1, 24, 27, 304, 358
Sydenham, Lord, on the British Declaration, II, 115
Sykes, Sir Mark, A Tribute, II, xvii‒xxxvi;
and Zionism, I, xxxvii‒viii; II, 52, 106‒8, 111
Sykes, Lady, II, xxii, xxxvi
Syria, the problem of, in 1840, I, 107 ff.;
and the Lebanon in 1860, I, 167 ff.
Syrkin, Joshua, II, 295‒6
Syrkin, Dr. Nahum, II, 295, 317
Syrkin, Nachman, II, 300
Szold, Miss H., II, 82
Tacitus, II, 225
Taine, Hippolyte, on the Bible and England, I, 3
“Tancred,” Disraeli’s, I, 145; II, 43
Tannenbaum, A., Hebraist, II, 292
Tardieu, M. André, addresses American Zionist Medical Unit,
II, 135
Taviev, O., II, 314, 318
Taylor, Bishop Jeremy, and the Bible, I, 10
Temkin, Isaac, II, 308
Temkin, Vladimir, II, 292, 326
Tennyson and Hebrew, I, 14 note 1
Tennyson, Lord, on the British Declaration, II, 115
Ten Tribes, the Lost, I, 15, 18‒19, 31, 40, 47
Teretschenko, M., Russian ex-Foreign Minister, II, 28, 39
Tertullian on Miracles, I, 28
Thales, I, 30
Theodores, Tobias, on the character of the Hebrew language, I, 7
Theodoret, I, 29
Theœtetus, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 57; II, 217‒18
Thomas, Father of, Damascus, I, 110
Thomson, James, and the Bible, I, 11
Thon, Dr. Jacob, II, 147, 386
Thon, Rabbi Dr. Joshua, II, 314
Thouvenal, M. E. A., French Foreign Minister, protects Jews of
Damascus in 1840, I, 174
“Times,” the, on the Restoration of Israel in 1840, I, 127‒8, 131;
and Zionism, II, 58 ff.
Tobhi, Rabbi H. M., of Damascus, I, 75
Tolkowsky, M. Semmi, II, xlix, 51, 425
Torah, the, I, 190
Touro, Judah, II, 238, 321
Tourov, Dr., II, 382
Trietsch, Mr. Davis, I, 284; II, 292
Triwusch, J. E., Hebrew journalist, II, 318
Troupianski, J. A., II, 344
Tschernichowsky, Saul. _See_ Sczernichowsky
Tschernowitz, Dr. Chaim, II, 293, 314
Tschernowitz, Samuel, II, 317
Tschlenow, Dr. Jechiel, I, 281; II, 26, 28, 39‒40, 50, 83, 99,
127, 281‒2, 359
Tschrenow, M., II, 308
Turkey, I, 146 ff. (in 1853);
after the Crimean War, I, 150 ff.; II, 412;
in 1910‒14, II, lv‒vi, lviii;
and England, I, 101 ff.;
offers an asylum to persecuted Jews, I, 32
Turkestan, Zionism in, II, 27
Turkish Jewry, after the Crimean War, I, 152 ff.
Turkish Revolution, the (1908), I, 289, 305‒6
Turow, M., II, 302
Uganda Offer, the, I, 296 ff.; II, xlv, 44;
Mr. Balfour on, I, xxix
Ulmann, Benjamin, II, 335
Umanski, Dr., II, xlii
University Students’ Zionist Groups, I, 280 ff.; II, 294 ff.;
in Warsaw, II, 294‒5;
in Vienna, II, 296‒8;
in Berlin, II, 298‒301;
in Heidelberg, II, 301;
in Munich, II, 301;
in Leipzig, II, 301;
in Bern, II, 304;
in Geneva, II, 304;
in Zürich, II, 304;
in Montpellier, II, 305;
in Galicia, ♦II, 305‒6;
in England, II, 351‒3
♦ Volume number omitted in original
Urwick, Dr. Wm., on the Restoration of Israel, I, 165
Ury, Lesser, II, 339
Ussishkin, M. M., I, 281; II, 281‒3, 293, 359
Uziel, Chief Rabbi of Jaffa, II, 147
Valero, M., of Jerusalem, II, 321, 322
Vane, Sir Harry, influenced by the Bible, I, 13
Vatican, the, and Zionism, II, 53
Vecht, Mr. A., II, 350
Veneziani, M. Emanuel F., and Baron de Hirsch, I, 250
Victoria, Queen, receives Hebrew address from Jerusalem, I, 159;
II, 250‒1
Vilkomitsch, Hebrew educationist, II, 317
Vishnepolski, Bezalel, I, 8 note 1
Volkov, S., II, 318
Vossius, Dionysius, I, 42 note 3
Vossius, Gerard J., I, 42, 46
Vossius, Isaac, I, 42, 44; II, 180‒1
Wachtel, II, 344
Waddington, M. W. H., and Laurence Oliphant, I, 208
Waley, Mr. Philip S., II, 67
Walker, Mr., II, lxiii
Wall, Moses, translates into English some of Manasseh Ben-Israel’s
works, I, 19
War, the European, the Jewish tragedy during, I, xxii‒xxiii;
II, 33 ff.;
Zionist relief work during, II, 33‒8;
the conclusion of, II, 153 ff.
Warburg, Professor Otto, I, 284; II, xlviii, 303, 359, 387
Warren, Sir Charles, on Palestine Colonization, I, 62, 230;
II, 269‒72, 273
Warton, Thomas, and the Psalms, I, 11
Weber, M., Hebrew journalist, II, 318
Weinles, II, 344
Weissenberg, Simeon, II, 292‒3
Weizmann, Dr. Chaim, I, xxix, 282; II, xxx, xxxii, xxxiv, liv,
lvi, lvii, 44, 46 ff., 63‒4, 65, 68, 79, 99, 101, 111‒13,
123, 127, 299‒300, 304, 353, 425;
the Weizmann Commission to Palestine, II, 130, 141, 144, 145;
speech at the laying of the foundations of the Hebrew
University, II, 147‒52;
and Arab leaders in Egypt, II, 141‒2
Weizmann, Zelig, II, 295
Wellington on the Eastern Question, I, 103 note 1
Weston, Bishop, I, 200
Whiston, William, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 94
White, Mr. Arnold, and Baron de Hirsch, I, 258
Wilbuschewitsch, Grigory, II, 300
Wilde, Sir William R. W., on the Jews and Palestine, I, 113
Williams, Roger, I, 49‒51
Wilson, President Woodrow, on the Weizmann Commission and the
Hebrew University, II, 130‒1
Wilson, the Rev. John, on Haim Farhi, I, 70‒1;
on the Farhis of Damascus, I, 75‒76
Wilson, Sir Charles W., I, 62
Wilson, Serjeant, II, xxxii, xxxvi
Wissotski, Kolonimos Wolf, II, 284
Witherby, Thomas, on the Restoration of Israel, I, 91‒2, 108;
II, 225
Wohlmann, M., Hebrew writer, II, 315
Wolf, Mr. Lucien, I, 17 note 3;
on Sir Moses Montefiore, I, 118‒19
Wolf, Rabbi, II, xliii
Wolff, Dr. Joseph, I, 124
Wolfsohn, David, I, 265, 289; II, xlviii, liv, lvi‒vii, 302,
303, 389;
his autobiography, II, 388‒9
Wolmark, Mr. A., II, 344
Wolseley, Viscount, I, 304
Women’s Zionist Societies, II, 368‒71
Woolf, Mr. Albert M., II, 67
Wortsmann, Ezekiel, II, 304, 305
Yellin, Mr. David, I, 286; II, 293, 317, 351, 381, 384
Yemen Jews, the, in Palestine, II, 321
Yiddish Press, the, in Poland, II, 21
Yoffey, Rabbi, II, xliii
Young, Edward, poet, I, 11
Young, Mr. W., British Vice-Consul in Jerusalem, I, 116, 121, 157
Zacuto Lusitanus, Dr. Abraham, I, 45; II, 184‒5
Zagorodzki, Ch., II, 318
Zamenhof, Dr., II, 294
Zangwill, Mr. Israel, I, 296; II, 110‒11, 116, 349
Zechariah, the prophet, and the Restoration of Israel, II, 167
Zederbaum, Alexander, I, 278
Zeitlin, Hillel, II, 314‒15
Zephaniah, the prophet, and the Restoration of Israel, II, 165
Zerahiah Ha’levi, Rabbi, I, 27
Zimpel, Dr. Chas. F., on Palestine, II, 416‒17
Zionism, its meaning, I, vii;
its objects, I, xxv;
its principles, I, 307 ff.;
its motive forces, I, 273 ff.; II, 413;
philanthropic, I, 184 ff.;
political, I, xxv‒xxvi, 134, 150, 224, 310 ff.; II, 44;
Sir Moses Montefiore’s, I, 120;
political Zionist work during the War, II, 42 ff.
Zionism in America, II, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 49, 79‒82, 133‒4,
355‒7;
in Australia, II, 23, 27;
in Belgium, II, xlix, 25, 27, 358;
in Bohemia, II, 25;
in Bulgaria, II, 1, 358;
in Canada, II, xliv, lvii, 22, 29, 354;
in Denmark, II, 358;
in Egypt, II, 355;
in England: _see_ England and Zionism, and English Zionist
Federation;
in Galicia, II, 22‒3;
in Germany, II, 357;
in Greece, II, 27, 29;
in Holland, II, xlix, 22, 23, 25‒6, 30, 357‒8;
in India, II, 24;
in Poland, II, 24‒5, 26, 27, 30;
in Roumania, II, 1, 22, 358;
in Russia, II, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 38 ff.;
in St. Petersburg, II, 293;
in Scandinavia, II, 1, 24;
in South Africa, II, 24, 45, 354;
in Switzerland, II, 1, 24, 27, 304, 358
Zionism and Emancipation, I, 92‒3;
and Jewish art, II, 333‒46;
and Judaism, I, xvi‒xvii;
_versus_ Assimilation, I, 188 ff.
Zionist Bureau, the, in Copenhagen, II, 33;
in London, II, 425
Zionist Commission to Palestine, the, II, xxxii, xxxiv, 139 ff.
Zionist Congress, the, II, 358‒9;
the first, I, 268 ff.; II, xxxvii, xli, 5‒6, 124;
the second, II, xlii‒xliii;
the “Jewish Chronicle” on, II, xlii‒xliii;
the third, II, xliii‒xliv;
the fourth (in London, 1900), I, 296; II, xliv;
Press opinions on, II, 389 ff.;
the sixth and the East African offer, I, 297;
the eighth, II, liv;
the ninth, II, liv;
the tenth, II, lvi;
the eleventh, II, lvi‒lvii
Zionist literature in England, II, 351‒3
Zionist literature, Christian, I, 138 f.
Zionist organization, the, its institutions, II, 358 ff.;
in Palestine, II, 386 ff.;
the Greater and Inner Actions Committees, II, 32, 359‒60;
during the War, II, 5 ff.
Zionist poetry, I, 95
Zionist propaganda in war time, II, 21 ff.
_Zionist Review_, the, II, 54, 352
Zitron, S. L., Hebrew journalist, II, 318
Zlocisti, Dr., II, 302
Zohar, the, on the composition of man, I, 28;
on the Jewish soul, I, 31
Zweifel, Eleazar Ha-Cohen, Hebrew writer, II, 315
END OF VOL. I.
PRINTED BY WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LTD.,
PLYMOUTH, ENGLAND
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "History of Zionism, Vol. I (of 2) : 1600-1918" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.