Return fl-n*c Kook on r»i- K^fr»r#> fK 
 
 Modern 
 
 Hebrew Literature 
 
 (With a Preface by the Haham Dr. Gaster). 
 
 A PAPER 
 
 Read before the Annual Conference, 
 in London, of the International Society 
 of Philology, Science and Fine Arts 
 
 BY 
 
 I. WASSILEVSKY 
 
 ON 
 
 JUNE 25th, 19 15. 
 
 PRICE FOUR PENCE. 
 
 LONDON 
 
 “Jewish Chronicle” Office, 
 2, Finsbury Square, E.C. 
 
Modern 
 
 Hebrew Literature 
 
 (With a Preface by the Haham Dr. Gaster). 
 
 A PAPER 
 
 Read before the Annual Conference, 
 in London, of the International Society 
 of Philology, Science and Fine Arts 
 
 BY 
 
 I WASSILEVSKY 
 
 OX 
 
 'v , 
 
 June 25th. 19 15. 
 
 PRICE FOUR PENCE. 
 
 LONDON 
 
 “Jewish Chronicle” Office, 
 2, Finsbury Square, E.C. 
 

 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/modernhebrewliteOOvasi 
 

 a 
 
 'I 
 
 ] 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 I willingly accede to the pressing request of Mr. Wassilevsky 
 to write a brief prefactory note to his essay on Modern Hebrew 
 Literature. Truth to tell there is no necessity for such an intro- 
 ductory note. The essay is sure to recommend itself to thoughtful 
 readers by its own intrinsic merit. 
 
 And ye^ a few words on the subject matter and on the manner 
 in which Mr. Wassilevsky has handled it may perhaps not be out 
 of place, if only as an expression of my own opinion. To start 
 with the last : I have been greatly impressed by the ability with 
 which Mr. Wassilevsky has been able to survey so complicated a 
 movement and to compress it within the narrow frame of a short 
 essay. The impartiality and sound judgment displayed in adjudi- 
 cating the merits of the numerous authors, the acumen with which 
 he delineates the leading features and the characteristic traits 
 of these writers mark out this essay as being not only a sketch but 
 also a critical guide to those who would like to get into close touch 
 with these men and their work. One need not necessarily agree 
 with each of the conclusions of Mr. Wassilevsky, and we seldom 
 agree with other men’s conclusions if they happen to run counter 
 to our own. But such is human weakness, and curiously enough it 
 is strongly displayed in the judgment passed by one Hebrew writer 
 upon the works of another, especially if he happen to be his con- 
 temporary. We are always much too critical with our own and 
 singularly lenient with the outsider. 
 
 The psychological problems connected with this literature are 
 very numerous. It would be going beyond the limits of a mere 
 introduction were I to venture even upon however brief an inves- 
 tigation. A few words must suffice. For the careful reader of 
 Mr. Wassilevsky’s essay will be able to discern at least some of 
 them. One is forcibly reminded of the witty saying of our sages 
 which explains the blessing of Noah as meaning that the beauty of 
 Japhet should dwell in the tents of Shem; that all that was most 
 
 ^ 43301 
 
— 4 — 
 
 beautiful in the spiritual life and in the artistic production of the 
 children of Japhet should also become the property of the children 
 of Shem. This has practically been the process of along continued 
 assimilation and modification so characteristic of certain epochs of 
 transition. The Greek and the Arabic period have left their traces 
 in Jewish literature. In a similar manner a modern spirit has 
 made inroads into the domain of the Jewish literature ever since 
 they came into close contact with one another. The model was 
 set by the gentile. The Jew endeavoured to imitate and to 
 assimilate and then rose slowly to independent work. This is 
 also, in a way, the history of every modern literature. It starts in 
 many cases with a translation of the Bible ; then follow trans- 
 lations and adaptations of foreign examples of classical writings 
 until the writers emancipate themselves, and following the bent of 
 their own genius give expression to national ideals and national 
 hopes. Modern Hebrew literature is taking the same course of 
 development. It is most interesting and fascinating to follow up 
 the breaches, originally very small, made in the walls of the 
 ghetto, through which the light of the spirit from without began 
 to pour in, and the avidity with which the Jews turned to 
 these new rays of light which they believed to be a new 
 source of poetical inspiration. One has only to remember 
 
 Wesseley with his imitations of Klopstock, substituting Moses for 
 the hero of the latter’s epos, and then the various beginnings in 
 drama and in poetry, not to speak of Luzzatto’s older imitation and 
 adaptation of the Pasto Fido until we reach the more recent writers 
 like Shulman and Mappo down to Bialik. We obtain a better 
 insight into this period of sturm und drang if we compare the 
 beginnings of this Hebrew literature with the mighty movement 
 of the spirit without, and see how the Jews tried at one jump to 
 scale the Olympus, and then, by a further development, attempted 
 their emancipation and partly succeeded. But the Jews had to 
 overcome not only difficulty of assimilating new ideas and of 
 adjusting their vision to the wider horizon that opened before them ; 
 they had to cope with the difficulty of the language. Hebrew is 
 not a living language in the sense in which the word is usually 
 understood. It is a living language inasmuch as its use has not 
 ceased. But it has to be acquired from the Book. It is not a 
 language of free parlance. It is not the vernacular as yet of any 
 country. The language represents a different phase of spiritual 
 life, yet it is malleable, it is plastic. In the hands of the true 
 
poet it can be used with great effect. But then that poet 
 must be the exponent of the Jewish spirit. Not everything 
 written in the Hebrew language is by itself as yet Jewish. 
 It must be also Jewish in spirit, Jewish in conception, Jewish 
 in style as well as in syntax, in the symmetry and poise of 
 the phrase. Here also we can see steady development and 
 growth. I am not here to criticise, for I may perhaps disagree 
 with the liberties which modern writers have taken with the 
 Hebrew language — in the coining of new words and in the syntac- 
 tical construction of the phrase. But these, however, are infantile 
 illnesses inherent in every new movement which ignores the past. 
 Because new ideas are welling up from the source of new inspira- 
 tion a new vocabulary has to be created to give outward form to 
 what the mind has fashioned. Instead of delving deep into the 
 mines and treasures of the past and drawing to the light the ore 
 found therein our new writers, who believed that the past had no 
 further message for them, turned away from the only source of true 
 inspiration and true language. It is like unto the period of 
 fermentation, when new wine is poured into old casks. But the 
 time is approaching when the lees are settling at the bottom and 
 the pure wine of the Jewish spirit will be decanted in the Jewish 
 banqueting-halls, a feast of the spirit, a joy for the heart and mind 
 of a revived Jewish nation. Mr. Wassilevsky’s essay will show 
 the reader how this movement has proceeded and how from small 
 beginnings, step by step, a new literature is being evolved under 
 our very eyes. 
 
 M. CASTER. 
 
 On the Memorial Day of Mappo. 
 
Modern Hebrew Literature. 
 
 T here is no nation which so often forms the subject of discussion as 
 the Jewish nation, and there is barely anyone who will hesitate to 
 express an opinion, good or evil, about the Jew. Pedants and learned 
 divines deduce their conclusions from the Bible — a book written 
 thousands of years ago — or from some aphorisms culled from the 
 Talmud by people who were alien to the spirit of that book, while the average 
 man forms his ideas about the Jew from accepted standards of his environment, or 
 from his own commercial relations with him. If the Jew with whom he has come 
 m contact happens to be an honest and straightforward man he arrives at the con- 
 clusion that all Jews are honest and straightforward; but if it happens that he 
 has been victimised or duped by a Jew then all Jews are put down as swindlers 
 and knaves. We are, therefore, not surprised to find in the world’s literature 
 Jews of every imaginable type, a Shylock or Shylock’s daughter, an old-clothes 
 dealer, a deformed creature, or the Jew who is but a Jew in name ; but rarely do 
 we find the true Jew with the Jewish spirit, or the Jew as he is in all his essentials 
 and ideals. The Jew of to-day is no longer the Jew of the Bible, even as the 
 modern Englishman is unlike the Englishman of the Shakespearian period. It 
 would be wrong to form an opinion of the English nation, or of any other nation 
 from a commercial standpoint only, and it would be even more unjustifiable to 
 judge the Jew from a commercial view alone. I say advisedly “ even more,” 
 with regard to the Jewish nation, because, while other nations can choose the 
 courses into which the ramifications of their commerce will extend, the members 
 of the Jewish nation have no such choice. They are compelled to enter such 
 trades as the laws and customs of the countries, in which chance or misfortune 
 may have placed them, choose to leave open to them. Sometimes, as in Russia 
 the Jew enters a trade in defiance of Government laws, but this is only because 
 he has no other means of earning a living. But quite apart from these con- 
 siderations it must be obvious that commerce, whatever its character or dimen- 
 sions, is scarcely a suitable standard by which to judge the intellectual or moral 
 plane of a nation, since even in its highest development it does not express a 
 people’s soul. The soul of a nation is reflected in its literature, which compre- 
 hends the spiritual and material elements of its life in every age, and which 
 gathers in the thoughts and emotions produced in the mind and the heart of the 
 people of which it is the written expression. The soul of the Jewish nation 
 in modern times can only be appreciated by familiarity with its present-day 
 literature which is, unfortunately, for the most part a sealed book to the whole 
 world. And how strange and sad it is that while many people will utter judg- 
 ment, for the most part unfavourable, about the Jew, very few indeed will 
 trouble to learn the Hebrew language so as not only to understand the Jew of 
 bygone ages, and to discover his relationship to the theology of the New Testa- 
 ment but also in such a manner as to read also the literature of later, times in 
 which is reflected 
 
— 7 — 
 
 The Tt-itc Soul of the Jew 
 
 who still lives and creates even to-day new thoughts and new ideals. There 
 are those who think that Hebrew literature ends with the Bible or with the 
 Talmud. Need I say that it is not so ? The Jewish nation has continued its 
 literary activity in all ages and all lands, even the lands of exile. There is no 
 doubt that its force of life was weakened and interrupted during the long course 
 of its wanderings, but it has continually expressed its personality in many shapes 
 and forms through the Hebrew language. The Hebrew genius has also built up 
 its literature in the Aramaic, Greek, Arabic, Spanish, Italian, French, German, 
 Russian, English and other languages, but the true Hebrew soul has only spoken 
 in its own language. At no time was there a period when the nation did not 
 express its spirit in some work of literary merit, and the best works written by 
 Jews in other languages in which the Jew has discovered his spirit have almost 
 immediately been translated into the Hebrew language. We can only say that 
 the history of the Hebrew nation can be found in her literature, but this literature 
 was always, with very few exceptions, religious and mystical. The circumstances 
 of the Jew since he left his country have not allowed him to live what may be 
 termed his true life. The present was so terrible that he always tried to remove 
 its horrors by looking to the past or the future for consolation. The cultural 
 threads woven from a free, natural life were altogether snapped. In the Bible 
 the Jew found his native land, his ideal life, and his whole world. Robbed of all 
 earthly delights, the Jew sought his whole expression in literature. Every word, 
 every letter, and even the points in the Bible assumed a sacred form in his eyes. 
 He seemed to live no longer on this world, but to have reached the portals of 
 heaven, and he interpreted all knowledge, scientific, political and social, in terms 
 of the Bible, so that Hebrew literature became a mere compendium of com- 
 mentaries on the Holy Book. To take one instance of what I mean : if in those 
 times anyone desired to say that even the every-day talk of the wise was worthy 
 of attention, he would not support his statement by any rational argument, but 
 putting the statement in the form of a question would ask, “ How do we know 
 that the everyday conversation of a wise man is worthy of attention ? ” the answer 
 being that it is stated in Psalm i., versed, that he “ who doth meditate day and 
 night in the law of the Lord shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, 
 that bringeth forth his fruit in his season ; his leaf also shall not wither, and 
 whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.” From this we learn that the merest word, 
 even like the leaf of this tree, shall never be lost to the world. Again, if a certain 
 mystic wished to convey the idea that God can only be seen through nature, he 
 took Psalm Ixxxiv., verse 12, which states, “The Lord God is a sun and a 
 shield,” and continued “Just as one cannot view the sun without some pro- 
 tection, so one cannot see God except through ‘Elohim,’” which, by an 
 ingenious mathematical process, is proved to mean nature. Obviously a 
 literature produced in such circumstances will not be perfect and free from 
 defects. There is much dross, despite the numerous lofty ideals expressed 
 therein, and despite much subtle thought there is a good deal of cloudiness and 
 obscurity. Its greatest defect was that it enclosed itself in a narrow national and 
 religious frame. The external conditions oppressed and choked him over much, 
 so that the Jew, 
 
 The only True Christian 
 
 among the Christian nations, patient and forgiving to his worst enemies, could 
 not nevertheless suppress ^is human instincts, and looked upon the external if 
 
— 8 — 
 
 not with hate, at least with disdain and indifference. The Jew forgot that in 
 addition to being a Jew he was also a man, and the man in him was rendered 
 subordinate to the Jew. This world was ignored, and in his writings,' apart from 
 a few elegies and prayers here and there, there is almost no mention of the 
 sufferings he has undergone. The soul, whose whole object was the study of the 
 law, became everything, the body of no account ; it was something of which, 
 if not the death, at least the mortification became an important principle. We 
 do, indeed, hear now and then voices, if fa'ntly, even in this literature on the 
 side of life and in opposition to those who subject the Jew, on the one hand, 
 to dead letters and aimless scholasticism, and on the other hand, to doctrines 
 clouded with mystery and phantasy. But these protests, like all protests against 
 constituted authority, were soon suppressed or ignored, and the Rabbis and 
 mystics combined, despite their own differences, to silence any voice raised 
 against their defects. But life cannot be wholly suppressed, and the seed sown 
 by those who fought for liberty of expression took root, and from the eighteenth 
 century, in which Europe assumed a new form, Hebrew literature also began to 
 assume a new direction with new aspirations. It set out at first with a stern 
 struggle against the petrified life of the Hebrew nation, against accepted views 
 and thoughts which had no basis in life. It attempted to introduce the streams 
 of a general culture into the tents of Israel and to bring back the world into the 
 life of the Jew. But although it attacked severely the exaggerated spiritualism of 
 our people, it could not free itself from it, even in the new Humanism which it 
 set in being, and of which it was at once the cause and the expression. 
 Even the humanistic movement floated in the air — an ethereal daughter 
 of heaven. With the advent of the French Revolution and its gospel 
 of human rights, the opposition to the Jew was thought to consist 
 merely in an opposition to his religion ; hence religious reforms were 
 instituted throughout the old religion in spite of the good it contained to 
 make way for the new in spite of the many evils it contained, seeing in this 
 change a means to the attainment of civil rights. The majority of the earlier 
 works of the new literature possess some value from the point of view of history, 
 and of the development of the Hebrew language, but they have very little literary 
 merit. Its lyrical poetry is engaged with trivial matters ; eternal questions 
 and individual problems do not fall within its purview. It is occupied mainly 
 with rationalism with a desire to subdue the emotions by intellect and to spread 
 enlightenment among the masses. Nevertheless, there are some writers, if only 
 a few, who have left behind them valuable literary productions, prominent among 
 whom are Krochmal, Luzzatto, Mapou and Gordon. Nachman Krochmal (born 
 Galicia 1785-1840) made the first attempt in his book “ The Guide of the Perplexed 
 in Modern Times,” to bring Judaism into line with general culture, just as 
 Maimonides attempted to do in the Spanish epoch. His theory, in short, is 
 that every nation produces in the course of time a certain spiritual store which 
 was called the “Spirit of the Nation,” which influences all the phases of its life. 
 No nation is entirely lost or destroyed unless this spirit fails it. This national 
 spirit is what is called in the Bible the “ God of the Nation,” or in the Talmud the 
 “Guardian Angel of the Nation.” The Bible and Talmud, in other words, 
 personified the nation’s spirit. The phrase 
 
 Nation and its God" 
 
 is a common Biblical expression. Every nation has three stages like any animate 
 object — origin, growth, and decay. With our nation, too, these three stages’ 
 
have occurred more than once. In Babylon, for instance, when the nation com- 
 plained to Ezekiel, “Our bones are dry, and our hope is lost,” and asked “can 
 these dry bones live”; the prophet answered “ I shall place my spirit among 
 you, and ye shall live, and I shall put you on your land ” ; that is to say, the 
 exile of that time had the spiritual power to realise its great will to be a 
 nation once more. To those who wished to assimilate among the other 
 nations, the prophet answered and said “That which enters in your minds 
 it will not come to pass that ye say we shall be like all the other nations.” 
 Instead of the divine worship and political law which united the people when 
 they dwelt on their land, there was created in Babylon a new and powerful 
 spirituality, so that they gathered together and transmitted all that was left 
 over to them of their sacred writings, and spread them among their people. 
 The return to Palestine commenced with very small beginnings, but in a short 
 time there arose in Jerusalem a never-failing spring of all that was holy and 
 spiritual. That is what may be termed a concentration of the spirit, the pre- 
 vailing of some spiritual interest in the depths of a nation’s soul over all its other 
 interests, until the nation becomes subjected to this spiritual element. All 
 the other nations existed by virtue of their particular spiritual powers. One 
 nation took might for its God, another beauty, and so forth. Now these nations did 
 not perceive that the truth and existence of their spiritual element did not depend 
 on the questions of time and place. From this point of view it was liable to 
 destruction and decay, being limited and special to the individual nation. 
 Therefore, when the nation was destroyed, there was destroyed with it 
 its culture which depended entirely on temporal and spatial consideracions. 
 Not so was the portion of Jacob. Israel’s spiritual element on the 
 other hand was more universalistic, embracing all spiritual essences and 
 creating all things; therefore its existence does not depend on time and place. 
 The spiritual essence which rules over all the nations is its God, and this is the 
 essence of the existence of the Hebrew nation and its eternal function. Samuel 
 David Luzzatto (Italy, 1800-1865), who was a poet and a deep student of 
 Hebrew grammar and prosody, conceived Judaism as an emotion and intro- 
 duced religious romanticism into our literature. He was the spiritual heir of 
 Jehudah Halevi and partly a disciple of Rousseau. He opposed the Jewish 
 scholars who wished to reconcile religion and science and to examine the founda- 
 tions of eternal truth contained in the law of Moses. Foreshadowing the modern 
 pragmatic theory, he held that religion is to be accepted whether true or not, pro- 
 vided that it is useful, and that it is unnecessary that all the words of the Mosaic law 
 shall be true, for their purpose is only the attainment of good conduct and moral 
 life. It may be asked did not the Greeks also have a system of morality ? 
 Aristotle also wrote on ethics ? What then is the difference between Hebrew 
 and Greek morality? Luzzatto answers that the teaching of Abraham is not the 
 golden mean which Aristotle taught. Aristotle’s system is an intellectual and 
 logical method with the object of improving our personal welfare and obtaining 
 recognition from our fellow men ; Abraham’s teaching is one of love and mercy, 
 and its object is the welfare of others and recognition from God. Judaism 
 and Hellenism are not merely two intellectual systems but 
 Two Great Forces 
 
 operating at once in man’s soul. Greek culture which is philosophy, science* 
 fine arts, and intellectual morality, can progress and expand, for we can make 
 discoveries every day, but Judaism, which is the love of the good and the upright. 
 
— 10 
 
 stands where it is — the studies arising from it can never alter. Man's heart is 
 liable to corruption but not to improvement, for the nature of man is good, 
 whereas he acquires evil in the conduct of life. Judaism can throw off many 
 conceptions which it has received and return to its original principles, but it 
 cannot progress in its ultimate essence. Human nature is opposed to the 
 domination of the intellect and prefers the love of the good and upright, which is 
 the spirit of Judaism. Should, however, Greek science fall and be conquered 
 by Judaism, then also there will arise an internal conflict in the soul of mankind, 
 for the development of the intellect and the love of beauty are also part of 
 its life. Civilisation, therefore, never progresses but only changes from time to 
 time. At times the tendency to morality and faith prevails, at others the tendency 
 towards art and beauty. Luzzatto was not an enemy to Greek culture. He 
 admits its virtues, and loved art and beauty and natural science, which are the 
 features of Greek culture, against which are to be found among Jews a lack of 
 order and classification and a habit to ascribe all things to first causes. Still, he 
 desires Jewish people to prefer the divine part which is the spirit of Judaism, 
 to the human part which has entered it from without. After all, the true basis 
 of morality is not the ideal of the Greek — personal enjoyment — but that of the 
 Jew — the welfare of others. According to him, most of the principles propounded 
 by the Greek philosophers are at bottom false or are useful only to philosophers, 
 but not to the mass of the people, and that is why the Christian religion — the 
 daughter of the Jewish religion — prevailed over Greek philosophy. These two 
 writers, Krochmal and Luzzatto, infused new life into the artificial rhetorical 
 style then in vogue in the Hebrew literature. Important writers and poets as 
 Rapaport, Erter, Letteris, and a host of others, were instrumental in spreading 
 Hebrew literature among Jews of all lands, particularly in Russia, the home of the 
 greater portion of the Jewish nation. There Hebrew literature found more or less 
 the environment necessary for its progress, and there it found the most advanced 
 spiritual forces which for many generations it had lacked. Hebrew literature 
 was enriched in the course of time by many productions, particularly in the sphere 
 of poetry, creations which, indeed, may find a worthy place among the classical 
 productions of Europe. One of the early founders of Hebrew literature, in 
 which the Jewish nation as well as the whole world may take pride, was Abraham 
 Mapou (Russia 1808-1866), the creator of the Hebrew novel. With him com- 
 mences the real birth of the modern Hebrew literature. Before Mapou came 
 Hebrew literature was the plaything of scholars and thinkers and pedants, whose 
 sole aim was religious philosophising and the reconciling of science and religion 
 and poems devoid of thought and imagination. Isaac Bar Levinson, Adam 
 Hacohen Lebhensen, Mordecai Aaron Ginsburg, Caiman Shulman, were not 
 superior in profundity of thought, despite the great part they played in the 
 development of our literature, to the pioneers of Hebrew literature in other 
 countries. Originality was not a common characteristic of their work. They 
 have bequeathed works but not creations. Michah Joseph Levinson, who 
 exhibited 
 
 The Poetic Talent 
 
 in the highest degree, unfortunately died in early youth. Hebrew literature 
 lacked a department of light romantic reading ; the novel, the great universal 
 provider which transplants man into new worlds and places into him new 
 thoughts and new inspirations, was unknown. Jewish life was too drab and bleak. 
 Eugene Sue’s “ Mysteries of Paris,” translated by Shulman, the first novel acces- 
 
— 11 
 
 sible to the Hebrew reader, was, in spite of its great influence, strange to the 
 Hebrew mind. Mapou was not only the first man to supply this want, but with 
 his novel, “The Love of Zion,” he accomplished, if unconsciously, a new national 
 acliievement. This book is a historical novel founded on chapters of Israelitish life 
 in the times of Isaiah, The plot is modern, copied in method from French novels, 
 which were not of the best ; it contains no high ideals nor special problems, but 
 it is redolent of early Hebrew life, and its very faults and deficiencies from the 
 point of technique are in fact its qualities. The exaggerated psychological 
 investigations indulged in by modern novelists rob their creations of any historical 
 accuracy. All Mapou’s characters, from the prince to the beggar-maid, speak the 
 language of their station. The love he portrays is Israelitish and healthy, pure 
 and holy, without any of the coarse sensuality which we find so often in the 
 historical novels of other literatures. The description of the capital, Jerusalem, 
 is blurred and weak ; after all, imagination must have a basis for its creations, 
 and Mapou lacked such a foundation, for he had no first-hand knowledge of city 
 life. On the other hand his descriptions of Hebrew rustic life are real works 
 of genius. The novel, “The Guilt of Samaria,” which is twice the size of 
 “The Lov^e of Zion,” is of less literary value, but it also contains many beauti- 
 ful and vivid scenes. Mapou’s great fault is that though he knows the 
 depths of the Jews of the southern kingdom, he is unable, Rabbinical student 
 that he was, to appreciate the spirit of the Jews of the Northern Kingdom. 
 The Jews of Judah are the depository of all that is good and righteous, and 
 the Jews of Ephraim all that is false and vile. After all the false prophet of 
 Israel was not always a deceiver and enemy to his people, but Mapou was 
 unable to appreciate the divine which shines forth even from sin, and he could 
 not discern the unity existing between the children of Ephraim and Judah in their 
 very differences. The result was that he divided the Hebrew nation into two. 
 In his third book, “The Hypocrite,” a novel written in five parts, he attempted 
 to describe the life of his fellow Jews in Russia, without success, for his thoughts 
 were more absorbed in the early life of the Hebrew nation than that of his 
 own time. It may be said that though he was not the prophet of his times, he 
 was, nevertheless, the greatest poet and singer of the Hebrew language and the 
 Jewish land. Before Mapou wrote “The Love of Zion” and “The Guilt of 
 Samaria,” Palestine, in the mind of the Jewish people, was not a spot on the 
 earth but a place in heaven, and not only its prophets but even its kings and 
 warriors seemed to be ethereal beings whose sole object was to enjoy the glory 
 of God. The very battles of Jewish history were, in their thoughts, fought by 
 angels. He was the first to put an end to this 
 
 Mystic Illusion 
 
 and gave them back the land in a concrete form. He described for them its 
 inhabitants in the form of living men, made up of souls and bodies. His works 
 aroused a feeling of beauty in the Jew and awakened in him a taste for Hebrew 
 poetry and a desire for a natural and healthy Hebrew life. His heroes were 
 popular characters among the Jews, an achievement which greater writers than he 
 were unable to accomplish. The “ Love of Zion,” an astonishing vision calling 
 forth our admiration at its pictures and prophetic style, is justly accounted to-day 
 as the first classic novel which the Jewish nation created in the Diaspora. Among 
 the prose writers who appeared after him, Smolensky (Russia 1842-1885) is con- 
 sidered the best. He was a modern writer, and in spite of sporadic traces of a 
 fine romanticism, is a realist absorbed in the needs of his time in describing every 
 
phase of Jewish life in Russia and in neighbouring countries. In his work entitled 
 “ The Wanderer Astray on the Path of Life,” the hereof which — Joseph — is a 
 sort of David Copperfield, he passes before us a panorama of isolated, realistic 
 pictures. A highly coloured gallery of scenes from Ghetto life, a faithful por- 
 traiture of everyday incidents are found therein. In the same way is actual life 
 depicted in the rest of his longer and shorter stories. Nevertheless, he is more 
 an idealistic writer, walking ahead of his generation, seeing what is in the distance, 
 rather than what is near him. His power of preaching is greater than that of 
 description. His heroes continually battle for causes sacred to him rather than 
 for causes sacred to them, but his stories possess this superiority over those of 
 Mapou, in the fact that the latter understood the essential nature of the Jewish 
 nation in the absolute unity of the nation, the language, and the land, only as a 
 poet, whereas Smolensky grasped it by his personal national consciousness. It 
 was this national consciousness which told him that the Jews were not a religious 
 brotherhood, but a nation, and that the decline of the nation was not-the fault of 
 the religion, but the fault of the Golus. He held that the dust and the dross 
 which clung to the religion were not the fault of the nation, but the result of the 
 Golus, and that the redemption of them both could not arise by any so-called 
 emancipation or religious reforms, but by the reform of Jewish life itself, which 
 would necessitate a return to the land of our Fathers. He is, perhaps, the only 
 writer who knew how to harmonise in his tales the man and the Jew, while other 
 writers, including even those of our own time, limit themselves for the most part, 
 either to the Jew or to the man, or deal with the conflicts between them without 
 the power to achieve a reconciliation. His journal “The Dawn,” in which he 
 sank all his earnings from other activities and which brought on his death at the 
 early age of 43, was instrumental in creating a whole generation of important 
 writers, such as Judah Leib Levine, who combined Judaism with Socialism, and 
 Dolitzky, the poet of national Romanticism. His influence on Hebrew literature 
 is felt even to-day, and with him Hebrew literature, from being the representative 
 of the few, became representative of the whole Jewish nation. Gordon (Russia 
 ] 832-1890), the greatest poet of his age, was a regular contributor to Smolensky’s 
 paper, “ The Dawn,” though he was a representative of the old school of human- 
 ism. He wrote a few poems such as “David and Michael,” “ Osna, daughter of 
 Potipharaoh,” “ Between the Jaws of the Lion,” and “ In the Depths of the Sea,” 
 in which he attained true poetic height. His style is always rich, but his setting 
 is generally narrow. Educated for the most part in Rabbinic literature, of which 
 intellect is 
 
 The Dominating Inftnence, 
 
 he was totally strange to the mystic literature. From European literature he 
 gained his general culture and his powers of analysis, but he could not appreciate 
 the beauties of nature and the depths of man’s emotions. He was occupied mostly 
 in finding fault with Rabbinic literature, which he believed to have been largely 
 responsible for the downfall of the Jewish nation. He could not realise the 
 beauty which lay in the inner depths of Rabbinic literature and the doctrines 
 of life contained in the theme of death. In his poetry we feel the beauty of the 
 Hebrew language, but not the greatness and height of Flebrew thought. A 
 wonderful book, in style and content, emanating from that period is the book 
 called “The Sins of Youth,” which describes the life of the author, Moses 
 Leib Lillienbloom (Russia 1843-1910), a mixture of Rousseau and Voltaire. This 
 work is a book of confessions parallel in Hebrew literature with the con 
 
fessions of Rousseau in French literature. In it we hear the mystic weepings 
 of the religious soul — a soul yearning for God, and despite the scepticism it 
 contains we find therein wandering and questioning faith. In it we find described 
 the strenuous conflict between the man and the Jew, which the author is unable 
 to reconcile. The second part appeared after the lapse of a few years. As a 
 result of the pogroms which befell our people in Russia, the national ideal 
 prevailed over the general humanitarian ideal. Now the patriot prevailed over 
 the author who regards literature only as a handmaiden to life, and through this 
 his literary talent was weakened. Lillienbloom was in his own person the hero 
 of the Ghetto drama. It is a thousand pities that no writer of genius has arisen 
 to make use of his wonderful personality as the hero of a literary creation. One 
 writer, indeed, Asher Reuben Braudes made Lillienbloom the central figure of 
 his nov'el, “ Religion and Life,” but Lillienbloom’s personality was too great 
 and elusive for the inferior talents of this author. If Mapou was the Hebrew 
 prophet, Smolensky, the polemical author, and Lillienbloom, the literary 
 agitator, Salom Jacob Abrahamovitch, better known an Mendele Mocher Sephorim, 
 a man of eighty who is still with us, is the literary artist of this period. He 
 portrays the light that is to be found in darkness, the pure in the sordid, the sun 
 in the cloud, the beautiful in the ugly, with an artistic power not easily equalled. 
 He still is with us, a man of unceasing activity. His first realistic story called 
 “Fathers and Children,” written under the influence of Turgenief, appeared half 
 a century ago, and, as it name signifies, it describes the conflict between the 
 believing fathers and the children who have left the path. Its literary value was 
 infinitesimal, but in the course of time he has enriched Hebrew literature with 
 wonderful classic productions- which could adorn the richest literature in the 
 world. He is no imitator, but ‘is original from beginning to end — both in style 
 and in his art of story-telling. The mere story is not the chief point with him, 
 but the description of the types he created which reflect the general character of 
 the nation. He has written many books, and every book is a veritable prose 
 poem. He has no concern with ideals or causes, and no central ideal is revealed 
 in his stories, but he passes before us 
 
 The whole life of the Golus 
 
 of the preceding generation in all its depth of sorrow and joy. In one of his tales 
 the Hebrew nation is portrayed under the form of an ill-treated nag, demanding a 
 right to live equally with other animals. This tale is the bitterest cry of agony 
 heard since the writing of Lamentations. His work “Benjamin the Third,” des- 
 cribing the Hebrew Don Quixote, is only an imitation in its outer dress ; in its 
 inner spirit there is not a vestige of imitation. It is original in its speech and in 
 its talk, in its dreams and aspirations, in its works and its deeds. Such is Sandol, 
 his Sanchopanza, and such is the Princess ; not an ordinary maiden but symbolic 
 of the Jewish nation. Mendele Mocher Sephorim is known in our literature under 
 the name of the Grandfather. Thank God the Grandfather need feel no shame 
 for his grandchildren. Among them are writers who surpass their grandfather, 
 if not in their artistic talents, at least in their creative powers. But before speak- 
 ing about these grandchildren through whom Hebrew literature has become Euro- 
 pean in the full sense of the word, I must mention two modern writers, who 
 though their activities extend into our own times, really belong to the preceding 
 generation. They are David Frischman and JehudahLeib Perez, through whose 
 work our literature has become what it is. David Frischman is the creator of 
 the Hebrew Feuilleton. He also holds a place in our literature as a poet, prose 
 
— 14 — 
 
 writer, critic and translator. Among his numerous translations are Byron’s 
 “Cain,” George Eliot’s “ Daniel Deronda,” and Nietzsche’s “Thus Spake Zara- 
 thustra.” This writer entered the field of Hebrew literature amidst the flare of 
 trumpets in a successful endeavour to destroy the empty bombast, the poetic 
 inutility, the artificial pathos which then reigned supreme. Before the advent of 
 Frischman, Hebrew writers dressed their words in flowery rhetorical' garb, making 
 use of biblical reminiscences and spoiling their thoughts by the artificiality of 
 their language. He was the first writer to demonstrate that it was possible to 
 express, also in Hebrew, any thought or idea pithily, and concisely, and that 
 literature is a spiritual possession, universal or national, of an individualistic 
 importance ; that it was not a mere vehicle of life, but life itself. His feuilleton 
 is an artistic creation, clever talk containing raillery, sarcastic quips and rebukes 
 in combination, judging all the facts of life with soul and emotion. In his poetry 
 and short stories we find portrayed the poetry of human life and the character of 
 the feeling soul, the sun of spring, the majesty of nature, the glory of life and the 
 turbulence of the soul. He also wrote many legendary tales which are in them- 
 selves a world of poetry. He has a path all to himself. In one of his poems he 
 says, “My path is narrow, though far-reaching, and alone I traverse it. Alone 
 am I accompanied by God, the God who burns in my heart.” This is, indeed, a 
 faithful description of Frischman, for he walks solitary and alone on his literary 
 paths. Izaac Leib Perez (Russia, 1851-1915), who died only a few months ago, 
 began his activities a few years before Frischman. He began as a realist and 
 ended up a symbolist. His stories are very short, but they are numerous and do 
 not serve any one purpose or any one ideal. What strikes him for the moment 
 is described and portrayed. With him, as with Mendele, the individual is the 
 limit of his treatment, the nation is reflected in the character of the individual 
 but whereas Mendele deals mainly with 
 
 The Material Life, 
 
 and touches the life of the spirit only by the way, Perez deals principally with 
 the spiritual and abstract life of his heroes. Every type he creates bears the 
 stamp of Hebrew culture. With his deep perception he enters into the depths of 
 the human heart and finds a heart and soul even in the outcasts and pariahs of 
 human society. He is particularly great when he transcends the limited life of 
 ordinary experience. In his tales of Chassidic life he sounds the poetic depths 
 of Judaism and rises therein to the height of a true poet of genius. He sings of 
 love and life, of nature and beauty, and in all that left his pen there is distinctive 
 Hebrew originality. The difference between Frischman and Perez is great, despite 
 their lyrical affinities. Their common feature is that they considered Judaism to 
 be an abstract idea, and instead of contemplating the Hebrew nation as settled in 
 the land of its fathers, they wished all nations to live by virtue of their spirit 
 desiring to reproduce the world over, the phenomenon of the Jewish nation, 
 which possesses its land only in an idea. Nevertheless, their work was valuable, 
 if unconsciously, for a national revival since they introduced their readers into 
 the stores of tradition, faith, and folk lore, which made an appeal by their 
 glamour and beauty. Together with Brainin, the great biographer, Sokolow, the 
 journalist, poet and essayist. Dr. Berenfeld, the historian and philosopher, and a 
 host of others, they brought out our literature from its narrow and limited sphere 
 and made it comprehensive of all the phenomena of life, and the departments of 
 science, an achievement which we must acclaim to be wonderful and glorious. 
 To-day we possess novelists, 'authors, critics, journalis'.s, historians, and transla- 
 
— 15 — 
 
 tors of the first water. Particularly is Hebrew literature rich in the sphere of 
 poetry with writers equalling the most important works of European literature. 
 
 Before dealing with the very latest Hebrew poetry I must call attention to 
 two schools of thought dominating our literature at present, one headed by 
 “ Achad-Ha’am,” the other by Dr. Berditchevsky, each of whom possesses numer- 
 ous and eminent disciples. “Achad-Ha’am” is neither a philosopher nor a student 
 of history, but a publicist of the first degree, interspersing his remarks with 
 speculative views ; but withal he is the philosophical guide of present-day Judaism. 
 His fixity of opinion and firmness of tone compel one to listen. His theory is 
 expressed in a few articles of great literary value, of which the four volumes that 
 form the whole book, “ On the Parting of the Ways,” in which these articles are 
 to be found are nothing more than an amplification. All that he has written is 
 expressed in a sound original style. His system, known by the name of “Spiritual 
 Zionism,” is with few modifications essentially the system of Nahaman Krochmel 
 mentioned above. For the latter Judaism as a religion is only a historical and 
 cultured attempt to reach the absolute spirituality which is the soul of the nation, 
 or otherwise the God of the nation. “Achad-Ha’am ” calls this absolute spirituality 
 which Krochmal does not define “ Hebath-Ziyon,” which is the concentration of 
 the nation’s spirit in the love for Zion in such a way that, as a dominating and 
 governing idea, it moulds and shapes the whole thought of the Jew. According 
 to “Achad-Ha’am,” what we lack most of all is a fixed national and spiritual centre, 
 which shall constitute a safe refuge, not so much for Jews as for Judaism. This 
 idea of the love for Zion is neither a part of Judaism nor an addition to Judaism 
 in its essence and completeness, but Judaism itself. It is no attempt to upset or 
 define tradition, but has as its whole object the establishment of a centre for every 
 living aspiration, for the revival and 
 
 Free Development of the Hebrew Nation 
 according to its spirit on general universal principles, and to emancipate the heart 
 of the people and bring it in relation with the whole of life without obliterating 
 its Hebrew form. According to him Judaism is not limited to the Jewish religion, 
 but includes all national creations. He is neither for religion nor against it, but 
 believes that when the love for Zion will invigorate the Jewish heart and prepare it 
 for general development, there will result, in the process of time, a living movement 
 and development also in matters of religion. For him the nation constitutes central 
 thought, and all our individual acts must be directed towards this point. Morality 
 is national and must remain national, consisting of the essence of the spiritual tife 
 of each nation. Judaism does not renounce the past, nor will it be founded 
 entirely on new principles, but will erect a new edifice on the basis of the past by 
 the process of natural development. Following the view of Matthew Arnold, that 
 the central idea of Hebrew prophecy is the coming of justice over the whole 
 creation, “Achad Ha’am” holds that the mission of Israel is not the discovery of a 
 new speculative truth, but a conciliation of practical life with absolute justice. 
 Since absolute justice cannot be re.alised in practical life, for men would then be 
 angels and not mortals, the Hebrew nation must continue to exist as the exponent 
 and personification of this unattainable ideal. It is noteworthy that he opposed 
 Herzl’s attempt to establish an actual practical centre which was obviously different 
 from his own idea of a spiritual centre. For Dr. Berditchevsky, on the other hand, 
 the individual is the main thing and snot the community. The community is only 
 the material and spiritual sum total of individuals. Withhim, as with Schopenhauer, 
 the will is everything, and just as the individual will to live is the uniting bond of aU 
 
our deeds, aspirations, and movements, so the general will is that which constitutes 
 and perpetuates the community. The will of the individual is the individual’s 
 God, and the will of the nation is the national God. The individual man is 
 unconsciously the ultimate goal and end of the universe, and the general will to exist 
 as a nation is the means by which this end is realised. The will of the individual, 
 the will of the nation, and the will of the universe constitute the-chain of the 
 evolution of humanity, and to emphasise any special link of this chain, as “ Achad 
 Ha’am ” desires is to weaken the effect of will in general. For after all the individual 
 is the ultimate unit of all development, containing in himself both the will of the 
 universe and of the nation. For “Achad Ha’am” the positive comes first and the 
 negative comes as a consequence, for Berditchevsky the negative precedes, and the 
 positive arises when the old has been found impracticable. Negation is a great 
 principle in life, not so much negation as doubt. Enquiry is the origin of creation, 
 whereas certainty is a sign of finality of thought. “Achad Ha’am” wants Judaism 
 first, and asserts that the Jews will follow, whereas to Berditchevsky the Jews as 
 distinct from opposed to Judaism are of the first concern. He does not believe in 
 an abstract Judaism which orders its members to act and feel in a prescribed 
 manner, but believes in Jews moulding their Judaism at will, for at bottom he 
 does not believe in Judaism and non-Judaism, in universalism and particularism, 
 but in men and Jews who are men and Hebrews, at the same time living lives 
 of beauty, purity and holiness. In philosophy and poetry there is no creation out 
 of nothing, there is only that which we see and feel to be alive and working, and 
 since the Hebrew genius is banished in exile we are lacking this necessary practical 
 element. We lack 
 
 A Local for our Soul, 
 
 we lack the feeling of close proximity to the earth. Israel’s redemption will, 
 however, not come through prophets or diplomatists, but through living active 
 men, working for themselves. We must bring the individual into the compass of 
 the community, so that all the individual does for himself and for his household 
 shall incidentally accrue for the benefit of the community. With reference to 
 religion he exposes many of its sores and ills, but he is not opposed to religion 
 itself. For him not justice but holiness is the aim “Ye shall be holy, for I am 
 holy.” This is his conception of complete culture. Holiness, which he is careful 
 to distinguish from asceticism, is the only complete culture, because it completely 
 transforms the whole of man. The path leading to this goal is the way of life, 
 for where there is no life the soul has no relation to anything at all. Again he 
 recognises the importance of the past, but desires that we should not be slaves of 
 the past. Since as living organisms there are aroused in us new wants, and we 
 seek new values. These are some of the views which Dr. Berditchevsky holds. 
 In his other works containing legend and novel, we find a multitude of great 
 thoughts. Original beauty and holiness emanate from these. Heart and soul 
 throbs in every word he writes. His creations possess an eternal literary value in 
 spite ofthe fact that he stands on the highway wandering and seeking his path. 
 I regret that lack of time forbids me to refer to a number of writers, but I must 
 mention, if only by name. Dr. Klausner, a disciple of “ Achad Ha’am,” who has 
 enriched our literature with many articles and books, among which are “Judaism 
 and Humanity,” and “Jesus,” in which he explains Christ’s attitude to Judaism, 
 and that of the Jews to him ; also Hilel Zeitlin, in some measure a disciple of 
 Berditchevsky, in whom Jewish mysticism and Jewish idealism, and the Jewish 
 soul yearning for God, find their greatest poet, It will be now my task to say a, 
 
few words on neo-Hebrew poetry in which Hebrew literature has reached an 
 astonishing and admirable height. The greatest of modern poets from the national 
 point of view is Byalik. Every line and every word throb with the life and soul 
 of the Jewish nation. How true and how soul-stirring are these few verses in 
 which he describes the national life. “ In the womb God hath made me wretched 
 and abject. He gave me a staff and told me to go. Go search for the rights 
 denied thee in life ; buy air to breathe, steal light to see. From door to door, 
 with wallet in thy hand, go beg thy bread. And I am long weary with struggle 
 and wandering. O my God, will there be an end : I do not live nor do I die.” 
 
 Beautiful and superb is the poem, “On the threshold of the House of Learning,” 
 to which he returns when his splendid dreams of the outside world have been 
 shattered and destroyed. “Shall I lament the desolation in thee, or that in me ; 
 or shall I lament them both. I did not gather honey in my backslidings, and the 
 evil spirit turned me from thee. I have lost all faith in the Lord, and my world 
 is shattered. The waters have reached to my soul but it has escaped drowning. 
 Thou didst not send me away empty handed from Thy peaceful shades. Thy 
 benign angels accompanied me on my way. Alas, the enemy has conquered and 
 despoiled me. But I rescued my God and my God rescued me.” His poem, 
 “The Talmudical Student,” translated by Miss Helena Frank into English, 
 describes the type of Rabbinical student for whom the study of the Law is the 
 goal of life. The poem, “The Scroll of Fire,” embracing the national and 
 Long Drawn Out Tragedy 
 
 since the destruction of Jerusalem is a poetic vision of wonderful intensity. His 
 poem, “ Songs of Fury,” which he wrote after the massacre of Kishineff, is a 
 veritable jewel of Hebrew poetry. Do we not seem to hear an echo of the great 
 Hebrew prophets in the lines, “ For the Lord called out Summer and Slaughter 
 together. The sun shone ; nature bloomed; the murderer killed.” In this poem 
 he calls heaven to account. In it is heard not merely notes of lamentation 
 but the cry of protest of a gasping nation against itself and against the world. 
 Although Byalik is principally a national poet whose poems are full of national 
 and religious romanticism, still they are composed in a universal garb. He has 
 written a few poems on nature, but these few merit a place in the literature of the 
 world, and are paralleled only in the Scriptures. He has written a number of folk 
 songs which are gems in form and construction. Saul Tchernechowsky, a poet 
 of love and nature, of might and strength, belongs to the school of Berdit. 
 chevsky. He is the creator of a new Hebrew poetry, and while Byalik sings 
 of the Hebrew past and bewails the wretched present, Tchernechowsky sings 
 of the new future. He is Hebrew and Greek together. His poem, “Towards 
 Apollo,” shows the Greek spirit within him. “I come to Thee, long-forgotten 
 God. God of the past and bygone ages. I come to Thee, dost know me, I am the 
 Jew, Thine ancient opponent. The faith of my fathers from that of Thy votaries 
 was removed as heaven from earth. My nation aged and its God with it. The 
 mutilated emotions of the prison-bound infirm have risen to life. God’s light 
 give me ; give me God’s light ; life, oh life, every sinew calls and I came to 
 Thee.” Yes, the struggle in him between the Greek and the Jew is great ; and 
 bitter are his complaints against the teachers who bound the hands and feet 
 of the nation. It is only the Golus, however, and the sordid in Judaism [that 
 he hates, while he loves the eternal that is in it. He believes in the future of 
 his nation, which he prophesies will be brilliant and glorious. “ When,” as 
 he says, “ Nation will bless nation, my people will again bloom forth and in 
 
the world there will be liberty ; its prison chains will be removed and face to face 
 will it behold light. It will live and love, do and dare, live on its own land, 
 in this world, not in the future or in heaven ; it has had too much of the life of the 
 spirit.” Tchernechowsky hears the voice of God in the whispering of the grass 
 and the twittering of the birds, in the thundering of the heavens and the 
 billows of the ocean, in the storms of Tamon and in the pulsing of the blood, 
 “A beautiful tree, a beautiful field, in them I behold God’s form. On every high 
 mountain He basks in love. Where there is feeling of life, where there is flesh 
 and blood, in plant and in stone is He personified. All things are His kindred, 
 hind, toad, tree, and even lightning and thunder. He is not the God of the 
 spirit but the God of the heart, this is His name and this is His memorial for 
 ever.” Tchernechowsky’s love poems are full of the strength and joy of life. He 
 describes nature with all the w'ealth of colour and hue, for he lives in the 
 whole of creation. In his historical poem, “Benedict of Mayence,” in 
 which he describes a Jewish massacre of the Middle Ages, are to 
 be found pen-pictures, perhaps unparalleled in the world’s literature. The 
 idylls in which he paints the ordinary life of the Jew constitute a wonderful 
 Hebrew epic. He has also translated the poem “Hiawatha.” This national 
 poem, in which Longfellow reviews the lives of men and nations, and in 
 which the sorrows of humanity and its suffering find an answering echo, loses 
 nothing in his excellent translation, which in many places is superior to its trans- 
 lation in the Russian language. The biblical style which he employs and new 
 terminology which he creates so become the subject matter that we forget we 
 are reading a mere translation. Jacob Cohen is a poet who lives with nature and 
 in it : his national poems are few, and while Tchernechowsky sings of the strong 
 and mighty, Cohen sings of 
 
 The Frail and Elegant. 
 
 “I participate in all life about me, and all creation lives and blooms in me. 
 Gently do my emotions flow, and all the scenes of life round about me, then do I 
 feel a great living intimacy of soul. I embrace existence in all the abundance of 
 its might.” This is the central thought of all his poems. He disclaims all 
 the hypocrisy of humanity, the distress and affliction of his people, and he flies 
 to nature. There he walks with the stars and the flowers. He speaks to them 
 and they answer him and receive him gladly, “When I go out to the forest or 
 go out to the valley, how joyous is all and yearns for me. Trees and leaves tell 
 me their secrets and an echo answers from the hidden glades.” There he meets 
 eternity and towards it he pours out his soul. “ I sing of life and I sing my song 
 at night. While men lie asleep and hear not miy song. But the stars hear and 
 they understand and so doth eternity.” Jacob Cohen has a fine ear and a 
 musical sense. The musicality of his words delights both the soul and the 
 heart. The young poet Shnaier, Byalik calls the Samson of Hebrew poetry, 
 whose seven locks grew within a night and who may also be compared to a torch 
 of cedar wood burning with the fire of creativeness. For him, as for Ber- 
 ditchevsky, Judaism is not distinct from universalism. Judaism is a form of 
 humanity and humanity is a certain portion of Judaism. He is the poet of the 
 sublime, of the startling and invigorating. A European and a son of Asia, a 
 descendant of warrior and prophet, his style is like the flinty rock. There 
 is too much coarseness and sensuality in him, and in many of liis 
 poems he is similar to Charles Baudelaire in French poetry. But he expresses 
 the coarsest passions in such a beautiful vvay that we forge the vulgarity. lie 
 
19 — 
 
 converts the base to the noble. There is no otlier poet who enters so deeply 
 into the heart of a tiling and who reveals the cant, false morality and con- 
 ventional purity which underlie the polished veneer of civilisation. He has given 
 us many poems, but he is a lyric rather than an epic writer. Every one of 
 his poems, such as “In the Hills,” “And there will be in I.ater Days,” “A 
 Vision of Desolation,” and others, contain a world of thought. As for flights 
 of imagination, he surpasses Tchernechowsky or Byalik. In one portion of his 
 Doem, “In the Hills,” which he calls “ Melody,” general human problems are 
 touched upon, in which by his poetical and philosophic flights he rises to a 
 greater level than that attained by the author of “ Faust.” He wrote it 
 ^ when he was twenty-five. Even now he is not much above thirty. His great 
 
 songs, “ The Melodies of Israel,” “ The Middle Ages are Coming,” “ September,” 
 are full of beauty and poetic height, and there is no doubt that in him Hebrew 
 poetry, unless some mischance occurs, will give to the world the poet of the 
 ^ twentieth century. When he was eighteen years of age he wrote a poem in which 
 
 these verses are found : — “ My daughter, thou dost ask 
 
 The Secret of Death. 
 
 Were it not better to ask the secret of life ? Thou lookest with awe upon the 
 dead, and I upon those who are born to live. Both life and death are evil sprites; 
 both have agreed to play with us dwarfs. I will create and thou shalt cut off, 
 and there will be a sport of living and dead. A fine sport indeed when we 
 pigmies dance the dance of terror. To live is bad and bitter, but we do not 
 wish to die. We know not which is better, and what the use of either.” He, 
 like Tchernechowsky, stood up against rules and laws, against the exaggerated 
 spirituality of the Ghetto. In his song, “Myself alone,” we see how he went out 
 into the world to demand payment for the childhood of which he had been 
 deprived. As a child of the East whose ancestors have given to the world gods, 
 saviours, and prophets even to the savages, and which has scattered its wealth 
 and life, leaving to its children only parchment and tattered remnants of its 
 tabernacle and its flag, he stood up to take vengeance and to enjoy worldly 
 life to a great degree. At first blinded by the world’s brilliant flash he con- 
 sidered himself a free man and so he cries, “ Arise, bless thy lot oh man who 
 hath no land, or aim, or race. Who will be so free as thou if thou but 
 renounce the burden of mysterious parchment.” Seeing, however, that the 
 beast in man still dominates as hitherto under the mask of hypocrisy, he found 
 himself alone, and the Jew in him began to prevail. In “Melodies” wherein he 
 pours out his heart to an Italian organ-grinder, a daughter of Borne, the city 
 which destroyed his own country, he tells her of the victory his God has won ; 
 that there is not a holy book wherein is not heard [the ripple of the Jordan, 
 the rustle of the trees of Lebanon. There is nothing in the world wherein there 
 is not the throbbing of the prophets and their dreams of light; of the 
 beautiful harvest and grief of Ecclesiastes and the chant and fragrance 
 of the Song of Songs. But the curse which the idols have uttered 
 against Judaism their destroyer, has poisoned the holy feeling and 
 ^ brought the eternal hate against the victorious Jew. He demands his rights 
 
 from the false nobility who have stolen his credentials, and he expresses the will 
 of the nation that, “in the mountains of Besamim in Judah the fountains of life, 
 frozen by the harsh cold of the North, will become once more the flowing foun- 
 tains of Spring, and that the dream of a new Messiah, blurred hitherto by the 
 mists, will become as clear as the sky and sink into the heart of the nation.” I 
 
— 20 — 
 
 conclude my lecture with Schnaier, who commenced as the Hebrew Charles 
 Baudelaire, the decadent poet, and who, like the Jew that he is, rises from the 
 base to the noble, from the lowest depth to the greatest height, and dreams of a 
 new Messiah, though indeed there are a number of younger poets who cannot 
 be treated here, although they show great power. I have not emphasised any 
 central chord in my lecture, so that you can judge of Modern Hebrew-Literature, 
 as a whole, from your own individual standpoint. I think that what I have 
 said contains the essence of the literature of the eternal Jew, of that wandering 
 spectre plying his journey by day and night, and you will be able to see that this 
 spectre is not so terrible as he is painted, and that he wants neither blood nor 
 money as the modern mobs imagine, nor even death, as the authors of the legend, 
 about the wandering Jew fancied. He wants only life, life of justice and a life of 
 that holiness which arises from relation with life ; even the theme of death, so 
 prevalent in the literature of the exile, contains within itself, if examined. 
 Deeper Faith in Life 
 
 and a desire for it. The spectre neither killed any gods, nor even men, as 
 Shelley thought, for all the gods of the world are his. He killed, he slew 
 only idols, and against Paganism whose whole object is murder and violence he 
 will strive, whatever the consequence, so long as his soul lives within him. 
 Maeterlinck, in his book, “The Treasure of the Humble,” says : “Whole generat 
 tions pass by in which intellect and beauty dominate the whole world when the 
 soul itself is not perceived. So was it in the age of the Greek, so was it in the 
 time of the Romans ; the soul escaped them ; so was it in France in the seventeenth 
 and eighteenth centuries. They lacked the inner light which affords the life of 
 eternity in place of the life of the moment.” I am afraid that at this very momen- 
 Europe, too, has lost her soul. You observe that Hebrew literature which began 
 with the opposition between the intellect and the emotion, between beauty and 
 goodness, is at present engaged in their reconciliation ; and the eternal Jew calls 
 to you, and through you to the whole world, if in truth all the ideals which have 
 been created, and all the fine phrases which have been uttered on the subject of 
 humanity, are not empty expressions of no substance. See to it that when the thick 
 clouds which now cover the horizon shall be dispersed, and when the light which 
 brings life to all will again shine forth, see to it that this light be not made crimson 
 with the blood of the Jew, as it has been hitherto. The wandering Jew does not 
 want the bread of charity, nor the crumbs of benevolence. He is not content with 
 mere equality of rights, but he wants his land where he and you combined will 
 be able to restore to Europe that high and noble soul which it has lost, that soul 
 in which Heaven and Earth are both reflected.