Читать книгу: «History of the Jews, Vol. 5 (of 6)», страница 42

"The Jews of Damascus allowed themselves grossly to insult the Christians, to abuse them and subject them to all sorts of indignities. Several persons made complaints of the disgraceful behavior of the Jews, abominable behavior, which humiliates all Christians."

The majority of European Christendom were, however, sufficiently well acquainted with the veracity of the clergy of Damascus to pay no attention to this hypocritical lament, and the heads of Catholicism felt ashamed of having exposed themselves in the Damascus affair.

The Jewish envoys did not think their task completed, unless they sought to prevent, as far as lay in their power, the repetition of events which branded all Judaism with dishonor. Foreseeing that Syria, together with Damascus, would be restored to Turkey, Montefiore made his way to Constantinople, entered into communications with the Porte, to which he had influential letters of recommendation, and together with some distinguished Jews of the Turkish capital obtained an audience of the Sultan, when he asked for a Firman (November 6), which should in future secure the Turkish Jews from blood accusations.

Crémieux chose another field for his activity. The martyrdom of the Damascus Jews had the unexpected effect of strengthening the connection between the Jews in Europe and those in the East. The latter saw with astonishment how much their European brethren could accomplish by means of culture, influence, and courage, and that they were treated with distinction by princes and the great, whilst they themselves bent their backs, unresistingly, to every blow. This reverent admiration of the Asiatic Jews for those of Europe, Crémieux utilized in the attempt to emancipate the Egyptian Jews (or at least those in the two capitals of Alexandria and Cairo) from their state of ignorance, and render them susceptible to civilization. Their ignorance of even Jewish writings, a consequence of the immeasurable oppression under which they had labored, as well as of their indescribable poverty, was the cause of the intense contempt in which they were held by Mahometans and Christians. From this ignominy Crémieux hoped to free them, and he was powerfully supported by Solomon Munk, who appears to have been destined to be the intermediary between the European and the Egyptian Jews – between the past and the present. Munk addressed an eloquent Hebrew and Arabic circular letter (Elul 23) to the Jews of Egypt, in which he contrasted the former splendor of the Jews of that country in the time of the Second Temple, in the time of Philo and Maimuni, when they stood at the head of Jewish spiritual activity, with the darkness of their present misery, the consequence of their intellectual decay. He exhorted them to wake from their deathlike torpor and establish schools, where their children might obtain a knowledge of Judaism and of Jewish literature, and at the same time a secular and practical education. Munk effected for the Egyptian Jews what Wessely had done for those of Europe. But, unlike his predecessor, he was not denounced as a heretic for his efforts. On the contrary, the rabbi of Alexandria was the first to offer assistance in the work. A distinguished Jew, named Valensino, placed himself at the head of a society for establishing schools and supervising public education. Then Crémieux, together with Munk, repaired to Cairo, where there dwelt a large congregation of about 300 families, only about twelve of whom were very wealthy, while about 200 lived on charity. Here also the rabbi, Moses Joseph Algazi, an aged man of seventy-six, and a prominent man named Adda, readily assisted in founding schools. Owing to their exertions and those of other persons, two schools for boys were opened in Cairo (October 4), and one for girls; these were called the Crémieux schools. Here Munk succeeded in bringing about an important reconciliation. In spite of the fanaticism of the rigidly orthodox, he succeeded in having the children of Karaites admitted to the schools, there being only about a hundred persons of this sect left in Cairo. The rabbi Algazi also supported the innovation, which seemed to be a step tending to restore brotherhood between Rabbanites and Karaites. Stirred by these movements, the grand rabbi of Constantinople (Chacham Bashi), Moses Fresco, issued a circular letter (October 28) to the Turkish congregations, urging that it was the duty of the Jews to learn the language of the country (Turkish), in order to meet the Sultan's wishes, who, by his Firman Hatti-Sherif, had raised them from their abject state. The mixed language in which this circular letter of the Chacham Bashi was written (Old Spanish with Hebrew and Turkish words), proved sufficiently the necessity of a pure language for the Jews.

However, these beginnings were merely seeds scattered in the desert sand, and it was doubtful whether they would take root and grow. The efforts were resumed on a larger scale twenty years later, under the name of "the Universal Alliance of Israelites" (Alliance Israélite Universelle). The mission to Egypt produced practical and lasting fruit for Jewish science, chiefly through Solomon Munk (born at Glogau, 1802; died at Paris, 1867). It is doubtful whether the spotless character of this man, or his devoted attachment to science, is to be more admired. He added to the number of great men produced among the Jews during the first half of the nineteenth century. His modesty was a marked feature, which grew in proportion to the increase of his scientific importance. For his patience in misfortune, and cheerfulness in the sufferings which he had incurred in the service of science, he was greatly admired in his native country, Germany, and in France, his adopted country, and he was loved as much as he was revered. Munk possessed all the virtues of the Jews without their faults. In the comprehensive range of Arabic literature he was one of the first masters of the day, and the most profound scholars in the same study recognized his equality, or awarded him the palm. As interpreter to the escort of Crémieux, he spoke and wrote Arabic like one born in an Arab tent. He divined the words and sense of any manuscript passage by a kind of instinct, which only increased in keenness when he lost his sight from poring over manuscripts. His intellectual sight compensated for the loss of his physical power. The darkness which enshrouded him for nearly twenty years before his death did not prevent his vision from being clear and distinct.

The glory of Jewish history during the Middle Ages developed during the rule of the Arabs in the East and West; its dawn began with Saadiah, and it reached its zenith with Maimuni. Munk banished the obscurity in which this epoch had been enwrapped, and illumined it with the full light of his profound studies. The innermost thoughts of Maimuni, the awakener of intellects, to whom the Jewish race is chiefly indebted for its renaissance in modern days, were completely revealed only through the researches of Munk. He renewed in its original form what had been spoilt by continual emendations. The proud boast of Christendom, that even in the obscurity of the Middle Ages it had disseminated the bright germs of thought, Munk controverted by incontestable proofs that without Arabic and Jewish philosophy, the darkness of the Middle Ages would have been impenetrable, and that the so-called Christian schools of philosophy of that period were fed upon the crumbs which fell from the lips of Jewish thinkers. Munk so conclusively established this historical fact that it is scarcely possible to speak of a Christian philosophy. Another historical fact, the origin and development of the Karaite sect, which, notwithstanding the powerful influence it exercised upon thought in the Jewish Middle Ages, was known only in rough outlines, was brought to light by Munk; in a word, Jewish science is deeply indebted to him. He not only greatly added to it by his profound knowledge, but he also showed how to pursue a sound course of investigation. As Luzzatto opened up new Hebrew sources for Jewish science, so Munk discovered new Arabic sources, rendering them comprehensible and accessible, and thereby greatly adding to the knowledge of Judaism, which he loved with all his heart. Munk's sojourn in Alexandria and Cairo was of extraordinary value in his literary and historical researches. From that soil, which had lain unproductive as to intellectual results for many a day, he excavated rich treasures for Jewish science. Munk fully recognized that the self-respect of the Jews would be confirmed only by self-knowledge, reached along the paths of science.

CHAPTER XVIII.
EVENTS PRECEDING THE REVOLUTIONS OF FEBRUARY AND MARCH, 1848, AND THE SUBSEQUENT SOCIAL ADVANCE OF THE JEWS

Return of Montefiore and Crémieux from the East – Patriotic Suggestions – General Indecision – Gabriel Riesser – Michael Creizenach – Reform Party in Frankfort – Rabbinical Assembly – Holdheim – Reform Association – Zachariah Frankel – The Berlin Reform Temple – Michael Sachs – His Character – His Biblical Exegesis – Holdheim and Sachs – The Jewish German Church – Progress of Jewish Literature – Ewald and his Works – Enfranchisement of English Jews – The Breslau Jewish College – Its Founders – The Mortara Case – Pope Pius IX – The Alliance Israélite – Astruc, Cohn, Caballo, Masuel, Netter – The American Jews – The "Union of American Hebrew Congregations" – The Anglo-Jewish Association – Benisch, Löwy – The "Israelitische Allianz" – Wertheimer, Goldschmidt, Kuranda – Rapid Social Advance of the Jews – Rise of Anti-Semitism.

1840–187 °C. E

The return from the East of the Jewish envoys, who not only had saved a few men from death, but had rescued all Judaism from disgrace, was a veritable triumphal procession. From Corfu to Paris and London, and even to the depths of Poland, the Jewish communities were unanimous in expressions of thanksgiving to the rescuers, and sought by visible signs to evince their gratitude, and at the same time show their patriotic sentiments for Judaism. The tributes took the form of public orations, addresses, articles written in every European language, naturally also in Hebrew, and both in prose and verse. Attentions and gifts were freely bestowed upon the two chief representatives of Judaism, to celebrate in a worthy fashion the momentous events which had occurred in Damascus, and transmit the remembrance of these deeds to posterity. Crémieux, who was the first to set out on the return journey, received enthusiastic homage in Corfu, Trieste, Venice, Vienna, Fürth, Nuremberg, Frankfort, and Mayence (November-December, 1840). The large communities through whose cities he could not pass sent deputations and addresses. It was naïvely touching that old-fashioned orthodox rabbis, at a loss how to show their gratitude, bestowed upon him the title of Rabbi (Morenu), as the highest honor in their gift. Only the Jewish community in Paris behaved in a cool fashion, and prepared no fitting reception for their emissary, as if fearing to wound the sensitiveness of King Louis Philippe, whose ambiguous attitude had been striking.

Montefiore, who had remained in Constantinople a long time, in order to obtain a favorable Firman, and who began his return journey later, and traveled mostly by sea, did not come into contact with so many congregations as Crémieux, hence did not receive so much public homage. He was, however, overwhelmed with letters from all sides. By his watchful care, continually directed to the welfare and honor of his brethren, and without any idea of reward, he had in his simplicity put their enemies to shame. He obtained a promise from Cardinal Rivarola, the protector of all Capuchins in Rome, that the tombstone should be removed which had been erected in the Capuchin church at Damascus recording the murder of Father Tomaso by the Jews, and representing him as a martyr. He also compelled King Louis Philippe to appear pleased with what had occurred. At an audience obtained through the English ambassador, Lord Granville (February 22, 1844), Montefiore handed the king a copy of the Sultan's Firman which testified the innocence of the Damascus Jews, and tacitly condemned the French consul. Louis Philippe was compelled to swallow this humiliation, and assume a gracious manner for the sake of appearances, and congratulate Montefiore on the success of his journey and his mission. Queen Victoria thanked Montefiore all the more sincerely, through Lord Palmerston (who was prime minister at the time, and to whom he was presented on his return), for the succor which he had brought his co-religionists.

The entire body of Jews in Europe were at this time engaged in carrying out three objects: offering to their two rescuers an enduring and striking token of gratitude, perpetuating the memory of the deliverance effected by them, and finally, discovering, through combined action, a means whereby to prevent the recurrence of similar false accusations against Jews and Judaism. The leaders of the German Jews felt themselves especially moved to put on record their interest in the events, and their admiration for the two noble representatives of their race. They, the very ones who had hitherto taken the lead in advocating progress, had done little in connection with the sanguinary events of Damascus. A prominent Jewish scholar, Zunz, had completely refuted the alleged proofs, supposed to be drawn from the Talmud, of the use of blood by the Jews. The Jewish newspapers had boldly fought against anti-Jewish attacks and slanders. But this was all that had been done in Germany towards vindicating the honor of Judaism. Riesser might easily have joined Montefiore and Crémieux, might have accompanied them to Egypt as the representative of the German Jews, and used his eloquence on behalf of the sufferers; but no such idea was even suggested. Geiger, from hatred to the Talmud, had actually admitted that the anti-Semites were right in attributing misanthropical expressions to the Talmud. Certain high-minded Jews in Germany felt it the more necessary to take public action in the matter. Riesser, together with a few friends, desired to found societies, through which the Jews of the four chief countries of Europe were to offer some public recognition to their two representatives. But this plan of acknowledging their indebtedness fell through. In fact, the three objects desired by the people were only imperfectly carried out, because the right means to attain them were not pursued. The services of Montefiore were, however, acknowledged with fervent enthusiasm on his return to London by a public celebration in the synagogues, and a piece of plate was presented to him in remembrance of his success. A still greater distinction awaited him at the hands of Queen Victoria. She rewarded him with an addition to his armorial bearings (June 24), a great honor both to his race and himself. Yet more important than this toy for adults were the words of Her Majesty that accompanied the gracious distinction:

"Inasmuch as it was brought to our notice, that in consequence of tidings from the East, which stated that, on account of the accusation that they had murdered Father Tomaso, Jews in Damascus and Rhodes had been imprisoned and tortured, that many children had been thrown into prison and deprived of almost all nourishment, and that many persons had been so cruelly tortured that death ensued, … our trusty and well-beloved Sir Moses Montefiore, accompanied by Lady Montefiore, had quite voluntarily journeyed to Alexandria with the view of proving the falsehood of the charge and of conducting the affairs of his unhappy and persecuted brethren; that he succeeded in obtaining from the Pasha, Mehmet Ali, the honorable liberation of the accused who were incarcerated, and the permission for those who had fled the city to return home; that for this purpose he procured a Firman in Constantinople from his Imperial Majesty the Sultan Abdul Meg'id, which declared the innocence of the Jews, and assured equal rights with all other subjects to members of the Jewish religion under Turkish rule – we have taken the above mentioned facts into our royal consideration, and desire to give to Montefiore a special mark of our royal favor, in memory of his persevering efforts on behalf of his suffering and persecuted brethren in the East, and of his nation in general."

It was an extract from the history of modern Jews related by the Queen herself.

In comparison with this distinction, the proposal of certain French congregations of the Upper Rhine to strike a medal in honor of Crémieux appears very trivial. They shared the general idea, "that it was important for future generations to perpetuate the memory of the events of 1840 affecting Israelites." But Crémieux declined the medal. In what manner these joyful, national memories were to be immortalized was a matter concerning which there was general indecision. Crémieux asked the French Jews and others to support the schools that he had established in Alexandria and Cairo by their contributions. Only a small amount, however, was subscribed: the maintenance of the Crémieux schools in Egypt was only accidentally connected with the main question, and was not likely to keep the exaltation of the Jews at a high pitch. One suitable proposition was made, but no notice was taken of it.

"It is not by ostentatious gifts, nor by clamorous celebrations, that we can testify our gratitude. We would offer the finest testimonial to the men who went to the rescue by perpetuating this great historical event in a religious form appropriate to its religious spirit. It should be commemorated by an annual festival equal to the festivals of Chanuka and Purim; for on those days it may be said that Israel was delivered from bodily suffering, whilst on this day it was delivered from spiritual servitude."

Judaism never knew a more effectual way of commemorating its liberation and victories and arousing a spirit of emulation in posterity than by establishing days of memorial, by means of which, time, the destroyer, is made the protector of historical events. If that most skillful master of the Hebrew language, Isaac Erter, had completed the narrative of the persecution and the deliverance in Damascus, which he had commenced in the simple biblical style, and if the heads of the Jewish communities had resolved to commemorate the most important day in the Damascus affair, and to read this "Scroll" (Megillah) in public, the lasting remembrance of these occurrences would have been assured, and at the same time a means would have been found of cementing afresh the bonds of fellowship. The Jews of Asia and Africa and on the whole globe would joyfully have accepted such a festival as an international memorial. Munk, whose voice carried great weight, remarked:

"Would that the sad Damascus incident might at least serve to make us take cognizance of our disorganized condition, which, though mournful to contemplate, is unfortunately a fact. Would that it might show us that in times of danger we must rely upon ourselves, and that the bond that formerly united us might be renewed."

Instead of unity, however, a rupture took place within German Judaism, which, though caused by a trifling dispute that might easily have been settled in the commencement, grew to great proportions. The consciousness of opposition was present, and by chance it asserted itself on this occasion; but it might equally well have shown itself at any other time, so long as it was not allayed, or had not worn off. The Hamburg Temple, which twenty years before had first stirred up dissensions between the old-fashioned orthodox party and the reformers, again brought about a quarrel, which henceforth assumed a fiercer complexion. The congregation of the Temple had largely increased in numbers since its foundation. The younger members of the old-fashioned community had joined, because in the old synagogue they found no satisfaction for their devotional cravings, and they objected to the continual disorder that prevailed. The new congregation had already grown to nearly eight hundred members, and included a man who in his own person was a great attraction. After the death of Bresselau, the secretary of the congregation, Gabriel Riesser had accepted that post. He became closely connected with the Temple, and was elected to the office of second warden. As his name was in extraordinary repute, owing to his untiring zeal for the political and social emancipation of the Jews in Germany, his adhesion to the Temple shed new luster upon it. When the members of the Temple determined to erect a new and larger house of prayer, the old party by complaining to the senate threw obstacles in the way of the undertaking. The authorities of the Temple had also caused a new prayer-book to be compiled.

The altered liturgy of the Temple was published and announced as a general "Prayer-Book for Israelites," but was so objectionable to the orthodox party as to be utterly rejected. The circumstance that the new prayer-book claimed to be used by all Jews gave rise to great annoyance. Chacham Bernays therefore renewed on a Sabbath, in the three synagogues (Marcheshvan 1, October 16, 1841), the proclamation against heretics which the three rabbis had issued on the foundation of the Temple, forbidding any Israelite to use this prayer-book. In the reasons assigned, harsh expressions were employed charging that this prayer-book, even more than the former, gave wanton and frivolous treatment to the religious convictions contained in the Hebrew prayers. This denunciation naturally excited the Temple congregants, and transported even the cautious Riesser to inordinate lengths. Whilst the preachers regarded the insulting expression of opinion from a religious standpoint, Riesser saw in it an encroachment upon their rights, "because the Chacham had no authority over the Temple." The Temple committee then published a counter-declaration (October 24), in which Bernays was charged not alone with "arrogance, impotent partiality, and malicious ignoring of the contents of the book," but with "ignorance of all theological and liturgical literature." There now arose a violent dispute, conducted with such passion, that the senate was compelled to reprove both parties. The Chacham and the leaders of his congregation, who sided with him, circulated thousands of copies of the sentence of condemnation upon the prayer-book in many communities; whilst the authorities of the Temple (November) requested rabbis and preachers holding the same religious views to give their opinions as to the value or worthlessness of the innovations, expecting that the decisions would be in their favor. On this occasion, the changes which had taken place in the German communities during two decades became evident. Whereas formerly only three rabbis had ambiguously given their assent to the ritual of the Temple, and many others had condemned it, at this second discussion only the rabbi of Altona supported Bernays, whilst twelve or thirteen others pronounced judgment adverse to him; this was at the close of 1841, or the beginning of 1842. Then began the aggressive stage of the reform movement. Young rabbis or clergymen, pastors (as they preferred to be called), who had mostly drawn their wisdom from academies, and were enthusiastic for the reform which had become the fashion, now were at the head. The old rabbis, on the other hand, no longer ventured to oppose them. Thus it seemed as if all the Jews of Germany were in favor of innovations in the synagogue, and only a few wanting in spirit struggled against this tendency.

The contest concerning the Hamburg Temple bore no results in the city itself, as a terrible conflagration (May, 1842) transformed a great part of the town into a mass of ruins, and distracted attention from party interests. The flame of reform blazed up from another point, and threatened to spread far and wide. In Frankfort-on-the-Main, for some time past, there had been discontented persons who had broken away from the Judaism of the day. These disturbing elements partly originated in a school called the Philanthropin (which from small beginnings had grown into an important institution), partly in the first Jewish Freemasons' lodge. The managers and teachers of the school and the members of the lodge favored a radicalism repugnant to Judaism. For a long time Michael Creizenach (born 1789, died 1842), a teacher at the Philanthropin, formed the center of an invisible society. Creizenach, who was honest, judicious, but uninteresting, had published many pamphlets combating Rabbinical Talmudical Judaism, but owing to their temperate tone and want of depth, these writings made little impression. By his personal influence, however, he filled the circle of his friends and admirers with a passion for innovation and a deep aversion to antiquity.

After his death several of his adherents endeavored to form a congregation, and to establish a sect, even at the risk of separating from Judaism. Their aim was in a measure to remove the pretext of anti-Jewish politicians, who withheld equal rights from the Jews on the score of attachment to their nationality, to the Talmud, and to old forms, and they also desired to secure freedom of action for themselves. They were educated laymen, who, owing to the prevailing confusion, had lost mental balance, or they may have been misled by false leaders. They constituted themselves a Society of the Friends of Reform (October, 1842), and drew up a confession of faith, which clearly proved the perplexity of the times. They refused to recognize the Talmud as an authority. But the Bible? "They considered the Mosaic religion capable of continual development." First of all they wished to throw off the fetters of the dietary laws, because they "had originated in the ancient constitution of the state," and at the present day had lost their significance as a religious act or symbol. They definitely gave up all hope in the Messiah, or a return to Palestine, "because they regarded their native land as their sole fatherland."

The Creizenach Friends of Reform did not find many supporters. They therefore sought to interest Gabriel Riesser, whose importance was already acknowledged, and who might attract others. He was at first inclined to join them. He appears not to have overcome the excitement into which he had been thrown by Bernays' intervention in the affairs of the Hamburg Temple. He did not even shrink from total secession, although he had hitherto constantly desired to have "the shell of Judaism respected on account of its soul." The idea of freedom, which completely filled his mind, destroyed his emotional attachment to existing Judaism. He was therefore eminently in favor of the paragraph in the Creizenach or Frankfort programme which declared that it was optional with every Jewish father to have his sons circumcised, and that in case of the omission of this rite civil disabilities should not be entailed. Riesser wished to combat any presumptive right of forcing conscience. However, others who had been asked to join, took umbrage at this very question of circumcision. The founders of the Society of the Friends of Reform, therefore, saw themselves obliged to relinquish this point as well as the declaration against the dietary laws, and to adhere to only three out of the five resolutions of their original programme: that against the Talmud, that against the Messiah, and that enunciating the possibility of the development of the "Mosaic religion." This abridgment and enfeebling of the original confession, Riesser considered illogical and cowardly, and he withdrew his support. The power of attraction was lacking in the society, and as only a few joined, it perished at its birth. The question of circumcision was shortly afterwards brought forward from another quarter. Several unfortunate accidents at the circumcision of Jewish boys had induced the health officers in Frankfort-on-the-Main to issue an order (February 8, 1843) with the ambiguous wording, "Israelite citizens and inhabitants, if they desire to have their children circumcised, must employ the services of competent persons." From this it appeared that the Frankfort Senate made it optional with Jewish parents to perform the rite or neglect it, and did not regard it as a necessary mark of the Jewish religion. The Senate at the same time explained that they did not mean thereby to give untrammeled liberty to the innovators. But the reformers seized upon the words in order to have a pretext for abolishing the rite of circumcision. In consequence, Rabbi Solomon Trier invited the opinions of his brother rabbis upon the subject (1843–44) in order to dispose of the question forever. However, it caused but a slight sensation, seeing that even young rabbis favorably disposed to reform had decisively asserted the obligation and necessity of circumcision. Therefore, no seceding sect was formed among the Jews of Germany, although the elements existed, and an uneasy state of feeling was the result.

This feeling was especially noticeable among the younger rabbis, who were not very clear about the purpose and extent of the reforms to be instituted, or met with continual opposition on one side or the other in their congregations, and in their isolation were without support. At this time the fashion of assemblies and societies had come into vogue; railways had already been built between the great cities, and had facilitated personal intercourse. Thus the invitation calling a conference of rabbis met with approval. This meeting of rabbis and preachers who were, to some extent, at one upon the subjects under discussion, at first awakened a certain expectancy; it was a novelty, and this always possesses a certain amount of charm. However, at the first session only twenty-two rabbis assembled in Brunswick, the majority coming from southern and western Germany. The remainder waited until the resolutions of the assembly should be made known, and according as they agreed or disagreed with them, they would decide whether to join or to hold aloof. Few rabbis attended who adhered to the Judaism rooted in the Talmud; most of the members had partially, or wholly, severed themselves from the Talmud, although they did not practically manifest this severance in their religious practices.