Michael A. Meyer | Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion (original) (raw)
Festschrift by Michael A. Meyer
C h a l l e n g e s a n d Tr e n d s i n t h e J e w i s h E n c o u n t e r w i t h t h e M o d ... more C h a l l e n g e s a n d Tr e n d s i n t h e J e w i s h E n c o u n t e r w i t h t h e M o d e r n W o r l d Essays in Honor of Michael A. Meyer
Articles by Michael A. Meyer
Had they lived as sinlessly and sacredly as their master; had the Christianity of the world not c... more Had they lived as sinlessly and sacredly as their master; had the Christianity of the world not cost bloody tears; had love instead of hatred, humility instead of pride, intrinsic joint-property instead of self-interest erected their throne in the world-the Jew would have joyfully and with delight beheld the realization of their messianic hopes in Christianity. But because eighteen hundred years were still not enough to realize this in the Christian countries, it should not be taken amiss that Jews still always look hopefully into the future. david einhorn (1809-79) David Einhorn (b. 1809, Dispeck; d. 1879, New York) was a rabbi and leader of Reform Judaism in Germany and America, and a key ally of Abraham Geiger (see chapter 2). A rabbi in various communities across Germany from 1838 to 1855, he found himself continuously opposing more traditional views on religious and theological matters, advocating, for example, for the widespread introduction of the German language into prayer services and the elimination of liturgical references to the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple. But Einhorn also believed deeply in the unity of the Jewish community, and in the continuity of Judaism from ancient to modern times, and therefore opposed all reforms which he believed threatened to sever what he calls in this sermon "Israel's unchanging attachment to its mission." In 1855, Einhorn emigrated to the New World and became a leading figure in the American Reform movement, alongside esteemed colleagues Samuel Adler (1809-91) and Samuel Hirsch (in this chapter), and his sons-in-law Kaufmann Kohler (see chapter 7) and Emil Hirsch (1851-1923). Einhorn delivered this sermon, entitled "Die Vorzüge der jüdischen Gotteslehre" (The benefits of the Jewish doctrine of God), on the holiday of Shavuot (Feast of Weeks), which celebrates the giving of the Torah on Mt. Sinai54 For Einhorn, Shavuot becomes the perfect tableau against which to unfold his theology, for it is the one holiday
These considerations now lead to the right conclusion: Only those truths that are indispensable f... more These considerations now lead to the right conclusion: Only those truths that are indispensable for the existence of religion-and of Judaism specifically-can be called fundamental doctrines of faith, so that failing to recognize them would mean an open or implicit [religious] renunciation. In addition to this, one should zealously seek all the truths that the Bible teaches us, without, however, presuming the right to establish one's own opinions as norms of belief for all adherents of the Jewish religion. Instead, everyone must be granted the same freedom of thought that one claims for himself. It is well known for the readers of Mendelssohn's Jerusalem that he completely agreed with this view and supported the freedom of thought of the Israelite with reasons that leave nothing to be desired. If we now ask ourselves which truths are essential for the concept of the Israelite religion, after a moment of reflection we will arrive at the same three basic points that Joseph Albo also assumed to be fundamental doctrines: the existence of a unique creator; God's rule of the universe; and the divine origin of the Mosaic teachings. The prophet Isaiah hints at those points: "God is our judge, God is our lawgiver, God is our king" (Isa. 33:22). And in the middle part of the Musaf Prayer on the Day of Remembrance [Rosh Hashanah], those three fundamental teachings are developed with abundant clarity.44 By elucidating these three fundamental doctrines and illuminating the questions consequent upon them, Israelite dogmatics is assessed in full extent and raised to a systematically ordered science.
The historical image of Israel Jacobson is not merely varied, it is conflicted with regard both t... more The historical image of Israel Jacobson is not merely varied, it is conflicted with regard both to his character and his accomplishments. Is he a latter-day court Jew, a representative of his class, who also devoted himself to fellow Jews, or a champion of the Jews devoted to their civic and religious improve ment who simply happened to be a financier? And was he altruistic or self serving? Three of Jacobson's activities have received special attention: his work to advance the status of fellow Jews, his economic activities as a latterday court Jew, and his activity as a reformer of Jewish education and religion. My task in this brief analysis is to look critically at the portrait of Jacobson and his activities drawn by historians writing within two contexts: in works devoted broadly to Jewish history and in works focused on the history of Jewish religious reform. In the first group I include the multi-volume histori ans of the Jews:
did not have an easy career in America.Both his intemperate relations with others and his locatio... more did not have an easy career in America.Both his intemperate relations with others and his location on the radical extreme of Reform Judaism alienated him from other rabbis and from his own congregation. After only two years in Philadelphia, he confessed to one of the few rabbinical associates with whom he could be frank: "Am Ithen alone among my colleagues struck by blindness?"¹ Personalconflict was not new to Hirsch when he crossed the ocean to the United States in 1866.I nD essauheh ad been at odds with the Jewish educator David Fränkel and with his congregation there, which voted not to retain his services; in Luxembourg,f ollowing ad ispute, he had resigned from the Masonic Lodge.² He also entered into ahostile exchangewith arival Jewishphilosopher,S alomon Formstechter,a fter Hirsch had severelycriticized Formstecher's work.³ The protocols of the Brunswick rabbinical conference of 1844 record Hirsch's "fierce" reaction when colleagues displayedt he "audacity" to ignore a proposal he had brought to them.⁴ Intellectual or religious compromise in amatter of principle was entirelyforeign to Hirsch'sway of thinking. Cordial relations werenot his highest priority.InAmerica he would quarrelnot onlywith rabbinical colleagues standingtohis religious right but also with adherents of his own Reform persuasion and with the majority in his own congregation. His proposals for reforms would be questioned if not actuallyr ejected. And yetb eyond the vituperation and sharp differencesofopinion, therewerealso alliances formed on individual issues. Opponents even evinced am easure of respect for this man
The chapters in this volume set out in a variety of directions, collectively giving voice to a wi... more The chapters in this volume set out in a variety of directions, collectively giving voice to a wide spectrum of specific interests and innovative methodologies. Taken together, they represent a nuanced image of German-Jewish studies as the field is developing today: encompassing multiple disciplines that range from history to literature, philosophy, and beyond. I shall not duplicate the editors' introduction that describes the chapters of the rising scholars who appear here. Rather, I shall step back from the contributors' individual projects in order to present a personal analysis of the nature of the field as a whole and to make some suggestions for future concentration. 1 When I began to study the history of the German Jews fully sixty years ago, Jewish and German were understood as distinct markers of identity, and I was concerned with showing how inherited Jewish identifications diminished to make room for German ones. I knew that in the process of its diminution the Jewish component would assume new forms in relation to the religious heritage both through distancing from earlier attachments and longings as well as through application of critical approaches, learned from the university, to Jewish texts and traditions. At the same time, conflicting values were being absorbed from the non-Jewish environment. I also recognized that in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, German intellectuals were shifting from the Enlightenment's reliance on philosophical thought to a fervent attachment to Romanticism with its preference for historical truth over abstract reason. However, I did not proceed to trace the interaction of the two components, Jewish and German, beyond the period when these two elements of the German Jews' identity first confronted each other. Nor did I fully realize the extent of the internal dynamism of the two identities. Recent scholarship has justifiably argued against understanding "Jewish" and "German" as representing a fixed binary. Rather, both elements of the relationship are now understood to be unstable. Given our current understanding, I would therefore like to examine here the relationship between Jewish and German as we might
Wissenschaft des Judentums Exported to Amer i ca The Case of Gotthard Deutsch michael a. meyer Fo... more Wissenschaft des Judentums Exported to Amer i ca The Case of Gotthard Deutsch michael a. meyer For multiple generations, from the time that Leopold Zunz, in 1822, edited his pioneering journal of critical research in the area of Judaism, the Zeitschrift für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, modern Jewish studies have been associated with German Jewry. In Germany, Wissenschaft des Judentums developed, and in Germany during the nineteenth century, its greatest exponents did their work: Zunz and Moritz Steinschneider, Heinrich Graetz, Abraham Geiger, and Zacharias Frankel-to mention only the most outstanding names. As Jewish studies spread to other countries, the German term continued to be used, as it often is even today among Jewish scholars. For generations, Jewish scholarship outside Germany was regarded as peripheral to its point of origin, even though there were notable scholars in surrounding countries: in Italy, the Austrian Empire, and France. However, as Jewish demographics shifted, so too did Jewish scholarship. 1 By the first de cades of the twentieth century, it had become apparent even among the most Germanocentric of Jewish scholars that the rapidly growing American Jewish community would become the center of gravity for world Jewry not only in population but, in due course, also in Jewish scholarship. It is the purpose of this essay to illustrate an early stage in that transition through an examination of one of the Wissenschaft des Judentums scholars who exported it from Central Eu rope to the United States, the historian Gotthard Deutsch
I n t r o d u c t i o n The German Foundation, the Multifaceted Expansion anne o. albert, noah s.... more I n t r o d u c t i o n The German Foundation, the Multifaceted Expansion anne o. albert, noah s. gerber, and michael a. meyer Two hundred years and counting have passed since the birth of the modern critical study of Jewish history and heritage. Its beginnings are usually attributed to a small circle of Jewish intellectuals, some of them students at the newly established University of Berlin, who pursued a new scholarly project that came to be called the Wissenschaft des Judentums (WdJ). Over the course of the ensuing two centuries, WdJ evolved in scope and purpose, taking on more diverse subjects and gradually assuming a major role within modern Jewish identity. Its intensely self-conscious acolytes were driven to describe it from multiple angles, and accordingly it developed a history of its own. At the same time, it expanded beyond what its initiators imagined, crossing cultures, continents, and centuries. The pre sent volume reckons with these transformations, integrating into the story of WdJ researchers, topics, and aims that were once seen as lying at the farthest frontiers of Jewish scholarship. From the outset, the term Wissenschaft des Judentums itself creates a problem of definition in languages other than German, as the most common translation, "Science of Judaism," is misleading with regard to both of its ele ments. The German word Wissenschaft is broader in scope than the En glish science. It covers not only natu ral and social sciences but also the forms of humanistic endeavor practiced by early proponents of the WdJ, including philosophical and literary studies, philology, and history. In short, unlike science, Wissenschaft can apply to any disciplined inquiry. The German term Judentum is
During the twohundred year history of the Reform movement in Judaism the role of minhag (Jewish r... more During the twohundred year history of the Reform movement in Judaism the role of minhag (Jewish religious custom) has undergone profound changes. The position of the earliest religious reformers,first in Amsterdam and then in Westphalia and Hamburg, was that theirreforms did not violate halakha (Jewishlaw), but represented onlyavariation of the dominant minhag. They could claim that their divergent minhagim wereprecedented either by ancientpractice, as Moses Mendelssohn had done with regardtothe time of burial, differencesbetween Sephardim and Ashkenazim in such matters as the consumption of kitniyot (lentils) on Passover,o rl ocal variations with regard to liturgical practice. Despitet he fact that they adopted some minhagim that were entirelynew within the Jewishcontext,such as confirmation, the earlyreformers insisted that they werenot sectarians, but wereo nlyi nstituting one more configuration of minhagim within ad i-asporaJ ewish population that included numerous possibilities.
In 2007 I wrote a piece for this journal entitled "Toward a Re form Vision for Zion." Rereading a... more In 2007 I wrote a piece for this journal entitled "Toward a Re form Vision for Zion." Rereading and reflecting upon what I wrote then, I find that some issues that were at the center of my attention then have moved to the periphery while others have emerged, and still others gained in intensity. Although my vision for Zion has not changed in its essentials, it has become more desperate. Ten years ago there was much talk of "Post-Zionism," and I felt compelled to refute thinkers and scholars who fell into various it erations of that ideology. Today the chief concern for Zionism is no longer with competing ideologies, but with those Jews, especially in the Diaspora, who do not relate their Jewish identity to Zionism at all, not even to contrary doctrines that have arisen against it. One hears less today of a problematic Zionism and more of Jews who can easily dispense with it out of sheer indifference, or at least see no need to make the state central to their Jewishness. Some speak of "Diaspora Judaism," a faith that is contained within the land of their domicile, that does not require Israel at all in order for them to be fully Jews. Especially is this true of so-called "just Jews," who lack affiliation with any one of the denominations. But it is also true among some Reform and Conservative Jews, and it has now made its way, as well, into the American Jewish intellec tual community, even among university scholars of Judaism and its history. This growing alienation from Zionism and Israel has, regretta bly, increased during the last ten years due, in part, to factors in the Diaspora and due, in part, to trends in Israel. The two have
C h a l l e n g e s a n d Tr e n d s i n t h e J e w i s h E n c o u n t e r w i t h t h e M o d ... more C h a l l e n g e s a n d Tr e n d s i n t h e J e w i s h E n c o u n t e r w i t h t h e M o d e r n W o r l d Essays in Honor of Michael A. Meyer
Had they lived as sinlessly and sacredly as their master; had the Christianity of the world not c... more Had they lived as sinlessly and sacredly as their master; had the Christianity of the world not cost bloody tears; had love instead of hatred, humility instead of pride, intrinsic joint-property instead of self-interest erected their throne in the world-the Jew would have joyfully and with delight beheld the realization of their messianic hopes in Christianity. But because eighteen hundred years were still not enough to realize this in the Christian countries, it should not be taken amiss that Jews still always look hopefully into the future. david einhorn (1809-79) David Einhorn (b. 1809, Dispeck; d. 1879, New York) was a rabbi and leader of Reform Judaism in Germany and America, and a key ally of Abraham Geiger (see chapter 2). A rabbi in various communities across Germany from 1838 to 1855, he found himself continuously opposing more traditional views on religious and theological matters, advocating, for example, for the widespread introduction of the German language into prayer services and the elimination of liturgical references to the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple. But Einhorn also believed deeply in the unity of the Jewish community, and in the continuity of Judaism from ancient to modern times, and therefore opposed all reforms which he believed threatened to sever what he calls in this sermon "Israel's unchanging attachment to its mission." In 1855, Einhorn emigrated to the New World and became a leading figure in the American Reform movement, alongside esteemed colleagues Samuel Adler (1809-91) and Samuel Hirsch (in this chapter), and his sons-in-law Kaufmann Kohler (see chapter 7) and Emil Hirsch (1851-1923). Einhorn delivered this sermon, entitled "Die Vorzüge der jüdischen Gotteslehre" (The benefits of the Jewish doctrine of God), on the holiday of Shavuot (Feast of Weeks), which celebrates the giving of the Torah on Mt. Sinai54 For Einhorn, Shavuot becomes the perfect tableau against which to unfold his theology, for it is the one holiday
These considerations now lead to the right conclusion: Only those truths that are indispensable f... more These considerations now lead to the right conclusion: Only those truths that are indispensable for the existence of religion-and of Judaism specifically-can be called fundamental doctrines of faith, so that failing to recognize them would mean an open or implicit [religious] renunciation. In addition to this, one should zealously seek all the truths that the Bible teaches us, without, however, presuming the right to establish one's own opinions as norms of belief for all adherents of the Jewish religion. Instead, everyone must be granted the same freedom of thought that one claims for himself. It is well known for the readers of Mendelssohn's Jerusalem that he completely agreed with this view and supported the freedom of thought of the Israelite with reasons that leave nothing to be desired. If we now ask ourselves which truths are essential for the concept of the Israelite religion, after a moment of reflection we will arrive at the same three basic points that Joseph Albo also assumed to be fundamental doctrines: the existence of a unique creator; God's rule of the universe; and the divine origin of the Mosaic teachings. The prophet Isaiah hints at those points: "God is our judge, God is our lawgiver, God is our king" (Isa. 33:22). And in the middle part of the Musaf Prayer on the Day of Remembrance [Rosh Hashanah], those three fundamental teachings are developed with abundant clarity.44 By elucidating these three fundamental doctrines and illuminating the questions consequent upon them, Israelite dogmatics is assessed in full extent and raised to a systematically ordered science.
The historical image of Israel Jacobson is not merely varied, it is conflicted with regard both t... more The historical image of Israel Jacobson is not merely varied, it is conflicted with regard both to his character and his accomplishments. Is he a latter-day court Jew, a representative of his class, who also devoted himself to fellow Jews, or a champion of the Jews devoted to their civic and religious improve ment who simply happened to be a financier? And was he altruistic or self serving? Three of Jacobson's activities have received special attention: his work to advance the status of fellow Jews, his economic activities as a latterday court Jew, and his activity as a reformer of Jewish education and religion. My task in this brief analysis is to look critically at the portrait of Jacobson and his activities drawn by historians writing within two contexts: in works devoted broadly to Jewish history and in works focused on the history of Jewish religious reform. In the first group I include the multi-volume histori ans of the Jews:
did not have an easy career in America.Both his intemperate relations with others and his locatio... more did not have an easy career in America.Both his intemperate relations with others and his location on the radical extreme of Reform Judaism alienated him from other rabbis and from his own congregation. After only two years in Philadelphia, he confessed to one of the few rabbinical associates with whom he could be frank: "Am Ithen alone among my colleagues struck by blindness?"¹ Personalconflict was not new to Hirsch when he crossed the ocean to the United States in 1866.I nD essauheh ad been at odds with the Jewish educator David Fränkel and with his congregation there, which voted not to retain his services; in Luxembourg,f ollowing ad ispute, he had resigned from the Masonic Lodge.² He also entered into ahostile exchangewith arival Jewishphilosopher,S alomon Formstechter,a fter Hirsch had severelycriticized Formstecher's work.³ The protocols of the Brunswick rabbinical conference of 1844 record Hirsch's "fierce" reaction when colleagues displayedt he "audacity" to ignore a proposal he had brought to them.⁴ Intellectual or religious compromise in amatter of principle was entirelyforeign to Hirsch'sway of thinking. Cordial relations werenot his highest priority.InAmerica he would quarrelnot onlywith rabbinical colleagues standingtohis religious right but also with adherents of his own Reform persuasion and with the majority in his own congregation. His proposals for reforms would be questioned if not actuallyr ejected. And yetb eyond the vituperation and sharp differencesofopinion, therewerealso alliances formed on individual issues. Opponents even evinced am easure of respect for this man
The chapters in this volume set out in a variety of directions, collectively giving voice to a wi... more The chapters in this volume set out in a variety of directions, collectively giving voice to a wide spectrum of specific interests and innovative methodologies. Taken together, they represent a nuanced image of German-Jewish studies as the field is developing today: encompassing multiple disciplines that range from history to literature, philosophy, and beyond. I shall not duplicate the editors' introduction that describes the chapters of the rising scholars who appear here. Rather, I shall step back from the contributors' individual projects in order to present a personal analysis of the nature of the field as a whole and to make some suggestions for future concentration. 1 When I began to study the history of the German Jews fully sixty years ago, Jewish and German were understood as distinct markers of identity, and I was concerned with showing how inherited Jewish identifications diminished to make room for German ones. I knew that in the process of its diminution the Jewish component would assume new forms in relation to the religious heritage both through distancing from earlier attachments and longings as well as through application of critical approaches, learned from the university, to Jewish texts and traditions. At the same time, conflicting values were being absorbed from the non-Jewish environment. I also recognized that in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, German intellectuals were shifting from the Enlightenment's reliance on philosophical thought to a fervent attachment to Romanticism with its preference for historical truth over abstract reason. However, I did not proceed to trace the interaction of the two components, Jewish and German, beyond the period when these two elements of the German Jews' identity first confronted each other. Nor did I fully realize the extent of the internal dynamism of the two identities. Recent scholarship has justifiably argued against understanding "Jewish" and "German" as representing a fixed binary. Rather, both elements of the relationship are now understood to be unstable. Given our current understanding, I would therefore like to examine here the relationship between Jewish and German as we might
Wissenschaft des Judentums Exported to Amer i ca The Case of Gotthard Deutsch michael a. meyer Fo... more Wissenschaft des Judentums Exported to Amer i ca The Case of Gotthard Deutsch michael a. meyer For multiple generations, from the time that Leopold Zunz, in 1822, edited his pioneering journal of critical research in the area of Judaism, the Zeitschrift für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, modern Jewish studies have been associated with German Jewry. In Germany, Wissenschaft des Judentums developed, and in Germany during the nineteenth century, its greatest exponents did their work: Zunz and Moritz Steinschneider, Heinrich Graetz, Abraham Geiger, and Zacharias Frankel-to mention only the most outstanding names. As Jewish studies spread to other countries, the German term continued to be used, as it often is even today among Jewish scholars. For generations, Jewish scholarship outside Germany was regarded as peripheral to its point of origin, even though there were notable scholars in surrounding countries: in Italy, the Austrian Empire, and France. However, as Jewish demographics shifted, so too did Jewish scholarship. 1 By the first de cades of the twentieth century, it had become apparent even among the most Germanocentric of Jewish scholars that the rapidly growing American Jewish community would become the center of gravity for world Jewry not only in population but, in due course, also in Jewish scholarship. It is the purpose of this essay to illustrate an early stage in that transition through an examination of one of the Wissenschaft des Judentums scholars who exported it from Central Eu rope to the United States, the historian Gotthard Deutsch
I n t r o d u c t i o n The German Foundation, the Multifaceted Expansion anne o. albert, noah s.... more I n t r o d u c t i o n The German Foundation, the Multifaceted Expansion anne o. albert, noah s. gerber, and michael a. meyer Two hundred years and counting have passed since the birth of the modern critical study of Jewish history and heritage. Its beginnings are usually attributed to a small circle of Jewish intellectuals, some of them students at the newly established University of Berlin, who pursued a new scholarly project that came to be called the Wissenschaft des Judentums (WdJ). Over the course of the ensuing two centuries, WdJ evolved in scope and purpose, taking on more diverse subjects and gradually assuming a major role within modern Jewish identity. Its intensely self-conscious acolytes were driven to describe it from multiple angles, and accordingly it developed a history of its own. At the same time, it expanded beyond what its initiators imagined, crossing cultures, continents, and centuries. The pre sent volume reckons with these transformations, integrating into the story of WdJ researchers, topics, and aims that were once seen as lying at the farthest frontiers of Jewish scholarship. From the outset, the term Wissenschaft des Judentums itself creates a problem of definition in languages other than German, as the most common translation, "Science of Judaism," is misleading with regard to both of its ele ments. The German word Wissenschaft is broader in scope than the En glish science. It covers not only natu ral and social sciences but also the forms of humanistic endeavor practiced by early proponents of the WdJ, including philosophical and literary studies, philology, and history. In short, unlike science, Wissenschaft can apply to any disciplined inquiry. The German term Judentum is
During the twohundred year history of the Reform movement in Judaism the role of minhag (Jewish r... more During the twohundred year history of the Reform movement in Judaism the role of minhag (Jewish religious custom) has undergone profound changes. The position of the earliest religious reformers,first in Amsterdam and then in Westphalia and Hamburg, was that theirreforms did not violate halakha (Jewishlaw), but represented onlyavariation of the dominant minhag. They could claim that their divergent minhagim wereprecedented either by ancientpractice, as Moses Mendelssohn had done with regardtothe time of burial, differencesbetween Sephardim and Ashkenazim in such matters as the consumption of kitniyot (lentils) on Passover,o rl ocal variations with regard to liturgical practice. Despitet he fact that they adopted some minhagim that were entirelynew within the Jewishcontext,such as confirmation, the earlyreformers insisted that they werenot sectarians, but wereo nlyi nstituting one more configuration of minhagim within ad i-asporaJ ewish population that included numerous possibilities.
In 2007 I wrote a piece for this journal entitled "Toward a Re form Vision for Zion." Rereading a... more In 2007 I wrote a piece for this journal entitled "Toward a Re form Vision for Zion." Rereading and reflecting upon what I wrote then, I find that some issues that were at the center of my attention then have moved to the periphery while others have emerged, and still others gained in intensity. Although my vision for Zion has not changed in its essentials, it has become more desperate. Ten years ago there was much talk of "Post-Zionism," and I felt compelled to refute thinkers and scholars who fell into various it erations of that ideology. Today the chief concern for Zionism is no longer with competing ideologies, but with those Jews, especially in the Diaspora, who do not relate their Jewish identity to Zionism at all, not even to contrary doctrines that have arisen against it. One hears less today of a problematic Zionism and more of Jews who can easily dispense with it out of sheer indifference, or at least see no need to make the state central to their Jewishness. Some speak of "Diaspora Judaism," a faith that is contained within the land of their domicile, that does not require Israel at all in order for them to be fully Jews. Especially is this true of so-called "just Jews," who lack affiliation with any one of the denominations. But it is also true among some Reform and Conservative Jews, and it has now made its way, as well, into the American Jewish intellec tual community, even among university scholars of Judaism and its history. This growing alienation from Zionism and Israel has, regretta bly, increased during the last ten years due, in part, to factors in the Diaspora and due, in part, to trends in Israel. The two have
In 2012 an organization of Jews from Central Europe in Israel published a dictionary of German ex... more In 2012 an organization of Jews from Central Europe in Israel published a dictionary of German expressions that Jewish immigrants from German-speaking lands continued to use on the streets of Tel Aviv long after they had settled in a land whose national language was Hebrew. The tenacious hold of the German language on modern Jews and its consequences for politics, religion, and self-definition are the subject of this original and wellresearched volume. The purview of its young author, Marc Volovici, is broad and his questions penetrating. Three languages play a role in the volume: not only German, but also Hebrew and Yiddish, each serving a particular, if changing function. Hebrew begins as a living language in ancient times, becomes the sacred language of liturgy and religious literature, confined to the synagogue and study hall, and emerges again as a spoken language in conjunction with the Zionist movement. Yiddish, the language of daily speech in the medieval ghetto of the Ashkenazi Jewry and especially the domain of Jewish women, becomes the vehicle for Jewish secularism and proletarian socialism in the modern period, as well as the language for a literature of intrinsic aesthetic value. But of the three, it is German that has the most dramatic career, and it is the author's principal subject. He traces it from the eighteenth century all the way to the present, from the age when Central European Jews came to appreciate the writings of Kant and Herder, Goethe and Schiller, down to the time when it became the despised language of Goebbels and Streicher, and finally to its gradual reappearance in the political life and culture of contemporary Israel. Although most of the volume is devoted to the period following the establishment of the Second Reich, and in particular to the relation of the German language to Jewish nationalism, Volovici devotes his first chapter to the Jews of the eighteenth-century German Enlightenment. The thrust in this age was strongly against Yiddish, which was associated with medievalism and seen as a corrupt form of German, in speech a hindrance to social integration and political emancipation. Hebrew, long the special domain of men, becomes less well known, limited more and more to liturgy, where it appears along with an increasing number of prayers in the vernacular as German acquires the mantle of a sacred language alongside Hebrew. It is a period in which enlightened Jews set themselves the task of learning proper German. For many, I think this was a more difficult objective than Volovici suggests. When the attempt was only partially successful, as satires of the time illustrate, Jews frantically learning German became subject to ridicule. But the attraction of the German language was indisputable, not only for its social value but also, as Volovici makes clear, on account of the role it increasingly plays as the language required to attain modernity. German is the accepted tongue not only of literature but also of science. Within Judaism it becomes the language of the Wissenschaft des Judentums, the locus for the serious study of Jewish history and culture which, it is hoped, will give Jewish scholarship status within the academy. For the period on which Volovici has chosen to focus, he selected a few individuals, whose writings he thoroughly researched, as representative of varying relationships to the German language, especially within Zionism. The first of these is Leon Pinsker, a Russian Jew who in 1882 wrote a foundational Jewish nationalist tract titled Autoemancipation! He penned it neither in Russian, Hebrew, nor Yiddish, but rather in German. Here was a Jew using German not for the integration of the Jews, but for their national individuation. Volovici sets out to explain why and finds a number of likely reasons: because of
A fresh translation of a well-known work must meet two fundamental criteria: The work must be of ... more A fresh translation of a well-known work must meet two fundamental criteria: The work must be of such significance and continuing interest as to warrant the renewed attention provided by a retranslation. And the new translation must be a measurable improvement over its still available predecessor. The autobiography of Solomon Maimon has long been recognized as a work of unusual interest. Autobiographies by Jewish individuals before the nineteenth century are rare. The best known of them is the Glikl Memoirs 1691-1719, recently edited, annotated, and introduced by Chava Tuniansky and translated from the Judeo-German by Sara Friedman (Waltham, MA, 2019). This unique work by a Jewish woman reflecting upon her life within her family, the Jewish community, and the contemporary mercantile world of Central Europe continues to be of high interest to scholars of both Jewish and general history. Although the autobiography of Solomon Maimon does not quite come up to this level, it too is a valuable source for historians. Maimon (1753-1800) was born into a highly traditional Jewish family in a small town of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. A child prodigy of strikingly independent mind, he struggled to free himself from the constraints of his environment. For a time he was attracted to mystically inclined Hasidism, and one of the most interesting portions of his autobiography presents a rare insider's account of its practices. However, Maimon's penchant for critical thinking soon led him, step by step, to break with his environment and seek a philosophical and scientific knowledge that was not available in his community. Abandoning wife and family, he travels westward to Germany, living mostly in penury yet increasingly expanding his horizons. In Berlin he meets the most prominent German Jew of his day, the philosopher Moses Mendelssohn, who treats the impoverished wanderer kindly and engages him in philosophical conversation. As with his account of Hasidism, Maimon's perception of Mendelssohn is an especially valuable source, in this case for understanding a central figure in the process of Jewish acculturation. Eventually, Maimon gains fame not only within the circle of urban Jews drawn to the German Enlightenment, but also among leading non-Jewish German intellectuals. Goethe inquires regarding his welfare; Kant concludes that none of his critics had understood the essence of his philosophy as well as the Jew Solomon Maimon. It is not surprising that the personal account of this irrepressible truth seeker-standing out so sharply both from his East European origins and from the placidity of a religiously content Mendelssohnshould have been translated into multiple languages and regularly excerpted in collections of Jewish historical sources. It has been deemed a work that is worthy of continuing interest. The translation under review is not the first into the English language. That honor belongs to J. Clark Murray, a philosopher at McGill University in Montreal, who in 1888 published the personal and historical sections of the autobiography, but left out the strictly philosophical portion (about one-fourth of the whole). His translation was reissued as recently as 2001 by University of Illinois Press with a helpful introduction by Michael Shapiro. The new edition seeks to displace it in that it rightly claims to be the first complete translation into the English language. The editors provide a new introduction that supplies historical context and focuses especially on Maimon's relation to the medieval Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides, whose name he adopted as his own and who had
historical methodologies however, the majority reproducing Nietzsche's dismissal of what he calle... more historical methodologies however, the majority reproducing Nietzsche's dismissal of what he called "historical auditing" (historischen Nachrechnung, KSA, 1:296). With his deep and intricate historicizing, Holub pops the aura of "Nietzsche," dispersing this name and its massive accretion of abstract polemics, back into the person and the discourse of his time. His success is singular, even as we face Nietzsche's question, "how does something originate in its opposite?" (KSA, 2:23).
