INDEX

Footnotes

[1]. Achad Ha-Am (= “one of the people”) is the pen-name of Asher Ginzberg, a famous Hebrew thinker and essayist, born in Russia in 1856, who has lived in London since 1908. His biography (up to 1902) is given in the Jewish Encyclopædia. For some account of his teaching I may refer to the essay called “One of the People” in my Studies in Jewish Nationalism (Longmans, 1920).

[2]. This essay (“The Wrong Way”), when first published, had to be expressed somewhat obscurely so as to pass the Russian Censor. It was altered subsequently, when the first collection of Achad Ha-Am’s essays was published in book form, but it still lacks somewhat of the absolute clarity which distinguishes his usual style.

[3]. The anti-Jewish riots of April, 1920, in which many lives were lost. In a footnote at this point the author recalls that as far back as 1891 he drew attention to the Arab question, and pointed out the folly of regarding the Arabs as “wild men of the desert,” who could not see what was going on around them.

[4]. [i.e., Jewish agricultural settlements in Palestine.]

[5]. [Chalukah—lit. “division”—is the Hebrew name for the stream of charity which flows—or flowed before the war—into Palestine from all quarters of the Jewish dispersion. Intended primarily for the support of scholars, it has in practice done much to pauperise the Jewish population in the cities of Palestine, and has created a problem which it may take a generation or more of economic progress to solve.]

[6]. [Baron Edmond de Rothschild.]

[7]. The Jewish teachers of the period (roughly) from 200 B.C. to 200 C.E. They were responsible for the Mishnah—the first Code of Jewish Law after the Pentateuch—and for the earliest commentaries on the Bible or parts of it, one of which is called Sifré.

[8]. [A Turkish measure = about ¼ acre.]

[9]. [The Hebrew paper in which this and the foregoing essay originally appeared.]

[10]. A. Müller, Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie, XIV., p. 435.

[11]. Henry George, Progress and Poverty, p. 352.

[12]. Ed. Zeller, Vorträge, II., p. 434.

[13]. Du Bois-Reymond, Reden, I., p. 309.

[14]. [This note on the first Zionist Congress evoked a storm of indignation, which led the author to explain his views more fully in the essay on “The Jewish State and the Jewish Problem.” As to the unwonted harshness of some expressions in the Note, see the concluding paragraph of that essay (p. [55]).]

[15]. [A familiar quotation from the Talmud—Aboth, V., 23.]

[16]. The capital then suggested was ten million pounds!

[17]. [Of the Chovevé Zion.]

[18]. [The reference is to an article called “The Truth about Palestine,” written after the author’s first visit to that country in 1891.]

[19]. [Dr. Max Nordau.]

[20]. [One of a series of three essays on “Political Zionism.”]

[21]. [Die Welt, the German organ founded by Herzl.]

[22]. [The first Secretary of the Chovevé Zion, and an opponent of the “spiritual” ideas of Achad Ha-Am.]

[23]. See my essay Imitation and Assimilation. [Selected essays by Achad Ha-Am, pp. 107-124.]

[24]. [Galuth—“exile”—is the word commonly used by Jews to denote the condition of the Jewish people so long as it is not in its own land, Palestine.]

[25]. The “political” Zionists generally think and say that they were the first to lay it down as a principle that the colonisation of Palestine by secret and surreptitious means, without organisation and in defiance of the ruling Power, is of no value and ought to be abandoned. They do not know that this truth was discovered by others first, and that years ago the Chibbath Zion of Judaism demanded that everything should be done openly, with proper organisation and with the consent of the Turkish Government.

[26]. [After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., Titus asked Rabbi Jochanan, one of the leading Jews of the time, what he wanted. The reply was, “Give me Jabneh and its scholars.” The Rabbi understood—though the Roman conqueror did not—that in the conditions then existing a centre of Jewish learning would do more to preserve Israel than political institutions.]

[27]. In Imitation and Assimilation.

[28]. [The reference here is to the schools of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, which were French in spirit. Many years after this essay was written, in 1913, the Germanising tendencies of the schools maintained by the Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden in Palestine led to an acute conflict between that body and the Zionists.]

[29]. The phrases in inverted commas are taken from my note on the Congress. As my critics have misinterpreted them, I have taken this opportunity of explaining their true meaning.

[30]. The fact mentioned is familiar to many Chovevé Zion in all the towns which the emissary visited with a letter from the headquarters of the movement. In my Note I only alluded to it briefly, and I am sorry that the denials of my opponents have compelled me here to refer to it again more fully.

[31]. We hear now that Herzl commended Pinsker and his pamphlet—for the first time—at one of the sittings of the Fifth Congress. That Congress met at Basle some weeks after the Chovevé Zion in Russia had given prominence to Pinsker’s name on the anniversary of his death. This is evidence that the President of the Zionist Congress still sometimes pays attention to the public opinion of Russian Jewry. But, of course, this does not affect what is said above.

[32]. [A second edition was published about a year after the appearance of this Essay.]

[33]. Here is an incident which illustrates the extent to which the contents of Pinsker’s pamphlet have been forgotten, even in Russia. A short time ago, some of the Jewish periodicals in Russia published a letter of Pinsker’s dating from 1883, which was found among the papers of the Odessa Committee. The letter contains only a few headings of the ideas which are explained in detail in his pamphlet. But the periodicals were surprised, and found it necessary to remark that it appeared from this letter that so long as twenty years ago Pinsker had “foreseen, as it were,” the Zionist movement of our day.

[34]. In Austria the Chovevé Zion used to call themselves “Zionists” long before Herzl’s time. I believe that Dr. Birnbaum invented the name in his journal Selbst-Emanzipation. Herzl mentions the “Zionists” a few times in his brochure, and satirically represents them as trying to raise a heavy load by the steam of a tea-kettle (Judenstaat, p. 4).

[35]. Autoemancipation, pp. 1-7 [7-11 in the second edition, 1903.]

[36]. ib. p. 15 [17.]

[37]. Pinsker died before the days of what is now called “spiritual nationalism,” the view which denies the need for a distinct national territory, believing it possible that sooner or later we shall obtain equal rights in the lands of our dispersion as a nation: that is, shall be allowed to carry on our distinctive national life in these lands, just as we have already obtained equal rights, as citizens, in many countries: that is, have been allowed to take part in social and political life like the other inhabitants. But Pinsker lays the foundation for this view, by demanding—for the first time—national equality, and substituting the formula of spiritual nationalism: “the same rights for the Jewish nation as for the other nations” (“die Gleichstellung der jüdischen Nation mit den anderen Nationen”—Autoemancipation, p. 7 [11]) for the older formula of the protagonists of emancipation: “the same rights for Jews as for the other citizens.” It is, however, fundamental to Pinsker’s view that national equality is unattainable so long as we lack the concrete attributes of nationality. A nation which is a nation only in the spiritual sense is a monstrosity which the other nations cannot possibly regard as their compeer; it follows that they cannot recognise its title to demand the same rights as those enjoyed by the real nations.

[38]. ib. pp. 7-10 [11-13.]

[39]. ib. pp. 10-11 [13-14].

[40]. Judenstaat, pp. 24-26.

[41]. The question, “What will induce the Jews to found their State and to settle in it?” is answered by Herzl quite simply: “We can trust the anti-Semites to see to that.” (Judenstaat, p. 59.)

[42]. Autoemancipation, p. 12 [15].

[43]. ib. p. 16 [18].

[44]. ib. p. 19 [20]. As the sequel shows, Pinsker’s criticism is aimed only at those who make the “mission” the moral end of our dispersion. They think that we can fulfil our mission only if we are thoroughly scattered: whereas the fact is precisely the reverse. “So far the world does not regard us as a genuine firm, and allows us little credit.” If, therefore, we really wish to benefit the world by fulfilling a mission, we must first of all establish our national position, so as to enhance our credit with the rest of the world.

[45]. ib. p. 20 [21].

[46]. ib. p. 26 [25].

[47]. Judenstaat, p. 70.

[48]. He means, apparently, the Alliance Israélite Universelle and its sister organisations in England and Austria. The Jewish Colonisation Association had not yet come into existence.

[49]. Herzl shows, in his pamphlet, no great liking for large meetings, even for propaganda purposes. “There is no need”—so writes the founder of the Zionist Congress—“to summon special meetings with a lot of palaver.” (ib. p. 57.)

[50]. Autoem. p. 27 [25-26]. Elsewhere (p. 34 [30]) Pinsker insists that the home of refuge must be secured by political means (“politisch gesichert.”)

[51]. Herzl also, in his pamphlet, does not decide on a territory; but he also looks to America and Turkey, and suggests the Argentine or Palestine (Judenstaat, p. 29).

[52]. Autoem. p. 30 [28].

[53]. ib. p. 35 [31].

[54]. “Eilig und doch ohne Erschütterung” (Judenstaat, p. 85). In one place Herzl says that the emigration of the whole people from the various countries to its own State will take “some decades” (p. 27), but does not say how many. Elsewhere he is more definite; the emigration will last “perhaps twenty years or perhaps more” (p. 79).

[55]. It is worth pointing out that Pinsker, too, hints that the company of capitalists, which is to co-operate with his Directorium, may expect a good profit. But as soon as he has mentioned this expectation he adds: “Whether, however, this act of national redemption will be more or less good business or not—that question is not of great moment in comparison with the importance of the undertaking for the future of our people.” (pp. 32-33 [30].)

[56]. Even in his lifetime Pinsker was not understood, and his pamphlet was not appreciated at its full value. Smolenskin, in his critique, saw nothing in the pamphlet beyond the superficial Chibbath Zion which had then a wide vogue in Hebrew literature, and could find nothing to say in its praise except that it was written in German—a language in which “such ideas ... have never been expressed before.”

[57]. [A letter to the editors of Ha-Omer, a Hebrew miscellany which began to appear in 1907—the first of its kind in Palestine.]

[58]. [From the preliminary announcement of Ha-Omer.]

[59]. This Essay was written at the end of the period of the movement for freedom in Russia, which attracted almost all the educated Russian Jews, with the result that our national work and Hebrew literature were greatly impoverished. [Footnote added in 1913.]

[60]. [i.e., in 1889.]

[61]. [An allusion to an old Jewish legend.]

[62]. [1905. It was at this Congress that the split on the question of East Africa (often loosely referred to as Uganda) took place. Some of the minority seceded and formed the Jewish Territorial Organisation.]

[63]. [Russia.]

[64]. Sombart, Socialismus und sociale Bewegung (1905), p. 61.

[65]. [S.D. = Social Democrats; S.S. = Zionist Socialists.]

[66]. [i.e., the Chovevé Zion Hebrew School.]

[67]. [The Hebrew word translated above “devotees” is chassidim = “pious ones.” This name is specifically given to a mystical sect which arose early in the 18th century. The Rabbis of this sect were called by their followers tsaddikim (= “righteous ones”) and were credited by them with supernatural powers.]

[68]. As I write these words some of the best German Social Democrats are making public confession that by sins of this kind their party has alienated many of its supporters, and that to this cause is due in part the great defeat which it suffered in the last elections. But this repentance will not save them from the same sin in future, because the sin is inherent in every Messianic movement. We Jews have only to look at what is happening around us, to be convinced that the characteristic in question is not peculiar to Germany or to the Social Democratic Party.

[69]. [i.e., in 1892.]

[70]. [i.e., the article “Dr. Pinsker and his Pamphlet,” from which the phrase under discussion is quoted.]

[71]. [i.e., in 1904.]

[72]. [The name given to a Zionist doctrine based on Marxian Socialism, which had a vogue in Russia, especially among the younger generation, at the time when this article was written. The “internal process” (mentioned later) belongs to the terminology of this doctrine.]

[73]. [The first article of the Basle Programme, formulated in 1897, reads: “Der Zionismus erstrebt für das jüdische Volk die Schaffung einer öffentlich-rechtlich gesicherten Heimstätte in Palästina.” Until the Ninth Congress (1909) this was generally understood as involving the creation of an autonomous “Jewish State” in Palestine.]

[74]. It may be worth while to mention here an article written at Basle during the Congress and printed in the Jewish Chronicle (25 Aug., 1911), as it is a striking example of the confusion of thought which reigned at this Congress. The writer regards the victory of the “practicals” as an abandonment of the national ideal, and expresses his surprise that Hebrew occupied so prominent a place at such a Congress. The Herzlian Zionists, he thinks, standing as they do for a national ideal, naturally desire the revival of the national language; but these “practicals,” who have turned their backs on the national ideal, and made Zionism merely a colonising scheme—what interest have they in the revival of Hebrew? Could not Jews live comfortably in their Colonies in Palestine even if they spoke other languages, like the Jews of the rest of the world?—I should advise those against whom this argument is directed not simply to dismiss the paradox with a smile, but to ask themselves how it came about that their aims could be so misunderstood.

[75]. [The Biblical Shekel (plural Shekalim) has been adopted as the unit of contribution to the Zionist Organisation.]

[76]. [The Agrarian Bank is still (1921) only a project.]

[77]. I speak (here and further on) only of the Colonies in Judea and Lower Galilee. I did not visit Upper Galilee on this occasion. There are, indeed, two or three Colonies in Judea which are exceptions; but special reasons have made them unprosperous and kept their inhabitants in the old rut. We are not here concerned with these individual problems.

[78]. The Colonies of this type, founded during the last few years, have already been left by many of the first settlers, whose places have been taken by others.

[79]. [i.e., securing the exclusive employment of Jewish labour on Jewish-owned land.]

[80]. There is a further class of “contractor-labourers,” called in Palestine k’vutzoth (groups), who work National Fund land in some places on a co-operative basis. But the results of this experiment are not yet clear, and in any case the system cannot be expected to develop so far as to be able to bring about a radical change in the labour problem. Recently, too, Yemenite Jews have been coming to Palestine, settling in the Colonies, and working as labourers; and the Zionists are already proclaiming that the Yemenites will build up the land. But this is another experiment on which judgment cannot yet be passed. Many people in Palestine think that the Yemenites are not physically strong enough for hard work; and, moreover, their level of culture and their mentality are so different from ours that the question inevitably presents itself whether an increase in their number will not change the whole character of the settlement, and whether the change will be for the better.

I have here touched only on the question of the possibility of “capturing labour.” But an answer is still awaited to another question—whether it is proper for us, who are “bottom dog” everywhere, to aim at a monopoly of labour, and whether they are not right who maintain that this policy will prove to be our most serious obstacle.

[81]. In Petach-Tikvah, for instance, it is possible for three or four hundred labourers at most to earn a living by the finer kinds of work; whereas the unskilled labour employs at times thousands.

[82]. [The quotation is from an Essay called Dr. Pinsker and his Pamphlet, written in 1892.]

[83]. [From the Supplement to an Essay called Truth from Palestine (II), written in 1894.]

[84]. I cannot refrain from mentioning here a small incident which illustrates the present position excellently. I visited one of the classes of the Hilfsverein school at Jaffa during the German reading lesson. The pupils were puzzled by the word aufheben, and the teacher tried to explain it by German synonyms, which they equally failed to understand. At last the teacher’s patience was exhausted, and he exclaimed angrily, in pure Sephardic pronunciation, “levatel!” All the pupils understood at once!

[85]. [A Hebrew school of Arts and Crafts in Jerusalem.]

[86]. [Maimonides died on the 13th December, 1204.]

[87]. [Jewish Law.]

[88]. [Allusion to well-known speeches at Zionist Congresses.]

[89]. Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Law, chaps. i.-iv.

[90]. Ibid., chap. iv. 1.

[91]. Guide, Part I., chap. i. [In rendering quotations from the Moreh Nebuchim (Guide for the Perplexed) the translator has used Dr. Friedländer’s English version so far as possible.]

[92]. Foundations of the Law, ibid., 7.

[93]. In the upper world Aristotle’s philosophy postulates the existence of forms divorced from matter: they are the “separate Intelligences,” which emanate one from another and are eternal (see Foundations of the Law, ibid., and Guide, Part II., chap. iv.).

[94]. Guide, Part III., chap. viii.

[95]. Foundations of the Law, ibid., 8 and 9.

[96]. Eight Chapters, chap. i.

[97]. See Munk, Le Guide des Egarés, I., pp. 304-8 (note).

[98]. Guide, Part I., chaps. lxx. and lxxii. and passim. For details see Munk (ibid.), and Dr. Scheyer’s monograph, Das Psychologische System des Maimonides, Frankfort a/M, 1845.

[99]. Foundations of the Law, chap. iv., 8, 9.

[100]. There is some ground for thinking that Maimonides thought of the eternal existence after death of the possessors of “acquired intellect” not as personal, but as a common existence in which they are all united as a single separate being. See Guide, III., chap. xxvii., and Foundations, ibid., and chap. ii., 5-6. This has been pointed out by Dr. Joel in Die Religionsphilosophie des Mose ben Maimon, Breslau, 1876 (p. 25, note).

[101]. Guide, I., chap. lxviii.

[102]. According to the division of the sciences current in those days, all this knowledge of true Being is contained in Physics and Metaphysics.

[103]. All this teaching is scattered up and down Maimonides’ works, partly in explicit statements and partly in hints (see, e.g., Guide, III., chap. li.). Dr. Scheyer was the first to work out these definitions in detail (ibid., chap. iii.). In general it must be remembered that Maimonides nowhere explains his whole system in logical order, and we are therefore compelled, if we would understand his system as it was conceived in his mind, to make use of scattered utterances, hints, and half-sentences written by the way, to explain obscure statements by others more precise, and to resort freely to inference.

[104]. Guide, III., chap. xiii., and Introduction to Commentary on the Mishnah, section Zera’im.

[105]. Introduction cited in last note.

[106]. Ibid.

[107]. Guide, III., chap. li. Maimonides does not there emphasise the difference between practical studies on the one hand and mathematics and logic on the other, because this is not germane to his purpose at the moment. But the distinction is necessarily implied.

[108]. Guide, III., chaps. xxvii. and liv.; Hilchoth De’oth, chaps. iii. and iv.

[109]. Introduction to Zera’im.

[110]. Maimonides’ attitude to perfection of character is most clearly revealed by the fact that he calls it “bodily perfection,” in contrast to “perfection of the soul,” which is intellectual perfection (Guide, III., chap. xxvii.).

[111]. See Hilchoth De’oth, chap. i.; Eight Chapters, chap. iv.

[112]. Guide, III., chap. liv.

[113]. See Eight Chapters, end of chap. iv. and beginning of chap. v. Lazarus (Ethik des Judentums, I., chap. xiv.) fails to notice this difference between Aristotle and Maimonides, and therefore finds it strange that Maimonides introduces Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean into Jewish ethics.

[114]. Introduction to Zera’im.

[115]. See Guide, III., chaps. xxvii., xxxiv. Maimonides is not explicit on the relation of the minority to social morality; but his view on this question is evident from what he says in the chapters quoted, and passim.

[116]. Eight Chapters, chap. v.

[117]. Guide, II., chap. xxv.

[118]. Guide, II., chaps. xxv. and xvi.

[119]. Maimonides explains his views on the methods of divine revelation and the nature of prophecy in general, and of the prophecy of Moses in particular, in several places: especially in Guide, II., chaps. xxxii.-xlviii., and in Mishneh Torah, section Foundations of the Law, chap. vii. But for our present purpose we need not enter into these speculations. It suffices to say that here also he was true to his own system. The Prophet is for him the most perfect “actual man”; and the divine inspiration reaches the Prophet through that separate Intelligence (“active intellect”) which is, according to the philosophical system adopted by Maimonides, charged with the guidance of the world and with the raising of all forms (including the form of the soul) from potentiality to actuality.

[120]. See Guide, III., xxvi.

[121]. Ibid., chaps. xxiii. and xxviii.; see also II., chaps. xxxiv. and xl.

[122]. See Guide, II., chaps. xxxix. and xl.; and especially the Iggereth Teman.

[123]. All this is explained in many passages throughout Maimonides’ books, which are too numerous to be particularised.

[124]. For the “reasons of the commandments” see Guide, III., chaps. xxvi.-xlix.

[125]. For instance: there is a reason for sacrifices in general. “But we cannot say why one offering should be a lamb, whilst another is a ram; and why a fixed number of them should be brought.... You ask why must a lamb be sacrificed and not a ram? but the same question would be asked, why a ram had been commanded instead of a lamb, so long as one particular kind is required. The same is to be said as to the question why were seven lambs sacrificed and not eight; the same question might have been asked if there were eight.” Guide, III., chap. xxvi.

[126]. Introduction to Zera’im.

[127]. Guide, II., chap. xxxix., and III., chap. xxxiv.

[128]. See Guide, II., chap. xxix.; Eight Chapters, chap. viii.

[129]. Introduction to Zera’im; see also Foundations of the Law, chaps. ix. and x.

[130]. Guide, III., chap. li.

[131]. See R. Shem-Tob’s Commentary on the Guide, loc. cit.

[132]. Ibid.

[133]. Maimonides himself describes the contemporary state of culture among his people in several places. See, for instance, the Treatise on Resurrection.

[134]. Emunoth v’ Deoth, Preface.

[135]. R. Jehudah Halevi, despite his profound knowledge of contemporary philosophy, says categorically: “He who accepts this [the Law] completely, without scrutiny or argument, is better off than he who investigates and analyses” (Cuzri, II., xxvi. [Dr. Hirschfeld’s translation]).

[136]. Guide, I., chap. lxxi.

[137]. As to the state of mind of the forced converts at that time see what Maimonides says in the Treatise of the Sanctification of the Name and the Iggereth Teman.

[138]. See Section II. above. Note especially what Maimonides says about prophecy in the Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah (written at the time when he lived among the forced converts). Some of this is quoted in Section II. He writes there with such incisive force as to make it clear that he has left the realm of pure speculation and theory, and has a practical object connected with actual circumstances which had stirred him deeply at the time.

[139]. All this is clearly hinted in Maimonides’ Treatise of the Sanctification of the Name.

[140]. Guide, III., chap. xxvii.

[141]. We find all the principles of his system in the Introduction to his first book (the Commentary on the Mishnah), and again at the end of his last book (Guide, III., chap. li.).

[142]. See Introduction to Commentary on the Mishnah.

[143]. “This is not the place to treat of this matter; but it is my intention, wherever a matter of belief is mentioned, to explain it briefly. For I love to teach nothing so much as one of the principles of religion” (end of Berachoth).

[144]. Especially important in this connection are the Introductions to Zera’im, to chapter Chelek (where he brings in all the principles of religion), and to Aboth (Eight Chapters).

[145]. His Preface makes it clear that he regarded his book as a sort of Mishnah in a new form; and it seems (though he does not say it in so many words) that he intended to hint at this idea by the title of the book—Mishneh Torah.

[146]. There were many writers who suspected that Maimonides’ idea was to do away altogether with the study of the Talmud. But this suspicion could arise only from failure to understand clearly the real purpose of the book. Even theories are presented here in dogmatic form; but could it possibly be imagined that Maimonides wanted to do away with the study of philosophy by the long method of argument and proof—that study which he regarded as the purpose of the human race? The truth is that he had in view the social function of religion, and for this reason he set forth both theories and practical commands in brief and in a manner suited to the comprehension of ordinary men. He left it to the chosen few to study the principles of both the theoretical and the practical law, and to obtain from the original sources a knowledge of the reasons for both.

[147]. Guide, Introduction.

[148]. After the publication of the Guide many people discovered that its opinions were already contained in the innocent-looking dicta of the Mishneh Torah, especially in its first part (The Book of Science), and from that time onward they regarded that book also as heretical, and waged war on it as well as on the Guide.

[149]. See the letter of R. Jehudah Alfachar to Kimchi: Collected Responses of Maimonides (ed. Leipsic), Part III., p. 1, et seq.

[150]. See Dr. Joel’s monograph, Spinoza’s Theologisch-Politischer Traktat auf seine Quellen geprüft, Breslau, 1870.

[151]. See Kerem Chemed, III., pp. 67-70.

[152]. I may remark in passing that Luzzatto (ibid.) accuses Maimonides of yet another disservice to Judaism. By making opinions the essential element of perfection Maimonides, according to him, abolished the difference between the righteous man and the wicked. “The philosopher,” he says, “may commit theft, murder, and adultery, and yet attain eternal life: salvation does not depend on merit.” This charge was already brought against Maimonides by his medieval opponents, but it is quite mistaken. Maimonides insists, over and over again, that until a man has moral perfection it is impossible for him to reach intellectual perfection to the degree necessary for the attainment of acquired intellect. See, for instance, the passage from the introduction to Zera’im quoted above (p. [174]).

[153]. Though the conception of “nationalism” in its current sense is modern, the national sentiment itself has existed in our people at all times; and its existence and value have been realised in our literature in every period, from the Bible and the Talmud to the literature of Chassidism, though it used to be called by other names (“the love of Israel,” etc.). But the sentiment and its expression do not appear to the same extent or in the same form in all ages and in all individuals, and it is therefore legitimate to ask what was the attitude of any particular age or any particular thinker to the national sentiment. An interesting book might be written on the history of the national sentiment and consciousness in Israel, dealing with their different manifestations in different ages, their growth and decline, and their expression in the life of the nation and the thought of its great men in each period.

[154]. Guide, III., chap. xliii. Similarly in chap. xlviii.

[155]. End of Mishneh Torah.

[156]. See the Iggereth Teman and the Treatise of the Sanctification of the Name.

[157]. A German Jewish scholar, Dr. D. Rosin, in his monograph on the ethics of Maimonides (Die Ethik des Maimonides, Breslau, 1876), finds under the heading of “Nationalism” (p. 148) only two laws in the whole Mishneh Torah which allude to the duties of the Jew to his people. But in fact the two laws which he quotes (Hilchoth T’shubah, chap. iii. 11, and Hilchoth Matnath ’Aniim, chap. x. 2) emphasise rather the unity of the members of one faith.

[158]. Introduction to chapter Chelek.

[159]. See Albo, Ikkarim, Part I, chap. 1.

[160]. See his Introduction to the Sepher Hammitzvoth.

[161]. I remarked on this point years ago in “Past and Future.” [See Selected Essays by Ahad Ha’am, p. 87.]

[162]. Cf. supra, p. [10].

[163]. See the Treatise on Resurrection.

[164]. Luzzatto (ubi supra) seems to suspect that Maimonides’ whole treatment of resurrection was insincere, and that he was deliberately throwing dust in the reader’s eyes, in order to conceal his heresy. But this suspicion is absurd: Maimonides was a man who was not afraid openly to reject even the immortality of the soul, and to recast all the fundamental beliefs of Judaism. Any unbiassed reader of the treatise must realise that Maimonides defends resurrection with perfect sincerity, but that he is unable to find the real grounds of his own conviction, because he looks for them in his reason and not in his feelings.

[165]. Commentary on the Mishnah, Aboth, chap. i. 17.

[166]. See his letters to Joseph ben Gabar, to the community of Lunel, and to R. Samuel Ibn Tibbon (Collected Responses of Maimonides (Leipsic), Part II., pp. 16, 27, 44).

[167]. Jewish Quarterly Review, January, 1897, p. 187.

[168]. Notes of this kind are found right through the book (see e.g. pp. 498-503, 691-3, and many other places); and it is unfair of some Jewish critics to have passed over this fact in silence, and to have described the book as though it were throughout simply an attack on Judaism.

[169]. Introduction, pp. xvii. xviii. ci.

[170]. [The story is that a heathen made this demand of Hillel, whose reply was: “What is hateful to thyself do not unto thy neighbour—that is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary: go thou and fulfil it.”]

[171]. Das Judentum und seine Geschichte (2nd edition), p. 26.

[172]. John Stuart Mill writes: “In justice to the great Hebrew lawgiver, it should always be remembered that the precept to love thy neighbour as thyself already existed in the Pentateuch; and very surprising it is to find it there” (Three Essays on Religion, 2nd edition, p. 98). Had Mill understood the precept in its original sense, he would certainly not have been surprised to find it in the Mosaic Law. But even so logical a thinker could not free himself from the influences of his education and his environment, and he did not see that a meaning had been read into this verse which was opposed to its literal sense.

[173]. The Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovioff was the first, if I am not mistaken, to attempt to find a moral basis for international relations in the precept “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” taken in the sense mentioned above. This philosopher was an untiring student of Judaism, for which he had an appreciation unusual among Christians—a fact not without its significance.

[174]. Mr. Montefiore, indeed, does not admit this. In his opinion the morality of Jewish family life is a fact not because of the laws, but in spite of them. If you ask how such a thing is possible, he replies somewhat as follows: It has already been remarked that Judaism does not obey the laws of cause and effect, and we sometimes see a certain tendency in Jewish life which ought logically to have certain effects, but has in practice just the opposite results (p. 335). Truly an easy and comfortable “philosophy of history”!

[175]. Even Matthew, who permits divorce on the ground of unfaithfulness, makes this exception (as some Christian commentators have pointed out) only because the sanctity of the marriage is profaned by the sin, and the divine union is annulled of itself. The point of view is essentially the same in both versions.

[176]. In England the question has become so acute that the Government has appointed a Commission to find means of making divorce easier. Men of knowledge and experience, in evidence before the Commission, have expressed the opinion that the restriction of the possibility of divorce has very evil results.

[177]. In England the law to-day is still in the spirit of Matthew; the wife’s unfaithfulness is sufficient ground of divorce for the husband, but the reverse does not hold good.

[178]. [Divine Presence. See p. [97].]