ADDENDA
I. (vol. i., p. xxviii.)
It is a thorough confusion of ideas to identify Zionists with the Nationalists, Chauvinists and Jingoes of other nations. Judaism in its ethics is more cosmopolitan than any other doctrine in the world. In teaching that all men are brethren it lays the foundation of the equality of men and races, and excludes in principle every impulse of race egotism as immoral. In Judaism is therefore contained from the beginning the suppression of national limitation and animosity. And what is founded upon Judaism must necessarily prevail in Zionism, which represents the quintessence of Judaism, with all the power of logic and tradition. But it is just upon this point that those Jews who combat Zionism make a surprising mistake. They attempt to make use of this truth in order to prove that the Jewish nationality has to disappear from this world. Here lies the fallacy. It is true that Judaism rejects the ill-natured aloofness of one nation towards another, but it is not true that Judaism strives after the suppression of national distinctions, and it even borders on the ridiculous to suppose that Judaism requires the suppression of Jewish nationality. Judaism, which recognizes all natural formations, cannot wish to annihilate or to suppress the manifoldness of the national articulation of humanity.
Apart from this all that is alive and modern has a tendency towards the creation of a national culture. All valuable literature and art bears a national character. Everything international is bare of colour and expression. What the Jews do can generally also be done by others, in a worse or better manner. What is of importance to humanity, are the special values which the Jews as such create. The downfall of a nationality which represents a state of culture would be equivalent to a lessening of the spiritual possession of humanity. Besides, the abrasion of the national leads throughout to a loosening of the self-containing of the personality. It comes from the national instinct of the individuality, and the imprint cannot be effaced without internal injury. That is why Zionism means the return to the natural character of the Jewish personality.
II. (vol. i., p. 5)
Anglo-Israelism, the theory which identifies the ancient Britons with the Israelites, was originated by Richard Brothers (1757–1829). The chief exponents of this doctrine, which became the teaching of a particular sect in England and America, were: J. Wilson, W. Carpenter, F. R. A. Glover, Edward Hine, S. W. Greenwood, the Rev. W. H. Poole, S. Bernatto and T. R. Howlett. The Anglo-Israelites have their literature and periodical publications, in which they propagate their idea with great zeal, and in the United States and in Britain to-day amount to a very large number of believers. Without entering into a scientific analysis of this doctrine, we must admit that the fact that a certain number of English people are endeavouring to prove their Israelite origin, is possible only in a country so strongly attached to the Bible, including the Old Testament, as England. Other people would shrink from the mere idea of being mixed up, even in the remotest degree, with Israelites. Even Jewish assimilationists are inclined to accept any extravagant hypothesis tending to prove that the present Jews are not of pure Jewish or Semitic origin.
III. (vol. i., p. 100
The anonymous author of A Treatise of the Future Restoration of the Jews and Israelites to their Own Land, etc. Addressed to the Jews. (London, 1746), defended the idea without any allusion to conversion, in a Jewish spirit, though he was evidently a non-Jew. He gave many interesting descriptions of Palestine.
President Edwards, in his History of Redemption, says: “In future glorious times, both Judah and Ephraim, or Judah and the Ten Tribes, shall be brought in together, and shall be united as one people.” Mr. Locke, giving the substance of the eleventh chapter of the Romans, says: “When the fulness of the Gentiles is come in, the whole Jewish nation shall again be restored to be the people of God.” Dr. W. Harris observes that, as this Epistle (the Romans) was written about the year 57 ... and as the prophecies were not accomplished then, they have to be accomplished.”
William Cunningham of Lainshaw, in his Letters and Essays (London, 1822), has a series of letters on “The Literal Restoration of Israel to their Own Land,” which are excellent both in style and learning.
IV. (vol. i., p. 106)
From the Archives at the Foreign Office
Carlow,
2nd March, 1841.
My Lord,
A Memorial has this day been transmitted to your lordship, praying that Her Majesty’s Government may now exert its commanding influence to secure the protection of the Jews in Palestine, and to afford them facilities for returning to their own land. Though signed by only 320 persons, it contains, I believe, almost the unanimous expression of Protestant feeling in this neighbourhood; almost every one to whom it was presented cheerfully appended his name. It contains the signatures of men of all ranks, of all political parties, and of different religious denominations. The names of many Roman Catholics, both clergy and laity, will be found attached to it.
The deep interest manifested by all classes in the subject of the Memorial, as well as its transcendent importance, will, I sincerely hope, secure for it an attentive consideration.
While the minds of a people, who have for many ages been crushed and trodden under foot by all nations, are fixed with intense anxiety on the measures which Her Majesty’s Government may now adopt for their relief, multitudes of Christians, both at home and abroad, are watching with intense interest the issue of our recent victories in Syria. The tide of popular feeling also throughout the civilized world is now turned in favour of the Jews, and nothing perhaps would tend more strongly to secure our national tranquillity, heal divisions at home, and unite men of all parties, than the adoption of vigorous measures for the benefit of ancient Israel.
I pray your lordship to forgive these remarks, and to bear with me while I add, that perhaps the very existence of our country depends upon the manner in which the people of God are now treated by us. The supreme Governor of Heaven and Earth has, by the prophet Isaiah (chap. xxix. 7 and 8), passed a sweeping and universal sentence which must operate with as unerring certainty as any of the ordinary laws of nature. The total disappearance from the map of the world of many of the most famous nations of antiquity—of Assyria, Babylon, Idumea, etc., form the most impressive commentary on these awful words. It is unnecessary to remind your lordship that England is implicated in this capital offence of plundering, banishing, and massacring the unresisting and often unoffending Jews, as it is indelibly engraven on the page of her history. By what means we are to escape the irreversible decree of Jehovah I know not, if not by manifesting repentance for the cruel deeds of our ancestors, and by employing every means now within our reach to render them kindness in return for the miseries formerly visited upon them.
We hope that God has raised your lordship to your present exalted station for such a time as this, and pray that He may honour you, by making you an instrument of breaking the chains which have long bound the land of His people, and that He may incline the heart of our Sovereign and of Her Government to extend the wings of their protection over that people from whom all our highest blessings and privileges have come.
“Blessed shall those be who bless Israel, and cursed shall those be who curse her.”
I am,
My Lord,
With much respect,
Your lordship’s obedient and humble servant,
(Signed) Warrain Carlile,
Minister of the Scots’ Church, Carlow.
To Lord Palmerston,
Her Majesty’s Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
Foreign Office,
March 8th, 1841.
Sir,
I am directed by Viscount Palmerston to request that you will acquaint the Parties resident at Carlow and in its vicinity who signed the Memorial transmitted to His Lordship from Carlow on the 2nd of this month, praying for the intervention of Her Majesty’s Government in favour of the Jews who may be settled in Palestine or who may desire to return there, that His Lordship has duly received their Memorial, and desires to assure them that the interesting subject to which it relates has not escaped the attention of Her Majesty’s Government, who have made and are still making endeavours which they trust will not be altogether without success, to obtain for such Jews as may wish to settle in Palestine, full security for their persons and property.
The Dean of Leighton
and the Petitioners from Carlow.
Carlow,
March 2, 1841.
To the Right Honourable
LORD PALMERSTON,
Her Majesty’s Secretary for Foreign Affairs
The Humble Memorial of the Undersigned Inhabitants of Carlow and its Vicinity.
Your Memorialists take the liberty of presenting the following statement to your Lordship in consequence of the success which the Almighty has lately been pleased to grant to Her Majesty’s Arms in Syria, and the peculiar position in which he has placed the British Government with respect to the Jews: and they feel the more encouraged to do it from the deep interest which your Lordship has already shown in the Welfare of that people.
Your Lordship must be fully aware of the unparalleled sufferings which the Jews have for Ages endured in the Land of their Fathers; and as that Land has recently in the providence of God, been thrown in some degree under British Power, Your Memorialists earnestly entreat that Her Majesty’s Government may employ their present Commanding influence to shield the unresisting Jews from further persecution, and to ensure for them complete protection.
Your Memorialists feel much confidence in pressing upon Your Lordship’s attention the claims of this much neglected people; for from whom could they better expect a prompt and vigorous attention to these claims, than from a Government which has already exerted itself so nobly in the cause of Humanity and has set an example worthy the imitation of the World in abolishing Slavery and in extending protection to the oppressed.
Your Memorialists beg leave further to remind Your Lordship that the Land of Palestine was bestowed by the Sovereign of the Universe upon the descendants of Abraham as a permanent and inalienable possession nearly 4000 Years ago, and that neither conquests nor treaties among men can possibly affect their Title to it. He has also decreed that they shall again return to their Country and that the Gentiles shall be employed as the means of their restoration. “For thus saith the Lord God, Behold I will lift up mine Hand to the Gentiles and set up my Standard to the people, and they shall bring thy sons in their Arms, and thy Daughters shall be carried upon their Shoulders, and Kings shall be thy Nursing Fathers and their Queens thy Nursing Mothers” (Isah. xlix.). Happy shall those be who shall be employed in accomplishing God’s purposes of Mercy to His Ancient People, for “They shall prosper who love Zion.” The honour and Happiness to be thus attained appear now to be within our reach, and indeed to be offered for our acceptance. It is foretold also that the Ships of Tarshish shall be first employed in conducting the dispersed Tribes of Israel to their Home; and who are more likely to be employed in this Service, or could more easily accomplish it, than the Nation whose Fleets have been long engaged in protecting and succouring the Wretched, and which have access to most of the Countries where Jews are to be found!
That the promises of Jehovah shall be accomplished by some Gentile Nation, is absolutely certain; and everything appears to indicate their speedy fulfilment; and it remains now to be seen whether Her Majesty’s Government is to be the chosen instrument in accomplishing this blessed Work (as Cyrus the Great King of Persia was in ancient times) or whether the Honour and Consequent prosperity are to be Conferred on some other Maritime power.
Your Memorialists cannot conclude without reminding Your Lordship that our own fate as a nation depends upon the manner in which we treat the Jews, for the irreversible decree of Heaven is “The Nation or Kingdom that will not serve Israel shall perish, Yea those Nations shall be utterly consumed.”
Your Memorialists therefore pray Your Lordship to adopt such measures as may appear to You best to secure full protection to the Jews in their own Country, also to afford them assistance in gaining possession of their Land, either by purchase or otherwise, and to afford facilities to all who may be disposed to return to their inheritance.
And Your Memorialists will ever pray, etc.
V. (vol. i., p. 119)
“... Sir Moses called on Colonel Campbell, but he had to wait some time before seeing him, as the Colonel was with the Pasha.[¹] The Colonel willingly consented to introduce Sir Moses to Boghoz Bey,[²] and fixed four o’clock for the purpose. Colonel Campbell said he would call for Sir Moses, and bring one of his horses for him.
[¹] Mehemet Ali.
[²] Father of Boghoz Pasha, President of the Armenian National Council in Paris, 1919. See [p. 116.]
“The Colonel was punctual, and we rode together to the residence of Boghoz Bey. Sir Moses gave him three requests in writing, and he promised to lay them before Mohammad Ali and explain them to him. The Bey appeared well inclined to forward his requests, and offered to present him to the Pasha either the same evening or the next morning....
“Boghoz Bey, the Pasha’s Minister of Commerce, had read over and explained my requests to him on the previous evening, that he might be fully aware of the object of my visit to him. Being anxious to have Mohammad Ali’s answers in writing, which he said Boghoz Bey should give me, as he had been present at our interview, I called on the Bey, but he had not returned from the Palace.
“Between four and five I walked there with Dr. Loewe. Boghoz Bey received me most politely, and said as I had not put my signature to the written requests, he could not give me an answer in writing, but he hoped I was perfectly satisfied with what Mohammad Ali had promised me this morning. He added that as soon as I had made my several requests in writing, and signed them, he would write me the answer, agreeably with the Pasha’s words, as he had accorded me all I required.
“I thanked him, and immediately after the conclusion of Sabbuth I wrote, and sent the several requests to Boghoz Bey, properly signed in the form of letters....”[¹]
[¹] Diaries of Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore.... Edited by Dr. L. Loewe, ... vol. i. London ... 1890. pp. 198–200.
VI. (vol. i., p. 138)
In 1849 Colonel George Gawler accepted an invitation from Sir Moses Montefiore to accompany him—together with Lady Montefiore—on a tour through the Holy Land. It was arranged that they should leave England about the 20th of April. They were, however, delayed three weeks by the illness of Lady Montefiore. Gawler himself was not disappointed at the delay, as he was hard at work studying Hebrew and Arabic, preparatory for the tour. Eventually they started on May the 15th, and arrived at Jerusalem on July 28th.[¹]
[¹] George Gawler, K.H., by C. W. N. London, 1900, p. 56.
An enthusiastic Christian Zionist, Gawler was at the same time a strong advocate of Jewish emancipation which was to him a duty of justice, because: “First, it would be part payment of a heavy debt of retribution that England owes to the Hebrew race for bygone centuries of cruelty and oppression. Westminster Abbey itself was rebuilt by money extorted from the Jews (Maddox’s History of the Exchequer, and Hunter’s History of London). And, secondly, it would be taking a part, which is to the honour and interest of the British Nation to perform, in assisting the great movement of deliverance from oppression and bondage that for many years past has been in operation throughout the whole civilized world, in behalf of the Ancient People of God.”[¹]
[¹] The Emancipation of the Jews, by Col. G. Gawler. London, 1847, Preface.
VII. (vol. i., p. 139)
The Rev. Alex. B. C. Dallas (1791–1869), author of several works, said in a lecture in 1845: ... “The first object is the time when Jerusalem is to be safely inhabited by the people of Judah, as of old. This we learn from Zechariah (XII. 6 and XIV. 11), and from all the prophets. If then the western Jews of Europe were to be placed under some political arrangement, with an independent jurisdiction over the city and suburbs alone, that prophecy would be fulfilled” (Present Times and Future Prospects, Rev. W. R. Fremantle. London, 1845, p. 116).
The Rev. W. R. Fremantle (1781–1859), the editor of this volume and a priest of great learning, dealing with the same subject, remarked: “It has been thought that if cabinets of Europe only agree upon some terms, and draw up a treaty for the restoration of the Jews to Palestine, the whole matter would be speedily arranged. But if the position which our subject holds in the coming future be correctly stated, then are there many steps in this work of restoration. The first is evidently partial and preparatory” (Ibid., pp. 253–4).
The Rev. Williams Cadman said in the same series of lectures: “When the storm is passed, Israel shall be found in peaceful and quiet possession. The desolate land shall be tilled; the ruined places shall be built, and the waste cities become fenced, and be inhabited, and filled with flocks of men” (Ibid., pp. 303–4).
In a Paper[¹] read before the British Association of Science at Aberdeen, September 16th, 1859, by Major Scott Philipps, on the Resettlement of the Seed of Abraham in Syria and Arabia, it was shown that the small portion they have hitherto possessed, by no means comprises the whole grant of country given to Abraham, but that the whole of Arabia Felix is included in that grant. Their full inheritance is given in Deuteronomy xi. 24: ‘Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the River Euphrates even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be.’
[¹] This paper has recently been reprinted.
“Now rule a line from the northern roots of Lebanon to the southern roots of Sinai, and will not a perpendicular thereto point out the uttermost sea to be the East Sea, or Sea of Oman? And the uttermost sea opposite the River Euphrates, is it not the Red Sea?
“Thus the Euphrates, the Mediterranean, the Nile, and the Red Sea are proved to be the boundaries of the Promised Land.”
The Rev. Jacob H. Brooke Mountain wrote in a letter published by Miss Rosa Rame (The Restoration of the Jews, etc., dedicated to the Earl of Shaftesbury. London, 1860):—
“There was a time, when the Duke of Wellington was at the head of affairs, when the Navy of England was absolute on the ocean, and her military glory at its height, and when the Jews would thankfully have paid the whole expense of the expedition, that they might have been put in possession of their own country. And England would have become the first of the nations in Europe—our influence over Turkey, Greece and Egypt rendered paramount—and a devoted ally attached to us. The opportunity was lost; if it is ever vouchsafed to us again, I fervently pray that we may embrace it with zeal and alacrity. The time may yet come, if England has grace to use it.”
VIII. (vol. i., p. 152)
The clause as it is to be found in the General Treaty between Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia and Turkey, signed at Paris, March 30th, 1856, runs as follows:—
“M.T.Maj. the Sultan having in his constant solicitude for the welfare of his subjects, issued a Firman which, while ameliorating their condition without distinction of religion or of race, records his generous intentions towards the Christian population of his Empire,” etc. It is quite clear that the principle was “without distinction of religion or race,” and that the grant of rights to the Christians is only an application of a general principle in a special case.
In the second Protocol of the Conference of the 30th of August, 1860, at Paris, signed by Metternich, Thouvenel, Cowley, Reuss, Kisseleff and Ahmed Vefik, where the autonomy of the Lebanon was decided, reference is made again to this paragraph:—
“Neanmoins ils ne peuvent s’empêcher, en rappelant ici les actes emanes de Sa Majesté la Sultan dont l’article 9 du traité du 30 mars, 1856, a constate la haute valeur,” etc. (Recueil des Traités de la Porte Ottoman, 1884, T. 6, p. 45).
IX. (vol. i., p. 160)
It is noteworthy that Palestinian rabbis recognized the activity of the English Consul. James Finn was, indeed, an English pioneer of the idea of the colonization of Palestine and of England’s protection of Palestinian Jews. He was appointed Consul before the death of Bishop Alexander (who was a converted Jew and the first Bishop appointed by the English Government in Jerusalem), in 1848, and the chief reason for his appointment was his known love of the Jewish cause. He was at the time a member of the London Society’s Committee, had published an interesting and learned work on the History of the Spanish Jews, as well as a book upon the Chinese Jews, had devoted himself with great zeal and rare success to the study of Hebrew, which he spoke and wrote with fluency, and was considered on this account to be particularly well qualified for the post of Consul at Jerusalem (another proof of the great appreciation of the National Jewish character of Palestine on the part of the British Government at that time). Finn went out as a devoted friend to the Jewish cause, and as such he proved himself. Though an ardent Christian, he won the sympathy of the most orthodox Jerusalem rabbis, and their moral support for the colonization of Palestine. He was the son-in-law of Alexander McCaul, a distinguished Christian Hebraist who devoted the greater part of his active life to missionary work among the Jews. When the Bishopric of Jerusalem was established in 1842, under the joint protection of the Queen of England and the King of Prussia, McCaul was the first to be offered the See.
“By desire of the King of Prussia, and with the hearty concurrence of the heads of the Church, the bishopric in Jerusalem was tendered to Dr. McCaul, the worthiest, perhaps, of all the Gentiles for that high honour. He demanded, however, but short time for deliberation and refusal, declaring his firm belief that the Episcopate of St. James was reserved, in the providence of God, for the brethren of the apostle according to the flesh.”[¹] Bishop Alexander was thereupon offered and accepted the trust.
[¹] Jewish Intelligence, June, 1842, p. 207.
X. (vol. i., p. 194)
Zionism is not merely an economic, but also, and perhaps primarily, a spiritual movement. The Jewish people must be able to live in accordance with the requirements of its soul in Palestine. Economically it could perhaps live equally well elsewhere, but spiritually only in its own historical and actual home. No people on earth have so highly valued the spiritual as the Jews. The ever-recurring motif of the Thora (the Law) is the most striking proof of this conception. The spiritual capacity of a people is not its all, but certainly its highest possession. For this constituent complements all other possessions and ennobles every other interest. Traditions are of high standing, but ignorance and superstition cause otherwise good and great traditions to become forces which, instead of working for good, only interfere as disturbing, thwarting and perplexing elements in the activities of life.
“The ignorant cannot be pious” was a good old saying of the ancients, but of the impious learned ones, on the contrary, the saying was: “May they but cherish the Law, for the light of the Law will turn them towards the good.” Man must not, of course, regard learning as the goal, but without knowledge his life and existence are blind; only in the light of cognition can the traditions of a people assume the best possible form. Historical reminiscences are of the greatest importance for the consciousness of the people, but even they shrink into pitiful narrowness if the breadth of outlook upon life be wanting. In any case the fundamentally good is only sanctified when the pursuit of learning has widened the horizon of everything human, and has taught the art of building up with the best materials out of the past in harmony with the present. This is the universal function of learning, and in comparison with this sphere of action all other superficial functions sink into mere activities which only acquire value through learning.
This fundamental idea, upon which the whole of Judaism is based, may be illustrated from another aspect. When the Seventy Elders had translated the Pentateuch into Greek, which was the most cultured language of Antiquity, the learned ones complained and even went so far as to assert in a paradoxical sentence: “The day on which this happened is like unto the days of woe at the time of the destruction of the Temple.” We have only succeeded by degrees in grasping the deep truth of this sentence. Translation, generalization, localization may be necessary in the Dispersion. But one must not be deceived: only that which is written in the original tongue of the people is genuinely national. The Law of the Jewish nation can only be preserved in all its originality in the language of that nation.
That the Shechinah (the glory of God) should languish in exile, that the Thora should have to share the hard fate of its bearers, condemned to wander from place to place in foreign lands, seemed to many a mystical idea. But, in reality, this idea is but an expression of the conscious need or longing for the old home. There is not the slightest trace of mysticism in this: it is a clear and illuminating thought. Learning must, in order to be disseminated and perpetuated among the successive generations, have some kind of institution available for the purpose of an adequate interchange of ideas. For the purposes of the formation of scientific, professional classes, for the development of an organized system of education, for the vitalization of the language, for the purpose of entering into relation with natural surroundings, it is necessary to presume a whole series of cultural precedents, which would probably be for the greater part of a practical nature. Not until these conditions have been created will national Jewish culture, ancient but ever young, appear in all its glory. In the Dispersion there are, unfortunately, but a few who are able, through the power of intuition, to realize the sublimity and depth of a chapter from the Hebrew prophetic scriptures. They have preserved the Jewish spirit, partly through atavism, and partly through tradition and long study. But no outsider can experience the same feeling towards the Hebrew bible as a Palestinian Jew. No one else either can rightly understand a “Mishna” of the “Seder Z’raïm,” the part which treats of the Palestinian flora, in spite of the most ingenious commentaries. In the Ghetto, they only extract from the Thora that for which the Ghetto possesses understanding—the disputations concerning business (Dine momonoth) or the Dietary Laws, and the laws concerning the sabbath and the festivals. The Thora in its entirety can only be revived in Palestine. The Dispersion only possesses fragments of an ancient national culture, which are, in every country, differently valued, and vague remembrances and surmises of the nature of a national feeling.
It stands to reason that a real national feeling can only develop in Palestine. There this feeling would become what it is among all other sound, healthy and civilized peoples: the joyful consciousness of belonging to a nation that in life, customs and language bears the impress of an ancient and yet new culture. It is in this and not in the superficialities of a state that the centre of gravity of Zionist efforts consists. What Zionists want is to find in the historical fatherland the conditions requisite for the untrammelled development of a Jewish nation. Zionism is in its deepest sense a product of Jewish national consciousness.
What actually is national consciousness? National consciousness, a product of a national common consciousness and of an historically conditioned feeling of unity, is not based upon a single undertaking by a single group of men, or of a single impulse in the history of this group, but upon a certain inborn cultural value of a given people. National consciousness thus expresses this value as a peculiar embodiment of the human soul, which, during the course of special lives enriches humanity so that the right is claimed for the nation in question to safeguard its existence and to develop according to its own individuality within the world of nations. This consciousness is capable of a very varied development in strength, formation and tendency. It manifests itself in the joy felt in the preservation of its own national characteristics, in the promotion of its fitness, in the relation of the efficiency of the individual to the welfare of the whole, and in the willingness to sacrifice for the good of the whole people. This consciousness possesses, besides, certain specific aspects which are peculiar to the one nation more than to any other. It must possess these specific aspects or else it would be nothing more than an imitation or a continuation of its antithesis: assimilation.
Consequently a Jewish national consciousness must likewise lay emphasis upon the specific aspects which are of a spiritual nature. The Jewish people is essentially neither ambitious of domination, nor bent on proselytizing, neither adventurous nor aggressive; it is a people eminently endowed intellectually that wishes to enjoy the blessings of peace. Some of the immoral backwaters of the national consciousness are national pride, presumption, blindness to the qualities and efficiency of foreigners, malicious envy, lust of domination, ill-will. The Jewish people is sufficiently safeguarded against such failings by its spiritual endowment.
XI. (vol. i., p. 205)
Dr. Chas. F. Zimpel published in 1865 an Appel à la société Chrétienne toute entière ainsi qu’aux Israelites, pour la déliverance de Jerusalem (Frankfort-on-the-Main) in which he gave a description of the deplorable conditions in Palestine, and appealed to Christians and Jews to establish a new order of things in that country. He referred to the ideas of Napoleon I., and mentioned a statement that Napoleon III. made some definite promises in this matter: “Que S.M. Napoleon III. en ait le pressentiment ou la conviction, il est certain que, d’après ce qui m’a été communiqué, il a donné, il y a environ trois ans ... sa parole de travailler dans ce but” (p. 12). This statement is evidently related to the propaganda of M. Dunant, which was much stimulated by the beginning of the work on the Suez Canal. Earlier, in 1852, Zimpel had published a pamphlet, Die Israeliten in Jerusalem (Stuttgart, 1852), in which he appealed to his readers for support of the agricultural Jewish settlement established by the Americans in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Zimpel, who declared himself to be a Christian, contributed five hundred florins. He mentioned among the promoters of the idea the American Dr. J. T. Barclay, and a prominent Jerusalemite, John Meshullam. About Meshullam, who was a baptized Jew, born in London, who had had an adventurous career, a part of which was spent in the service of Lord Byron, some interesting particulars are given, under date 20th March, 1852, in The Sabbath Recorder of New York, No. 413, of the 20th of May, 1852. This paper quotes an extract from a journal of Mr. C. S. Minor, an American (Christian) gentleman, who was associated with Meshullam in his agricultural settlement at Bethlehem:
“Through a recent petition of the Turkish Effendis of Jerusalem, the Sultan has lately sent him (Meshullam) an offer of the site of the ancient Cæsarea and its fertile vicinity, if he will undertake and superintend its rebuilding and cultivation. This is greatly surprising and important, as Cæsarea has the most lovely and easily rebuilt ruins in Palestine, and is a point of great commercial importance and entrance to the whole land, and was formerly the chosen port of the Romans. This he declines from his love to Jerusalem and his suffering brethren within its walls.”
Meshullam is again mentioned in Colonel George Gawler’s book, Syria, etc. (London, 1853, p. 78): “Some have supposed that the Hebrew people are at present unfitted for field or garden work. Such as think this cannot have witnessed Hebrew labourers, aye, and Hebrew Rabbis, at work in Mr. Meshullam’s farm at Urtan.”
XII. (vol. i., p. 216)
In the year 1884 the delegates of the Chovevé Zion Unions, mostly from Russia, met in conference at Kattowitz in Silesia, close to the Russo-Polish frontier. A Bne-Brith Union had formerly been founded there which had for its object: “To afford moral and material support for the foundation of colonies, to Jews undergoing religious persecution.” The words “In Palestine” were only introduced later. But in the appeal which this Union had circulated in 1882, Palestine was expressly mentioned as the future home of the Jewish nation, and the national future of the Jewish community was exalted with every conceivable distinctness. In this appeal Palestine was opposed to America, towards which the main stream of emigration was flowing, and was represented as a suitable land of immigration on account of all the reasons which it is usual to adduce: the low cost of the journey, the value of the concentration of Jewish masses upon common territory; the country’s fertility, among others. The president of this Bne-Brith Lodge, M. Moses, was known as a zealous Chovev Zion. This circumstance, and the proximity of the town to the Russo-Polish frontier, were the reasons for its selection for the Conference.
The Conference had elected a central committee, whose seat should originally have been in Berlin, but it turned out differently. Odessa remained the centre of the Friends of Zion. It also determined that henceforward a better administration of the funds was to be carried through. An attempt was to be made to obtain the recognition of the Society by the Russian Government; the position of the colonization was to be tested on the spot, and it was only then to be determined which colonies were to be supported. New foundations were not to be considered in the meantime. Finally, a delegation was to be sent to the Turkish Government to effect the removal of the difficulties standing in the way of Jewish colonization in Palestine. Although, as had been foreseen, it was not yet possible to gather all the threads into one hand, the organizing thought and a Zionistic programme were proclaimed here for the first time. The newly founded institution was given the name “Maskereth Moshe,” or “Montefiore Foundation for Supporting Colonies of the Holy Land,” so named in remembrance of Montefiore, whose hundreth birthday had been celebrated with widespread enthusiasm, especially in Russia. Through the sale of Montefiore pictures, the first common fund, 40,000 roubles, had been raised.
The Conference had no great real success. In spite of the propaganda undertaken by the central committee the movement came to a standstill. Already, in 1887, a Conference was arranged at Drusgenik, Russia, whose practical result differed but little from that of Kattowitz. It was decided to support certain colonies, and an office was set up in Palestine from which the negotiations with the Turkish Government were to be conducted and the land purchases controlled. Though this Conference was followed by a certain increase of the propaganda, the undertaking on the whole was in such a bad way, partly on account of the distressing condition of the Palestine colonies, that Pinsker finally resigned. Not till the Conference at Wilna was a change brought about, and when, in 1890, in consequence of the endeavours of the tenacious and energetic friend of Zion—M. Zederbaum—the authorization of the Russian Government had been obtained, the first general meeting of the Odessa Committee, “The Society for Supporting Jewish Agriculturists in Syria and Palestine” (as it called itself), was held, and Pinsker assumed again the leadership of the movement. At this point begins the really extensive activity of Chovevé Zion, chiefly in Russia, although there were Chovevé Zion Unions in nearly every country, even in America. At the beginning of the last decade of the nineteenth century the organization had reached its culminating point of activity. But the formal foundation of this committee had taken place at Kattowitz.
The Kattowitz Conference was, as Pinsker said, only a small beginning. But still it was a beginning. It created a principle and a method which only prevailed later. The insignificant real importance of the Conference is not inconsistent with its great historic significance. Result did not follow immediately upon this event, but the historian must trace back all the recent development of the Zionist idea to that date, because for the first time in a Jewish assembly the new spirit assumed shape and expression. Thus in the end history must consider the Kattowitz Conference as the seed out of which first of all a tender plant grew, but which, after wearisome development, spread out into a tree beneath whose shade Israel will some day find repose.
XIII. (vol. i., p. 276)
In the year 1840, Luzzatto wrote to Jost: “... and when at last, oh, Jewish scholars of Germany will the Lord open your eyes? How long will you refuse to see how wrongly you act by following the crowd, extinguishing national pride, allowing the language of our forefathers to fall into oblivion and letting Hellenism (Atticism) grow up in our midst? As long as you allow your brethren to persevere in the delusion that the ideal of perfection is nothing else than imitation of neighbours and the consideration gained therefrom; as long as you will not have attained enough self-consciousness to instruct the people out of full zeal for God, truth and Jewish confraternity to uphold that the greatest good is not anything visible but that which is felt deep within the heart, that the happiness of our nation is not dependent on emancipation but on our love to one another, on our holding together in brotherly union, and that this feeling of correlation is gradually dwindling as a result of emancipation; as long as you maintain that emancipation countries are paradisaic countries for the Jews, the saying of the prophet Malachi will necessarily apply to you:
“‘Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.’”
In a letter of the year 1855, Luzzatto writes to one of his disciples: “Your Hebrew letter gave me real pleasure.... Honour be to you for wishing to accustom yourself to write and speak Hebrew. For the language of our ancestors is the bond which links together the sons of the Jewish nation who are scattered all over the world, and it is that which conjoins all generations, and brings us nearer our ancestors as well as the generations which will come after us.”
On another occasion Luzzatto expressed himself on the idea of a Jewish mission in the Diaspora: “These are indeed words which charm the ear flatteringly, but in fact they are just empty phrases. The Bible has already been propagated among peoples for many generations, and gains in diffusion from day to day without Jewish assistance. Now, if the propagation of the Bible within a space of time of eighteen hundred years has not brought humanity perceptibly nearer perfection, what can the Jews contribute thereto, especially those who do not believe in the divinity of the Thora? But apart from the fact that, as I have expounded, it is a delusion to believe that the only purpose of existence of Judaism is to lead humanity towards perfection, as the author (Philipsohn) and his adherents believe, it is also a vain delusion to think that humanity will ever reach the state of perfection which the author describes in his writings.”
When Luzzatto heard, in the year 1854, that Albert Cohn, of Paris, was going to Palestine, he wrote to him:—
“Only unthinking people can suggest that Jewish children should be sent from Asia to large European cities to be brought up there, and thus diffuse our culture among our brethren in Asia; that is heartless egoism and unbelief, fine outer forms and inward corruption.”
“Judaism must be relieved of foreign pressure. The Jews of the Holy Land must be provided with soil to till and means of exploitation. Care must also be taken that their crops are not robbed by the Pashas and Beduins. Then they will cultivate the soil as in the times of the Bible, Mishna and Talmud. This cannot succeed in Jerusalem, since, as a place of pilgrimage, it has become the abode of people who divest themselves of all worldly cares and true social duties. Judaism has never built cloisters for recluses and has never countenanced idleness. But is it to be wondered at that whilst all nations from far and wide went on pilgrimage to the Sepulchre, Jehuda Halevy, Nachmanides and other devout men, after a life of strenuous toil, should have wished to pay honour to the seat of holiness and to end their lives in saintly seclusion? Jerusalem will necessarily remain a sacred city for all peoples. Therefore, for the present, it cannot be regarded as a possible capital of the country. Otherwise all Palestine should be tilled and cultivated by the Jews, that it may flourish from an agricultural and industrial point of view and arise again in its old splendour. The main consideration is that no impediments should be placed by the Government in the way of the free development of Jewish industry. The Jews are known all over the world as particularly industrious and capable. Why, then, should they be loungers in Palestine? That they are so at present has two local reasons; the one, the pressure of neighbouring nations and the negligence of the administration, and the other the Indian as well as Mohammedan, but not at all Jewish, conception of the holiness of inactive life. The local pressure must be removed as far as possible. But we must rouse our brethren to useful activity, urge them onwards in every way, and breathe into them the spirit of a new life.”[¹]
[¹] Prof. D. Kauffmann, Correspondence of Samuel David Luzzatto, Dr. J. Klausner. Haschiloach, April, 1901.
XIV. (vol. i., p. 280)
The eloquent passion with which Bialik expresses the woe of the Jewish people runs like a red thread through all his national poems; but it reaches its climax in The Poems of Wrath—a series of these poems written on the occasion of the Kishineff massacre in 1903. This series above all other poems of his is the most terrible expression of the national grief, despair and rage accumulated during the centuries of persecution, and is a masterpiece of vigour and impetuosity.
XV. (vol. i., p. 280)
Achad Ha’am’s writings offer an abundance of instructive historiosophic thoughts, mostly propounded in fragmentary, aphoristic form, which point in their entirety to a common root and a uniform outlook and system of ideas on the part of this thinker, and show the way thereto to many a reader. The stimulus of his theories lies in the fact that they have nearly always had a background of actuality. Achad Ha’am is no historiosopher within the narrow meaning of the word; his aim is primarily directed towards present-day problems of Judaism, but he often seeks their solution in the past. Thence he traces the primordial causes of what occupies us at present. This trait alone makes him not only national, like nearly all authors of our present Hebraic Renaissance period, but even more, it invests him with the sanction of a learned Hebrew thinker and an inspired intellectual leader. His methodology is philosophic and somewhat attuned to the Hegelian dialectic of thought, and in this connection too, apart from the community of national fundamental conception, it brings him close to Nachman Krochmal. Evolution is the idea which chiefly directs him, and psychology—particularly of human groups, parties and nations—appeals most to his refined mind. In all his endeavours he affirms the fluidity of the national character, and its adaptability under the pressure of historio-cultural factors. But it is just on this account that he is so firmly convinced of the necessity of Jewish individuality and its free development. He perceives the essence of this individuality in Jewish intellectual life, and he longs for a centre for it in Palestine.
Achad Ha’am expounded the essential Zionist idea long before the Zionist Organization was established, but opposed some political methods proposed by the Zionist Organization. He rejected the kind of Zionism which had its adherents mostly in Western Europe, and is inspired merely by anti-Semitism and its outrages, and he advocated Zionism as an expression of Judaism, of Jewish feeling, of a revival of the people by virtue of a great Jewish national idea—with a spiritual centre in Palestine.
XVI. (vol. i., p. 313)
Jews may have native countries, the Jewish nation has none, and this is its misfortune. The Jewish nation must again feel its own stretch of earth under its feet, and draw new material and moral forces from the native soil. But this must not be understood as if it were demanded that all Jews should leave their present homesteads in order to populate their chosen land. This is not what is meant. The Jewish idea of nationality does not aim at uniting the Jews in one country or at giving them a national status in their Dispersion, but at creating a national centre for Judaism. A considerable part of the nation, which will naturally be recruited first of all in the countries where Jewish oppression is heaviest, is to settle upon the soil which is intended to be the home of the Hebrew race. There it will win through agriculture that attachment to the soil which preserves a country to a nation, and it will find that bodily and moral welfare which must be the proper aim of all Jewish aspirations. The advantages of such an eventuality, also for those Jews remaining outside the national area and status, are self-evident. The foremost attainment would be that the Jewish population in the countries of European civilization would be constantly maintained as to numbers, through periodic eliminations, below that point of saturation, above which experience shows that the Jews are no longer welcome. Naturally this would also bring about a considerable relief to anti-Jewish tension, a decrease of the intensity of the struggle for life of the Jewish masses, and also, possibly, render easier the juridical equalization of the Jews in the countries of greatest pressure.
In addition to these will come the effect of the development of the Jewish land upon the Jews of other countries. The consciousness of the existence of a living Jewish people possessing a country of its own, a field of cheerful activity for sons at home, a refuge for sons from afar, will also ennoble and elevate, fortify and temper the Jews of the Diaspora. The curse of exciting ridicule, which makes misfortune doubly hard to bear, will recede from them: their whole status among the nations will become normal and healthy. The relations between Jews and Gentiles which, for all assimilations and emancipations, and notwithstanding all goodwill on both sides—why not admit it?—still retain so much of what is forced and painful, will only then become unconstrained and unaffected. Dislike of the Jews may possibly not cease; but, at any rate, it will lose all justification for existing in its peculiar shape and acuity. Should this dislike nevertheless prevail, the importance of a centre will become all the more apparent. The smallest national autonomous community has a seat and voice in the concert of nations. A nation without national worth is a nation outlawed. However pessimistic one may be with regard to the possibility of a small national centre to exert any material political influence in other countries, its moral authority is certain.
XVII. ([vol. ii., p. 47)]
The interest of Mr. C. P. Scott, Mr. H. Sidebotham, also of The Manchester Guardian but now of The Times, and other non-Jewish friends in Manchester in the Zionist Movement led to the establishment in that city, in the autumn of 1916, of the British Palestine Committee, formed to further the establishment of a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine, under British protection. In the words placed in the forefront of its programme: “The British Palestine Committee seeks to reset the ancient glories of the Jewish nation in the freedom of a new British dominion in Palestine.” The activities of this Committee have displayed themselves for the most part through its press organ, Palestine, which, appearing weekly, supplies the influential public among which it circulates with valuable information on all matters relating to Palestine, and at the same time discusses all the phases of international politics which touch upon the Palestine question in any of its facets. In addition to Palestine the Committee is responsible for two publications, England and Palestine, by Mr. H. Sidebotham, in which the author puts the case for a British mandateship, and British Projects for the Restoration of the Jews, a pamphlet by Mr. Albert M. Hyamson, wherein he sketches the attitude of British statesmen and publicists towards the projected restoration of the Jews to Palestine during the century and more that preceded the outbreak of the European War of 1914.
XVIII. ([vol. ii., p. 54)]
In the earlier part of the year 1917, about the date of the opening of the London Bureau of the Zionist Organization, the present writer, being the only member of the Inner Actions Committee in England, felt it desirable to give some definite status to those trusted supporters of the Zionist cause to whose advice Dr. Weizmann and he were continually informally having recourse. The constitution of the Organization did not permit of any definite responsibility being assigned to them. It was therefore possible to form only an Advisory Committee, without any executive authority. The Political Committee that came into existence at that time, and continued its existence until the arrival in England of a number of the members of the Greater Actions Committee enabled that constitutional Organization to resume its functions, was composed originally of Ahad Ha’am, Mr. Leopold Kessler, Mr. Joseph Cowen, Mr. Herbert Bentwich, Mr. Albert M. Hyamson, Mr. Simon Marks (who acted as Honorary Secretary), Mr. Harry Sacher, Mr. Israel Sieff, Mr. Leon Simon, two foreign Zionists—M. J. Ettinger, of the Jewish National Fund, and M. S. Tolkowsky, of Rechoboth, Palestine—who were temporarily resident in London, together with Dr. Weizmann and the present writer as chairman.
[♦]CORRIGENDA
Volume I.
Page xxvii. Six lines from the bottom. For “See the Chapter on Zionism and the War” substitute “See Volume II., pp. 1 ff.”
Page xl. Line 9. Delete “Arthur,” substitute “Albert.”
Line 22. Delete “Moro,” substitute “Morot.”
Line 23. Delete “Andre,” substitute “André.”
Five lines from the bottom. For “Frederick” substitute “Frederic.”
Page 8. The last three lines of the note contain the title of the Yiddish translation of “The Merchant of Venice.”
Page 12. Insert quotation marks (“) before “It” at opening of last paragraph.
Page 23. Line 12. For מרה substitute מרא.
Page 26. Three lines from the end. For “Gebirol” substitute “Gabirol.”
Last line. For “Kalonymus” substitute “Kalonymos.”
Page 27. Line 1. For “Kalonymus” substitute Kalonymos.”
Page 35. Line 2. Insert “shall” at end of line.
Page 59. Line 9. After “Manuel” insert “Noah.”
Page 82. Five lines from the end. Omit “de la Gironde.”
Page 95. Note 2. Transfer date “(1835–1906)” to end of first line.
Page 126. Line 5. For “Reschid” substitute “Reshid.”
Page 144. First note. Delete second sentence. Substitute “He appeared as a pseudo-messiah about the year 1160.”
Line 24, and second note. Delete “1918.” Lord Morley is fortunately still alive.
Page 182. The three lines from the end. For “1826–1887” substitute “1826–1882.”
Page 193. Last line but one. For שחטה substitute שחטא.
Page 213. Line 18. After “poet” insert “and novelist.”
Page 222. Line 11. For אמתי substitute אימתי.
Page 235. Line 4. For “hoards” substitute “hordes.”
Page 254. Line 2. For “Frederick” substitute “Frederic.”
Page 257. Line 1. After “Jockey Club” insert “of Paris.”
Page 258. Line 13. For “Petrograd” substitute “St. Petersburg.”
Page 266. Line 3. For “Uganda” substitute “East African.”
Page 269. Line 22. For “Bahar” substitute “Behar.”
Page 275. Line 2 of note. For “Hakalah” substitute “Haskalah.”
Page 278. Line 22. For “Petrograd” substitute “St. Petersburg.”
Page 280. Line 3. For “Noach” substitute “Nachman.”
Line 27. For “Scernichowsky” substitute “Tschernichowsky.”
Page 284. Line 22. For “Shmarya” substitute “Shemaryah.”
Line 24. For “Viktor Jakobsohn” substitute “Victor Jacobsohn.”
Page 292. Line 38. For “Slouchz” substitute “Slousch.”
Page 296. Line 15. For “Jewish Territorial Association” substitute “Jewish Territorial Organization.”
Line 6 from the end. For “Uganda in East Africa” substitute “British East Africa.”
Page 297. Last line. For “Uganda” substitute “British East Africa.”
Page 302. First line of note. For “Araber” substitute “Arab et.”
Page 304. Paragraph 3, line 1. For “the first” substitute “an early.”
Paragraph 3, line 11. For “invasion” substitute “revolt.”
Volume II.
Page 44. Line 4. For “Uganda” substitute “a territory in East Africa.”
Page 62. Line 4. After “harmful” insert “but he afterwards withdrew his resignation.”
Mr. Gilbert did not resign from the Conjoint Committee, of which he was not a member. He resigned his membership of the Board of Deputies in order that the prospective president, Sir Stuart Samuel, might be elected in his place.
Line 24. Omit “late.”
Page 80. Line 9. For “judge” substitute “justice.”
Line 24. For “Shmaria” substitute “Shemaryah.”
Page 82. Line 1. For “Levin” substitute “Lewin.”
Page 87. Line 4. After “by any means” insert “a desert. But a little Jewish state in Palestine would serve as.”
Page 134. Line 18. For “Levin” substitute “Lewin.”
Page 140. Line 8 from the end. For “Jewish Territorial Association” substitute “Jewish Territorial Organization.”
Page 152. Line 3 from the end. For “Essalt” substitute “Es-Salt.”
Page 161. Line 4 from the end. For “generations” substitute “centuries.”
Page 215. Note 1. After “Breslau” insert “Jewish Theological.”
By a misunderstanding, words have in many instances in the first volume and in the earlier half of the second volume of this work been printed in italics quite unnecessarily. Chronological dates have also in some instances been supplied where they have not been called for.
[♦] All noted corrections have been made in the text. None of the italicized words have been changed because a detailed list was not given and some words may have been italicized correctly.