The Jewish Genius in Literature
A Study of Three Modern Men of Letters
By Edward Chauncey Baldwin
EDWARD CHAUNCEY BALDWIN (born in Cornwall, Conn., 1870), Assistant Professor of English in the University of Illinois, has taken a special and scholarly interest in the contributions of the Jews to civilization, on which subject he has written a notable book entitled "Our Modern Debt to Israel," besides articles in various periodicals. He is an honorary member of the Illinois Menorah Society, evincing a warm sympathy with the Menorah aims and actively coöperating in the Menorah work.
A STUDY of great Jewish names in modern literature has impressed me with the fact that every Jewish man of letters has attained his fame by virtue of qualities that are essentially Jewish. In other words, we cannot fully understand the work of even modern Jewish literary men unless we know the fundamental qualities of Jewish genius. To illustrate what is meant by this assertion, we may consider briefly the work of three nineteenth century Jewish authors—Heine, Beaconsfield, and Zangwill. These men are apparently wholly different; and yet they attained literary eminence through qualities or mind and heart which we have learned to associate with the race from which they sprang.
Heinrich Heine: A Jew at Heart
HEINRICH Heine is the one writer of the first rank that Germany can boast between the death of Goethe in 1832 and the advent of the younger generation of dramatists, Sudermann, Hauptmann, and the rest, sixty years later. To free himself from such a limitation as his Jewish birth seemed to him to be, and with the more specific object, it is said, of securing a government position in Prussia, Heine allowed himself to become a convert to Christianity. "Judaism," he said, "is not a religion; it is a misfortune." His conversion, however, failed to profit him. He lost the fellowship of his own people, and was contemptuously called "the Jew" by his enemies. In a sense, the designation was entirely just. A Jew at heart Heine remained to the day of his death. On his death bed, speaking of the Jews he said: "Queer people this! Downtrodden for thousands of years, weeping always, suffering always, abandoned always by its God, yet clinging to him tenaciously, loyally, as no other under the sun. Oh, if martyrdom, patience, and faith in spite of trial can confer a patent of nobility, then this people is noble beyond any other. It would have been absurd and petty if, as people accuse me, I had been ashamed of being a Jew."
Not only was Heine a Jew in his instinctive racial sympathies, but his work bears the indelible impress of Judaism. It is a distinctively Jewish product. In it appear the buoyancy of spirit which sustained him under suffering that would have crushed a less resilient temper; the intellectual arrogance; the proneness to censure rather than to commend; and especially the excessive self-consciousness;—all these distinctively Jewish traits were in him exaggerated and helped to make his work what it was. It is his self-consciousness, in particular, that made his Buch der Lieder his best production. In that remarkable collection of lyrics Heine appears at his best, because the ability to compose songs that are the spontaneous utterance of emotion, at one and the same time personal and representative, is a Hebrew heritage. The Hebrew genius was essentially lyric, rather than epic or dramatic; and in consequence, the lyrics of ancient Hebrew literature are its chief glory. In proof of this, we have but to recall the dirges and triumph songs, the reflective lyrics, and the liturgical hymns that compose the collection we know as the Psalms. The excellence of both the old Hebrew lyrics and of Heine's Lieder is to be found in the extraordinary subjectivity of the Hebrew temper—the racial fondness for impassioned, yet artistic, self-expression.
Yet Heine's Jewish traits are evident not only in the subjectivity of his lyrics, but in the new and richer character that he gave to the German Lied. This, hitherto vague and dreamy, became in his hands startlingly concrete and definite. And this is true even when he expresses the most subtle feelings. Always the most evanescent Stimmung, not less than moods more primitively simple, find expression in metaphors so sensuously material as to recall Solomon's Song. Compare a typical lyric of Heine, such as the following:
| Die Rose, die Lilie, die Taube, die Sonne |
| Die liebt' ich alle in Liebeswonne, |
| Ich lieb' sie nicht mehr, ich liebe allein |
| Die Kleine, die Feine, die Reine, die Eine; |
| Sie selber, aller Liebe Bronne, |
| Ist Rose und Lilie und Taube und Sonne |
with the love lyric sung by one of Israel's nameless singers:
| Behold thou art fair, my love; |
| Behold thou art fair; |
| Thine eyes are as doves. |
| Behold thou art fair, my beloved |
| Yea, thou art pleasant: |
| And our couch is green. |
| The beams of our house are cedars, |
| And our rafters are firs. |
| I am a rose of Sharon, |
| A lily of the valleys. |
| As a lily among thorns, |
| So is my love among the daughters.[C] |
Even so brief a comparison may illustrate, though it may not prove, that for the ultimate source of Heine's Oriental exuberance and materialization, so new to German literature, we must look in Jewish not in European culture.
The Spiritual Depth of Heine
PERHAPS because Heine was in spirit an Oriental, the Germans never have known exactly what to make of him. Professor Francke says (History of German Literature, p. 526) that Heine "produced hardly a single poem which fathoms the depths of life." This assertion seems scarcely defensible in view of such poems as the following:
| Wo wird einst des Wandermüden |
| Letzte Ruhestatte sein? |
| Unter Palmen in dem Süden? |
| Unter Linden an dem Rhein? |
Werd' ich wo in einer Wüste |
| Eingescharrt von fremder Hand? |
| Oder ruh' ich an der Küste |
| Eines Meeres in dem Sand? |
Immerhin! Mich wird umgeben |
| Gotteshimmel, dort wie hier, |
| Und als Todtenlampen schweben |
| Nachts die Sterne über mir. |
To find an equally beautiful expression of faith in God as a universal spiritual presence that transcends all space relations, we must go back to the anonymous Jewish poet who wrote the psalm in which occur the lines:
As a matter of fact, both poems are to be accounted for as equally the product of a rarely gifted people—a people with a unique genius for religion.[D]
Disraeli and His Oriental Imagination
BENJAMIN DISRAELI belonged to a family who left Spain in the fifteenth century to avoid the horrors of the Inquisition. Upon their escape, in gratitude to the God of Jacob who had sustained them through unheard of trials, they adopted the name Disraeli, in order that their race might be forever recognized. Of such a family Benjamin Disraeli was a worthy representative. He never was ashamed of his race. On the contrary, he gloried in it, and lost no opportunity to put forth the claim of his people to be the true aristocracy of the earth. "Has not the Jew the oldest blood and the finest genius of the world?" he asks. And again, in one of his books (Tancred, 1847), he says, "The Jews are of the purest race; the chosen people; they are the aristocracy of nature."
It is Disraeli's Jewish characteristics that have bewildered and sometimes offended his critics. He has been charged with insincerity because he was so clever, and because he wrote with a kind of Oriental exuberance that was to him entirely natural and a part of his Jewish heritage. Gilfillan is the only critic, so far as I know, who has recognized that Disraeli's excellences, and his defects as well, were racial rather than individual. Speaking of his Oriental fancy and cleverness, Gilfillan says: "Disraeli has a fine fancy, soaring up at intervals into high imagination, and making him a genuine child of that nation from whom came forth the loftiest, richest, and most impassioned songs the earth has ever witnessed—the nation of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Solomon, and Job. He has little humor, but a vast deal of diamond-pointed wit."[E]
Disraeli's Wit: A Purely Jewish Product
DISRAELI'S wit, which made him so many enemies, is a purely Jewish product. It is satiric. Now satire was the form taken by Jewish wit in the Middle Ages as a result of the hard conditions under which the Jews lived. As one modern Jew has said, "The Jews seized the weapon of wit, since they were interdicted the use of every other weapon." With every door closed in hostility against them, there was little they could do but laugh with bitter irony at their fate, and with savage satire at their oppressors. With such an ancestry as this behind him, it is not to be wondered at that Disraeli's wit is scornful, and that he excelled in personal satire and invective. It was never, however, unprovoked. Disraeli never indulged in personal satire or invective except in his own defence. For example, his mockingly ironical reply to the attack of a member of the House of Commons named Roebuck, which was one of the most effective rejoinders Disraeli ever made, was in answer to a most virulent arraignment of his political motives. "I have always felt," he said, "that in this world you must bear a great deal, and that even in this indulgent, though dignified, assembly, where we endeavor so far as possible to carry on public affairs without any unnecessary acerbity—still we must occasionally submit to some things which the rules of this house do not permit. I could, no doubt, have vindicated my character; but that would only have made the honorable member from Bath speak once or twice more, and really I have never any wish to hear him. I have had the most corrupt motives imputed to me. But I know how true it is that a tree must produce its fruit—that a crab-tree will bring forth crab apples, and that a man of meagre and acid mind, who writes a pamphlet or makes a speech, must make a meagre and acid pamphlet or a poor and sour speech. Let things, then, take their course."
Disraeli's Fondness for Allegory
ANOTHER striking peculiarity of Disraeli was his fondness for veiled allusion. Nearly all of his most popular novels—and this was one of the main reasons for their phenomenal popularity—were thinly veiled representations of Disraeli's own contemporaries, who were easily recognizable by the reading public. Take, for instance, the admirable burlesque entitled Ixion in Heaven, where the author tells how Ixion, king of Thessaly, having fallen into disrepute on earth, was taken up into heaven by Jupiter and feasted by the gods. Here Jupiter is really George the Fourth and Apollo is the poet Byron. The latter's pose of gloomy misanthropy, as well as his habit of fasting to keep from growing fat, are admirably satirized in the following dialogue:
"You eat nothing, Apollo," said Ceres.
"Nor drink," said Neptune.
"To eat, to drink, what is it but to live; and what is life but death. . . . I refresh myself now only with soda-water and biscuits. Ganymede, bring some."
Now this fondness for veiled allusion is distinctly a Hebrew characteristic. The Arabs today have a saying, "as fond of a veiled allusion as a Hebrew." This has always been a Hebrew trait. I suppose no literature of any people consists so largely of allegory, in proportion to its bulk, as does the Hebrew. In proof of this assertion, one needs but to allude to the vogue in post-exilic Judaism of the Apocalypse, in which contemporary history was presented in the form of allegory, and to the Rabbinical fondness for the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures. So it would not be difficult to show that not only these qualities I have mentioned, but all the qualities that made Disraeli admired or feared were his by virtue of his Jewish inheritance.
Zangwill's Prophetic Spirit in "The War God"
ISRAEL ZANGWILL knows the Jews, not as George Eliot did, through a process of philosophic induction, but at first hand, because he is a Jew by birth and breeding. He, unlike Heine, has never tried to conceal the fact that he is a Jew. In Israel Zangwill all the tenderness and sympathy, all the tenacity, the suppleness and adaptability, and it may be added, the baffling inconsistencies of his race appear.
Inconsistent he certainly is. He has been an ardent Zionist, and in his story "Transitional" (from They That Walk in Darkness) he seems to hold that assimilation will never solve the Jewish problem; yet in The Melting Pot he obviously regards assimilation as the inevitable and desirable end of Judaism.
In spite of his inconsistencies, Zangwill is one in whom the ancient ideals of Israel live again. It is in the spirit of the prophets that he wrote The War God (1912). This play, with all its faults as an acting drama, is nevertheless a remarkable document, voicing, as it does, on the very eve of the breaking down of European civilization, the old prophetic protest against the brutality and waste of war.
This protest dates back to at least the ninth century b.c. It may not be generally known that it was a Hebrew prophet who first advocated the humane treatment of prisoners of war. The story is told in the Second Book of Kings that when a band of marauding Syrians were corralled in Samaria, the "king of Israel said unto Elisha, when he saw them, 'My father, shall I smite them? Shall I smite them?' And he answered, 'Thou shalt not smite them: wouldst thou smite those whom thou has taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink, and go to their master.' And he prepared great provision for them: and when they had eaten and drunk, he sent them away, and they went to their master. So the bands of Syria came no more into the land of Israel" (2 Kings 6:1-23). Again, Amos, in the eighth century, in his arraignment of the sins of the nations, pronounces God's severest judgments upon Damascus, Edom, Ammon, and Moab for their cruelty in war. The charge against Edom, for example, is that "he did pursue his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath forever." And the later prophets' visions of the Messianic age include as the brightest feature of that wished-for time the prediction that then "the nations shall not learn war any more."
Of such a spirit Mr. Zangwill's play The War God is an expression. It is a satire upon militarism, but a satire without exaggeration. The arguments employed to justify the maintenance of a huge army and navy are not a whit more absurd than the fallacies which have been put forth for a generation by those who would justify the maintenance of armaments. These so-called arguments are presented by "the Chancellor" who represents Bismarck, and by the king of Gothia, in whom we may easily recognize the Russian Czar. "Dominance," roars the Chancellor,—
| "There rings the password of the universe. |
| Who knows it, he is free of every camp. |
| Equality, your level, endless cornfield, |
| However fat and fair and golden-stalked, |
| Would set us pining for the snow-topped peaks |
| And barren glaciers. Life is fight, thank God! |
Take war away and men would sink to molluscs, |
| Limpets that wait the tide to wash them food. |
| The nations would grow foul with lazy feeling. |
| What heaven loves is breeds with life a-tingle, |
| Swift-gliding, flashing, darting death at rivals, |
| Men fearing God and with no other fear. |
| Thus were the Albans, now the turn is ours |
| To be the chosen people of Jehovah." |
And the King endorses such sentiments with the sage observation,
"No doubt we must protect our growing commerce."
In opposition to such militarists stands Count Frithiof, in whom we may easily see the lineaments of Tolstoi. His motto is, "Resist not evil, but reform yourself." In answer to the Chancellor's declaration, "To safeguard peace, we must prepare for war," he replies,
| "I know that maxim; it was forged in hell. |
| This wealth of ships and guns inflames the vulgar |
| And makes the very war it guards against. |
| How often, as the mighty master said, the sight |
| Of means to do ill deeds makes ill deeds done." |
A Voice for Social Justice
QUITE outside the dramatic action of the play stands the Jew, Blum, the Chancellor's secretary. Through his astuteness in managing the Chancellor, he has hitherto moulded public policy according to his own will. Finally, near the end of the play, he denounces Christian civilization in a passage worthy of quotation:
| "Man wins the realm of air and might have been |
| An eagle with a soul; you make him harpy, |
| More murderous than dragons of the ooze. |
| I tell you, we outsiders see the game, |
| We Jews, who bidden rise beyond the code |
| Of eye for eye, must rub both eyes to see |
| Not e'en eye-justice done in Christendom, |
| Whose cannon thunder 'gainst both God and Christ." |
So might have spoken one of the ancient prophets of his race. Indeed Amos, amid the orgies of the autumn festival at Bethel, did speak in the same spirit when he denounced the formal service of worshippers who ignored the claims of social justice. "Seek good and not evil," cries Amos, "that ye may live; and so the Lord, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye say. Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment (justice) in the gate. It may be that the Lord God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph."
So it is evident that even the literary work of modern Jews can be understood and appreciated only as an expression of the characteristics of the Jewish race. In this modern Jewish literature appears the exuberance, the emotional intensity, and the love of social justice that were characteristic also of ancient Hebrew literature as written by prophet, priest, and sage.
The Role of Israel in Human Emancipation
FAR greater, however, than the work of these three authors, far greater, indeed, than Israel's literature as a whole, of which they are a part, is the life of this people, of which their literature is the record. We speak of a nation's literature as great if it possesses three or four tragedies that are classics. Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth and King Lear would, for example, be sufficient to justify the title "great" as applied to English literature. What shall we say, then, as some one has suggested, of this people who for more than twenty centuries have lived a tragedy more pathetic than any the world's literature can show? Job has always seemed to me a type of the Jewish race. We recall that majestic picture in the thirty-first chapter, where Job stands up on his ash-mound, robbed of his wealth, bereaved of his children, deserted by his wife, suffering the agonies of a loathsome and incurable disease, and cast off, as it seems to him, by the very God in whom he trusted, and yet, in the face of poverty, and bereavement, and mortal pain, and bewildered isolation, asserts his own unchanged and unalterable belief that righteousness is salvation.
Similarly Israel, through the long centuries of its tragic history, has stood on the ash-mound of its national humiliation. Plundered, vilified, and persecuted, a nation of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, from whom men have hid their faces in aversion not concealed, Israel has yet clung with a grip that nothing could weaken nor dislodge to the fundamental idea that religion—the right relation of man to God—was not creed nor ritual, but simply doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God.
We have been looking backward at the literary accomplishment of three Jewish men of genius. It is, I believe, a fault of modern Judaism to look backward instead of forward, as if the glory of Israel had indeed departed, and as if nothing were left but to look back with pride and regret upon what has passed like a dream away. But I believe Jews may look forward now with confident hope toward the years that are to be. That Israel has completely played its role—that it has finished its service to the world—cannot for a moment entertain. Surely no one who believes in a philosophy of history, who sees in human history more than a meaningless and unrelated succession of events, can think that Israel has been preserved through centuries of discipline for no end whatever. On the contrary, we must believe that Israel has still a mission. What that mission is to be we cannot now foretell. We of this generation are looking upon the breaking down of European civilization. Some of us hope and expect that when the smoke of battle has cleared away there will gradually be built up a new and better social order. In this constructive work of rebuilding, who is better fitted to take a prominent part than the Jew, with his noble heritage of ideals, his passion for social justice? Jews may well rejoice as they reflect upon what individual members of their race have through literature contributed to the emancipation of the human spirit. And they may rejoice also in the hope of what Israel may yet accomplish in the years that are to be.
FOOTNOTES:
[C] Song of Songs, 1:15-2:2.
[D] An adequate and sympathetic treatment of Heine's work as a Jewish poet may be found in Heinrich Heine als Dichter Judentums von Georg J. Plotke (Dresden, 1913).
[E] George Gilfillan, Third Gallery of Literary Portraits, p. 360.
[The Second in a Series of Sketches of Jewish Worthies]