The most important particulars upon which the value and influence of his work depend deserve analysis.

Above all, Graetz, though he did not create it, was the first to define and occupy the point of view from which the historical development of Judaism must be judged. He cleared the whole historical field, so as to be able to examine the various phases of this development with ease and accuracy. As an historian, Graetz had had but a single predecessor[50] who must be taken into account, Isaac Marcus Jost. In 1820, the latter began to publish a “History of the Israelites from the Time of the Maccabees.”[51] Nine years later nine volumes had appeared, bringing the history down to his own time. Under the title, “Universal History of the Israelitish People,”[52] he published, in 1850, a two-volume epitome with corrections and improvements, covering in addition the period from Abraham to the Maccabees. He did not prove himself a real pioneer in either work. Jost was a scholar, but not an historian; a noble man with admirable qualities, whose varied knowledge gave a considerable impetus to Jewish historical work, but he had not been singled out as the proclaimer of an historical revelation to be spread far and wide in joyful, vigorous utterance. In view of the fact, however, that no monographs on special phases of the subject existed at his time, Jost’s achievement cannot be sufficiently admired. He sought out and arranged the more or less obvious, but widely scattered data, appraising their value and assigning to each its due place. He thus produced a manual for the chaos of confusing details and facts. In respect to manner, his presentation of the subject makes the impression of an herbarium. His work consists of a collection of persons and events, heaped up without reference to their inner relations and classified only according to superficial and accidental marks of resemblance. His speculations are prosy, and do not touch the essence of their subject. His style is dry, diffuse, and monotonous, destitute of fire and force, with nothing to indicate that the author had a lively realization of the past. An admirer of the Roman system and impregnated with Christian ideas, he was unconsciously oppressed by the fear that he was not abreast of the times, and dreaded the charge of partiality if he gave due credit to Judaism and Rabbinism. This accounts for his misrepresentation of the Pharisees and their successors, the Rabbis, and for his false, almost caricature-like treatment of the Talmud and the literature depending upon it. He felt that the consideration of Judaism from the point of view of history at once becomes a glorification thereof, and under no circumstances did he care to incur the imputation of being its apologist.[53]

Graetz entertained no such scruples. In the formation of his opinions fear or timidity had no part; they did not curtail the expression of his judgment regardless of the feelings of friend or foe. He was the first to divest himself wholly of Christian prejudices in the consideration of the Jewish past; the first to try to explain the development of Judaism on inherent principles, as all similar phenomena are explained. He was thus able to distribute light and shade justly, without any attempt to gloss or slur facts. Graetz had been in Berlin but a short time when he met Zunz at the house of Michael Sachs. The two visitors had not yet made each other’s personal acquaintance. The host presented Graetz, adding in praise of him, that he was about to publish a Jewish history. “Another history of the Jews?” Zunz asked pointedly. “Another history,” was Graetz’s retort, “but this time a Jewish history.”[54] And, in truth, Graetz was the first to vindicate the fair claims of Jewish history; he did pioneer work in establishing the validity of the Jewish point of view. Christianity considers the belief in the Messiahship of the Son of God and in the miracles reported in connection with his birth and death the completion and fulfillment of the Law of Moses and of the prophetical promises. Only what springs from this dogma can rise to a proper conception of God, to the heights of true morality, and is capable of promoting the advancement of civilization. Accordingly, having begotten Christianity, Judaism fulfilled its religious mission, and the loss of Jewish national independence occurring almost simultaneously with the rise of Christianity, its spiritual importance was extinguished and its historical progress arrested. Its development since then, it is maintained, bears the marks of decrepitude and degeneration--is nothing more than idolatry of the Torah and religious formalism. To this consciously or unconsciously biased view Graetz wished to oppose a faithful presentation of facts, free from partiality, personal predilections, or specious coloring. He held, that an objective, unprejudiced account sufficed to demonstrate the vitality of Judaism, asserting itself again and again in the midst of distress and persecution; continuing to develop its monotheistic doctrines and its ethical system undisturbed by the loss of a national background, and borne onward only by virtue of its spirituality and ideality; producing thinkers, poets, and even statesmen despite untold suffering; and contributing zealously to the solution of the problems of human civilization, uprooted and dispersed though its adherents were. This point of view Graetz assumed energetically and applied consistently in the elaboration of Jewish history, with the result that we owe to him our conscious acquaintance with the various aspects of Judaism in all their abundance and suggestiveness.

Besides making new sources available, Graetz gained fresh points of view and surprising information from the old ones. He was particularly successful in restoring to Jewish accounts that had become hazy or sounded incredible a freshly colored background and life-like reality, or at least in laying bare their kernel of fact, by the discovery of hardly recognizable parallel passages and proofs in non-Jewish authors. He sought everywhere, and was more or less successful in finding and inserting in their place, connecting links and complementary pieces. When he approached his bold undertaking with the courage inspired by enthusiasm, Jewish history was a vast field of debris, over which volcanic events had poured out their lava, and the centuries had scattered their dust. Here and there a gigantic ruin, some literary production, towered in solitude over the wide stretches of the pathless, dismal waste, the only guide-posts to direct the wanderer through the labyrinth of ruins and underbrush. The great creators of Jewish science, to be sure, Zunz and Rapoport, whose extraordinary deserts are not yet duly appreciated by their brethren-in-faith, had already given the world their excellent works of fundamental importance; yet the great tracts explored and made arable by them seemed no more than smaller or larger islands in a vast sea of rubbish. They did not afford vantage-ground from which the whole could be overlooked. Rarely leaving the domain of literary history, these scholars did not lead up to the positions that dominated the field. In this respect particularly Graetz proved himself a pioneer. Whatever epoch he may be considering, and however much he may seem to be absorbed in details, he never takes his eye from the grand whole. His purpose always is to clear a path through the rank underbrush, or to trace on the exposed surfaces of shattered remains the lines and veins that indicate the essential character and the trend of the historical process. He was endowed with a number of qualities that enabled him to introduce light, order, system, and classification into the chaos of the historical material at his disposal. With rare energy he plunged into the consideration of vast systems of thought, and almost without an effort assimilated and grouped them. In his learned notes he opposes varying accounts, proofs, and hints to one another, and with an adroit hand and a perspicacious mind grasps the main idea firmly and unravels the knotted thread. Finally, fear of error did not deter him from taking a decided stand towards events and persons and giving frank and vigorous expression to his views upon them. Let the reader examine the essays that serve as introductions to certain parts of his work, as, for instance, those in the fourth, fifth, and seventh volumes, and he will appreciate the unerring eye that espies and never loses from sight the motive ideas and the dominating points of view, which not merely are sketched in a general, comprehensive way, but are applied in detail. His “History” affords numerous illustrations of the way in which Graetz promoted and enriched historical research. For example, Saadiah Gaon had been discovered, as it were, by Rapoport, and Geiger had made valuable contributions to our knowledge of him, but the chapter about him in the “History”[55] first fully revealed his epoch-making importance and his rich literary activity. Graetz was the first to recognize and appreciate the notable influence exerted by Chasdaï Crescas[56] upon philosophy and social conditions. The great Disputation of Tortosa, of which we have a trustworthy Jewish account, was nevertheless not understood in its historical bearing and political effect until Graetz ingeniously confronted the Jewish source with Christian reports.[57] The cloud of legend enveloping the enthusiasts David Reubeni and Solomon Molcho,[58] whom students were inclined to regard as no more than hallucinations or phantasmagoria, he resolved into the reality of their fantastic adventures. In short, coupled with rare sagacity in perceiving the true meaning of a mutilated text and emending it accordingly, he had a remarkable instinct for piercing to the reality of facts, no matter how grotesque they might appear.

Such endowments qualified Graetz to translate the Talmudic method of thought and expression into the terms of modern feelings and views, and give a model illustration of the critical examination of the literature of Talmudic times and its use as a valuable historical source. Non-Jewish scholars and sciolists were quick to brand the apparently unintelligible or the curious passages abounding in rabbinic literature as evidences of Talmudic ignorance or rabbinic folly, and the Jews of the emancipation period, if they did not subscribe to this verdict, at least hesitated whether or not to endorse it. Graetz showed plainly that precisely the text of the historical narratives had become wretchedly corrupted and would have to be restored. Besides, he called attention to various features of the historical tradition as told by the rabbis. Either they were treated pragmatically, with their causes and results, or their presentation was intentionally biased, or layers of legend had deposited themselves about the kernel of fact, which awaited release from its envelopes. Over and above all this, he urged that the concrete, figurative expressions of the rabbis, derived from a sphere of thought foreign to us, must be translated into modern concepts. For instance, in an ancient rabbinic chronicle, the Seder olam rabba, it is reported that the war of Vespasian is separated from that of Titus by an interval of twenty-two years. Aside from the consideration that it is neither historical nor justifiable to distinguish between a war of Vespasian and a war of Titus, it is impossible to give a satisfactory explanation of the period of twenty-two years. The same incomprehensible distinction between Vespasian’s and Titus’ war occurs in the Mishna at the end of the tractate Sota. Graetz changed a single letter, ט {Hebrew: tet} into ק {Hebrew: kof}, and instead of טיטוס {Hebrew: Titus} (Titus), he reads קיטוס {Hebrew: Kitus} (Kitus), i. e. Quietus. In this way he discovered a rebellion in Palestine against Lucius Quietus. We know none of its details, but its occurrence is beyond the peradventure of a doubt. The conjecture, as simple as it is ingenious, has been corroborated by a manuscript reading.[59] A narrative in tractate Sabbath 17a is no less curious: “A sword was thrust into the academy, with the words: Whoever desires may go in, but none may come out,” etc. Graetz explains the enigma thus: in the first year of the rebellion against Nero a terrorist synod was dominated by the Shammaites.[60] In general, he considered the opposition between the schools of Hillel and Shammai not merely theoretic but also political, and he identified the rabid Zealots with extreme Shammaites.

“Graetz is deserving of great praise for having established this fact [the existence of the terrorist synod], until then not sufficiently appreciated. In itself it is an extremely important result, and its value is heightened by reason of the data growing out of it.... At all events, Herr Graetz has won a second distinction of equally great importance by his use of the Megilla Taanith as a historical source and his verification of its statements, even though many remain dubious.”

This is the opinion of the historian[61] Jost, surely a competent judge in such matters.

Where so much light is radiated, there cannot fail to be some shadows. Graetz’s admirable qualities have a reverse side. He often permits subjective views to obtrude themselves too much, and in stating his hypotheses he is apt to clothe them in terms too positive and incisive, not heeding that events dovetail into each other; that men yield to changeful humors and motives, often of a contradictory nature; and that illogical, even irrational turns of language and thought may occasionally occur in the texts. It surely is not astonishing to find inaccuracies, human errors, and misconceptions here and there in a gigantic work of twelve bulky volumes. Faults and shortcomings vanish into forgetfulness by the side of the multiplicity of his results and the grandeur of his achievement. Perspective, life-like characterization, distinct outline, glowing color--these Jewish history owes solely to Graetz’s rich fancy. He opened up new problems, created the historical types, constructed the framework of Jewish history. But his greatest achievement, one that cannot be rated sufficiently high, is that of having procured a hearing with all strata of his coreligionists by means of his charming, easy style. He revived the consciousness of an illustrious past, glorious in spite of persecution and degradation, and the belief in a future of spiritual triumph for Israel. Energetic and ardent as his temperament was, he merged his being in the past of his race, as it were, giving devoted study to the most hidden emotions of the national soul. He associated with the rabbis, philosophers, and poets whose features and forms he draws as with companions and intimate friends. When storms are imminent in the course of the history, he is visibly swayed by hope and fear, and when a catastrophe has overwhelmed his people, he is bowed down with anguish and grief. The reader sees his suffering, and cannot withhold passionate sympathy. For instance, he trembles at the thought of the disgrace and misfortune threatening Israel on account of the aberrations of the pseudo-Messiah Sabbataï Zevi, and consoles himself with the brilliant light of Jewish origin irradiating the world through Spinoza. According to his favorite method of setting men and events over against each other and permitting them to elucidate each other by their very opposition, he sharply contrasts the two figures. He represents both as the product of the Jewish passion for speculation on the infinite, and shows how in the end both sever their connection with Judaism; the one, lured on by the will-o’-the-wisp mysticism, to sink into the abyss of deception and immorality; the other, borne upward by philosophic thought, to soar to the calm but cold heights of an ideal sage.[62] His creative, life-dispensing power wafted the warm, liberating breath of spring over the dull apathy settling like an icy crust on the soul-life of the Jewish brotherhood. He re-awakened general interest in the spirit and the history of Judaism. The most popular writer in the field of Jewish science, he could boast of success phenomenal for a Jewish author; in a comparatively short time, his voluminous work, apparently intended for scholars, attained the distinction of a third, in parts even of a fourth, edition, and in its English, French, Russian, and, last though not least, Hebrew translations,[63] it has become the common possession of all the author’s brethren-in-faith.

The only help extended to Graetz in the prosecution of his comprehensive plan proceeded from the “Institute for the Promotion of Israelitish Literature,”[64] founded in 1855 by Dr. Ludwig Philippson, the most genial and most productive journalist among rabbis. In return for a modest subscription price several books were issued annually, among which a volume of Graetz’s “History” usually formed the chief attraction. Through the “Institute,” a large circulation was secured for the “History” from the first. The Society in turn was so dependent upon Graetz’s work for its popularity that when, on account of a misunderstanding with Philippson, Graetz refused to have the last (eleventh) volume published by the “Institute,” it could not maintain itself long.

On the other hand, there was not lack of hostility, jealousy, and petty annoyances. His work was used everywhere, but not infrequently without an open acknowledgment of its helpfulness. Especially at first the faultfinders and finical critics plied their trade vigorously on his work, as though any Talmudist considered a scholar in his small circle needed but to dip his pen into ink to write a history superior to Graetz’s. Even later, when recognition could not be withheld, praise was given grudgingly, in half-hearted accents. The young theologians of both parties, of the right and of the left wing, were indefatigable in picking flaws of all kinds in his details. They did not realize how effectually they were thus demonstrating his pre-eminence, and failed to understand that so monumental a work cannot by any possible means escape blemishes and malformations.