The “History” completed the breach between Graetz and his sometime teacher, Samson Raphael Hirsch. The latter had left Nikolsburg to act as the rabbi of a wealthy private congregation in Frankfort-on-the-Main. Soon after his removal, he began to issue a monthly journal, Jeshurun. In the second and third volumes of the magazine appeared a passionate, violent review of the two parts of the “History” then published, in which Hirsch sat in judgment on Graetz’s heresies. The soreness of the critic is unmistakable. It is doubtful whether his thrusts were not meant to strike the Jewish Theological Seminary at Breslau rather than the “History.” Personal attacks usually left Graetz unmoved, though he was in the habit of repelling them with caustic brevity. But he never forgave hostility towards the young institution. Thus the last slender ties that had still bound the two men to each other were snapped asunder forever. For the rest, active and joyous as his nature was, he did not trouble himself about his critics, nor did they thwart the success of his work; its triumph was complete. On the other hand, he was frankly proud of the distinction conferred upon him by the Prussian government in making him, in December, 1869, honorary professor of the Breslau University. This governmental recognition went far towards compensating him for the lack of regular professional advancement in his academic career, the sore point in his life, at which spiteful antagonists delighted to aim their shafts.
With the eleventh volume, published in 1870, he brought the history of the Jews since the Maccabean struggle down to the present time (1848); nine volumes had appeared in uninterrupted succession. To complete and crown the work it was necessary to give an account of ancient Jewish history covering the Biblical and three centuries and a half of post-Biblical times. Graetz devoted scrupulous care to this portion of his work. He considered its importance paramount, and regarded the treatment of the early epochs as a most difficult task, requiring for its adequate performance exegetical studies and original text criticism. Graetz thought himself particularly qualified and endowed for such work; it had always been his favorite pursuit. But before attacking the history of Israel and ancient Judæa, he determined to satisfy his longing to behold the Holy Land with his bodily eye, as he had often sought to picture it to his mental eye. With equal force his artistic impulse drew him to Palestine. He hoped to derive local color and inspiration for the description of hoary events from the sight of consecrated places, which had been their scenes and their witnesses. As early as 1865, he had formed the plan of a journey to Palestine, the execution of which became possible only in March, 1872, when two friends joined him. Limited to his private resources and hampered by consideration for his traveling companions, he was not able to make his trip thoroughly satisfactory from a scientific point of view. After all he obtained what he had journeyed abroad to find; he brought back impressions, enthusiasm, inspiration. In quick succession the two, or more accurately, three[65] parts of his work treating of the Biblical and early post-Biblical time appeared between 1874 and 1876, and his historical work was complete according to the plan he had sketched for himself. It was the brilliant fulfillment of the promise “to furnish a history of the Jews from the most ancient times to the present day elaborated from the original sources,” which he had made in 1854, when he began his career as an historian with the publication of the fourth volume of his “History.” Grand in conception, clear and perspicuous in execution, riveting attention by its charming style, the work has not failed to find entrance into the hearts of the author’s brethren-in-faith. It remains unsurpassed in the present, and the future historian will realize that he cannot deviate from the great lines laid down in it. The little blemishes and errors of various kinds that disfigure all human creations do not affect the impression made by the work as a whole. The discovery of hidden sources, now unsuspected, may necessitate additions and changes in details, but the great points of view, the pragmatic conception, the underlying thoughts, as he deduces them from the intricate complexity of Jewish history, will never be superseded. Graetz’s “History of the Jews,” voluminous though it is, will forever remain an integral part of Jewish literature.
VI.
THE EXEGETE.
The first two, or rather three, parts of the “History” form the transition to Graetz’s exegetical studies. In their excellencies as well as in their shortcomings they betray all the characteristics of his work in Bible exposition. Obviously Graetz had only awaited the completion of the history of Judaism from the end of the Maccabean struggle to the present time to enter, with all the vigor of his intellect, upon the second phase of his activity as a writer, that devoted to Bible exegesis and textual criticism. Exegetical studies, no less than historical research, were a distinct life-aim with him. They were begun in 1871, and continued without interruption until unexpected death snatched the pen from his hand. To be accurate, the second phase of his literary activity should be dated from 1869. In that year Zacharias Frankel, wishing to devote all his energy to his work on the so-called Jerusalem Talmud, transferred the Monatsschrift to Graetz. He marked the beginning of his editorial management with an essay on “The Ebionites in the Old Testament,”[66] the first of a series in Old Testament exposition and Hebrew philology. In part, they may be regarded as monographs in preparation for his history of the Biblical times. The series was continued uninterruptedly, year after year, until 1887, when Graetz discontinued the publication of the Monatsschrift.
In view of the narrow compass of Biblical literature, comprising the whole residue of ancient Israelitish writings and therefore the whole treasury of the Hebrew language at our disposal, even those expounders that cling to the word and to tradition with slavish faithfulness are granted wide scope for individual judgments and subjective hypotheses, depending for their acceptance not upon precise proof, but upon the inquirer’s will and disposition. It is natural, then, that Graetz with his strongly developed subjectivity, his delicately attuned ear, and his gift of bold conjecture, should have reached conclusions sharply contrasting with all accepted views and incapable of logical, scientific demonstration. His results and explanations, the outcome of a passionate desire for clearness and consistency, are often of startling originality. All sorts of new questions were set on foot by him, many fruitful suggestions may be traced to him, and he bore many a trophy from the battlefields of textual criticism. The boldness of his exegesis is illustrated by his treatment of the two Hagiographic books, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, which, published in quick succession in 1871, introduced him to the world as an exegete. He attributes the composition of Koheleth (or the Preacher, translation and critical commentary)[67] to the reign of Herod, and places the author of Shir ha-Shirim (or the Song of Songs, translation and critical commentary)[68] in the Macedonian-Syrian time. Though the hypotheses concerning the time of the composition of the two books and many other propositions are curious, and overwhelm the reader by their pronounced deviation from all opinions hitherto advanced; still it must be confessed, that the conjecture with regard to the origin of Ecclesiastes is engaging in the extreme, and it cannot be denied, that the translations are good and in unexceptionable taste, that the remarks and references are instructive, and that the older versions were used with care and attention. In the commentary on Ecclesiastes, decidedly more valuable than that on the Song of Songs, he offers besides interesting data with regard to the Greek translation. Moreover, Graetz frequently adduced analogies from the Mishna and the Talmud, made exhaustive use of whatever was advantageous for textual criticism in the Talmudic literature, and thus brought to light new material in such a way as to make it available for the “higher criticism.” This, in fact, constitutes his real and permanent distinction as an exegete.
His expositions were guided by two chief assumptions, both rooted in the depths of his character. He held that in every Biblical work an historical background can be discerned with more or less ease; that even generalizations and reflections cannot conceal their connection with special facts, which must be deduced and determined. Again, he was of the opinion, that a contradiction or obscurity in a Biblical passage cannot be resolved by a twisting of words and phrases or by far-fetched analogies in remote though related idioms. They were evidence to him that the text had come to grief, and that the original text could be restored only by a conjecture, which might be disengaged from the context, or patterned on a Talmudic parallel, or deduced from older translations. He did not doubt that catastrophes, the centuries, and perhaps also the incompetence of copyists, had mutilated the original Bible text, and wrenched it out of shape, and he thought that even later, when it had been fixed with scrupulous care, all sorts of errors might have crept in.
According to these principles Graetz treated the Psalms. In 1881 he published a German translation of them, and in 1882–83 followed a “Critical Commentary to the Psalms with Text and Translation. 2 vols.”[69] The commentary is designed on a generous scale, and gives abundant evidences of ripe scholarship. But by the side of its excellent features it contains many hazardous guesses and vague, even though ingenious hypotheses. Justus Olshausen, an Orientalist highly esteemed on account of his learning and his sobriety, who was occupied with the critical examination of the Old Testament text for philological purposes, says the following about the commentary on the Psalms in a letter to the author:[70]
“On account of its boldness your commentary will certainly arouse serious objections with the larger number of exegetes, themselves overbold in exegesis, but weak in criticism. As for me, you know that I am not affrighted by boldness in criticism when coupled with knowledge of the language and the subject-matter, with acumen, and, above all, with sound common sense. Doubtless, I shall not be able to agree with you in every case in which, overconfident perhaps, you may believe that you have hit upon the correct solution of a difficulty. That, however, does not prevent me from recognizing that your book, by reason of its abundance of excellent emendations, is a valuable addition to exegetical literature.”
Graetz undoubtedly hit upon many a happy guess, and applause was not lacking, but in general his results met with opposition so decided that we may surely expect a later generation to review the judgment of our time and separate the chaff from the wheat. Not in the least intimidated by the adverse criticism upon his exegetical methods, he was resolved to remove the difficulties attaching to the Old Testament language by all the means at his command. He thought himself justified in his confidence in himself in matters of textual criticism, upon which chiefly he concentrated his explanations in the course of time. He grew more and more unrestrained in his efforts to restore approximately the original text of the Bible by means of audacious conjectures, which his sympathetic mind was never weary of devising. In other fields he was always careful to keep in connection and in touch with tradition; destructive tendencies were not at all characteristic of him. But in his textual criticism he permitted his zeal to run away with him, until he lost the solid ground of the Bible text and of reality from under his feet. His acumen displayed and dissipated itself chiefly in the blinding pyrotechnics of rocket-like emendations. Of this character are his exegetical studies on the prophet Jeremiah,[71] on the Proverbs of Solomon,[72] and his fine essay on Bible exegesis.[73]
This kind of work was so attractive to him, that in the latter years of his life he set about the execution of a long-cherished and widely comprehensive plan for the critical examination and the emendation of the text of the whole Bible. The realization of this plan was to be the consummation and crown of his life’s labors. But he was not destined to celebrate such unquestioned and brilliant successes in this field as in that of history, where he had earned and received the laurels due a pioneer. Yet, we must be careful not to underrate his exegetical and critical achievements as to their intrinsic value and their influence. His exegetical works and essays are replete with new points of view and interesting suggestions. Many a germ that has since proved fruitful can be traced to them, and they have had a lasting effect upon the development of Bible exegesis. His works of this class, original and important enough to fill a life of scholarly research, would suffice to secure to their author an honorable name and a prominent place in the history of Jewish science.