All that abides on earth,
And let our hearts rejoice
In lively songs and mirth.
It may be mentioned here, in passing, that some of Zunz's poetical German translations are in style and form hardly inferior to the specimen renderings of Eastern poetry found in the works of Goethe, Herder, Rückert, and Bodenstedt. In fact, it is not too much to say that Zunz's German poetry and prose are classical. His style is praised by Varnhagen von Ense, who describes it in his Diary as being in many places most elegant and attractive.
As already stated, it was in 1859 that Zunz published an additional volume to the Synagogale Poesie, called Die Ritus des synagogalen Gottesdienstes, which mostly consists of inquiries into synagogal rites. He alludes to the varied rites that had been in vogue among Jews living in different countries, and he points out certain customs adopted by the synagogue which had their origin in the Christian Church. To these, he says, belong the customs of making monetary offerings in the synagogue during the reading of the Law, which had, however, long been in use in the Gallic Church. There, in return for such offerings, the officiating priest was wont to read a prayer, called in Latin Oratio post nomina. This prayer corresponds, according to Zunz, to the one still recited in some synagogues by the precentor on mentioning the offerings made by the person “called-up” to the reading of the Law, which is well known by the name of Mi-Sheberach (מי שברך). Zunz also thinks that the usage practised in the synagogue of reciting prayers in memory of the souls of departed parents and near relations, likewise originated in the Christian Church, as mention is made of it in the early Christian liturgy.
The third volume forming part of the Synagogale Poesie was, as already stated, published by Zunz in 1865 under the title of Die Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie. Though a small supplement was added to it about two years later under the heading of Nachträge zur Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie, it virtually closed the series of Zunz's three epoch-making works that deal almost exhaustively with the most important branches of Jewish science and literature. In this particular field of study and research, Zunz proved himself to be a first-rate critic and investigator, and there he also attained conspicuous success. But, while admiring in Zunz his many-sided talents, and more especially his extensive knowledge of earlier and later Hebrew literature, credit must also be given him for the honesty with which he records the obligations he owed to his literary friends for their aid in the preparations of his literary compositions. Among them may be specially mentioned Delitzsch, Rapoport, Luzzatto, Sachs, and Dukes, with all of whom Zunz for many years carried on a lively correspondence. This helped him greatly in his researches. Thus, for instance, in 1832, Zunz was only aware of the existence of 200 Selichoth, but from the information supplied by his friends he was enabled to add to the list of these liturgical poems until they had reached the large number of 1,816.
It is natural that Zunz had many admirers among men of education, who were able to read and appreciate his German works. Yet it is interesting to note that a great many Jews, who were only slightly acquainted with German, but had an extensive knowledge of Hebrew and the Talmud, held him in great esteem as a Hebrew scholar. This distinction Zunz owed to his mastery over the Hebrew style, examples of which are to be found in the preface to his edition of Krochmal's Morè Nebuche Ha-Z'man (מורה נבוכי הזמן), and likewise in the Hebrew periodical Kerem Chemed. The latter contains a biographical sketch of the famous Jewish critic, Azariah de Rossi (1514–98), which is not only remarkable for its learning, but also for the excellence of its composition. Zunz also wrote some pretty Hebrew verses, specimens of which he gave in his metric Hebrew translation of Klopstock's Die Sommernacht, which appeared (in 1819) in Heinemann's Annual, called Yedidja.
It is to be regretted that Zunz, when at the height of his fame, and already advanced in years, thought fit to write an essay published in the Zeitschrift der deutsch-morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vol. XXVII, pp. 669–89, embodying the views of Biblical criticism of the advanced school. There he tries to prove, for instance, that Leviticus and certain parts of Deuteronomy were composed at a much later date than tradition has assigned to them, and that the Day of Atonement and the festivals of New Year and Purim were unknown to the early composers of the Pentateuch. These views naturally aroused the anger of all strictly orthodox Jews, and they also brought him in conflict with his ultra-radical friend Geiger, who censured him for his obvious inconsistency, because in another essay (published in the second part of his Gesammelte Schriften) Zunz spoke of the practice of wearing phylacteries as a noble and sacred institution which ought to be rigorously observed, while here he questioned the sanctity of the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. But, though Zunz subsequently defended his apparently antagonistic views to the accepted traditions of the Jews, it would certainly have been better for his reputation had he left Biblical criticism alone.
Zunz was undoubtedly filled with a deep love for his people. By his labours he showed to the world that the Jews had, like other nations, a history, a science, a philosophy, and a remarkable literature, on the strength of which they were entitled to claim equal rights and privileges with their fellow men in all that concerned their intellectual, social, and political life. In this point his aims and ideals were somewhat akin to those of his great prototype and predecessor Moses Mendelssohn. In fact, they had much in common both in respect of their life and their character. Both being of humble origin, they had both at the outset of their scholastic career to contend with poverty and want. They were both deeply attached to their people, and did what in them lay to remove their disabilities, and especially to encourage them in the correct use of their native tongue. It is true that in religious matters neither of them exercised a favourable influence on his surroundings. But this at least will be universally admitted that the admiration entertained by Heine for Hebrew literature was chiefly due to his long and friendly intercourse with Zunz, which no doubt gave rise to those laudatory expressions found in his Perlen des Romancero, his Rabbi von Bacharach, and more especially in his book entitled Heine über Börne.
Was Zunz ever really happy? This question, if raised, could hardly be answered affirmatively. Long before and after his marriage he experienced constant disappointments; and as for the state of his mind subsequent to the death of his wife—who, by the way, left him childless—we learn from the correspondence he then carried on with Professor David Kaufmann, how completely overcome he was. The fact is, that Zunz fancied that he and his works were not sufficiently known to, and appreciated by, his co-religionists and the literary fraternity of the day, and on this account he once sent to Kaufmann the following characteristic lines:—