Volume 2 — APPENDICES (continued 5)

When I write upon the Jewish tenements in the interior of the city my report, of course, must be less favourable. I took the means of going alone with M. Valero, when unexpected, into some of the back streets and slums of Jerusalem; I dropped into various houses here and there, and saw matters from a practical point of view. It is most unfair for any one coming from Princes Park, Liverpool, or Kensington, London, or the Champs Élysées, in Paris, instituting a comparison between those neighbourhoods and the lanes of Jerusalem. But I maintain that the old streets of Marseilles and Florence, the Ghetto in Rome, the labyrinths in Naples, and the slums of Venice, are infinitely worse than the worst slums of Jerusalem. Nay, more, I maintain that the old Judengasse in Frankfort, the Judengasse in Worms, and some of the by-lanes in Vienna are decidedly no better than those of Jerusalem. They are more ancient and grimy than dirty; the absence of timber, and the constant employment of stone for building purposes in Old Jerusalem, gives a rough and jagged appearance to the walls, but there is nothing except the absence of drainage (and that is the same in every continental city, whether it be in France, Italy, or Austria) that calls for especial condemnation, nay, the dingy tenements inside Jerusalem, inhabited by the Sephardi Jews, are made presentable by a considerable use of clean white calico hung over the walls and covered over their simple furniture and beddings.

The future prospects of Jerusalem rest entirely with the rising youth, and I shall speak later on of the enormous value and high hopes I entertain of the Lionel de Rothschild School, conducted by the admirable and excellent director, M. Nissim Behar, of whose devotion, ability, and conscientiousness nothing too much can be said.

The Lionel de Rothschild School, or “Institution Israélite pour Instruction et Travail,” contains 140 pupils, all boys. The institution is singularly fortunate in possessing M. Behar as its chief. To be able to effect good work in Jerusalem it is almost imperative to be a native of the city. A teacher from England, France, or Germany who has longings for Europe or his native land, however able he may be, or however zealous, is incapable of infusing enthusiasm in his pupils, and when one is found like M. Nissim Behar, who is a man of great culture, and combines Parisian refinement with an ardent love and patriotism for the city in which he was born, and feels that he has a mission to perform and is perfectly oblivious to pecuniary advantages, it is to have already gained half the victory. Everything is neat, clean, and methodical.

The hours of instruction are from 8 o’clock until 12, and from 1 to 5.

I shall devote my report principally to the course of technical education, with which I believe the future prosperity of the Jews of Jerusalem is bound up.

The Technical School contains a forge, a carpenter’s shop, a cabinet-maker’s bench, a tailor’s department, a shoemaker’s shop, a turner’s lathe, a school of art for modelling, drawing, and sculpture, and a gymnasium for physical development.

Of these schools, the forge, the carpenter’s shop, and the school of art have produced capital results; we saw Jewish lads, who have only been a few weeks at the classes, making some excellent sketches, and in order to test their genuineness gave them several impromptu subjects to execute in our presence, which they did admirably.

The Forge is another successful institution.

Although the French language is the medium of tuition and the general language adopted, Hebrew is used side by side, not only as a language of prayer, but also as a means of conversation. French, as a medium of intercommunication amongst Europeans and officials, is very much required in the East.

The Girls’ School—Evelina de Rothschild Institute—contains 184 girls.

Hebron. I regret to have to report very adversely upon the condition of our co-religionists in Hebron. The pleasure and hopefulness I experienced in Jerusalem present a marked contrast to the disappointment I felt at the abject position of the Jews in the City of Abraham.

I met several Jews on the road who were trading with the neighbouring villages in butter and cheese; of course their profits would be exceedingly small. The soil around Hebron is most fertile, and the natural resources of the immediate neighbourhood decidedly good.

I venture to think that it is not eleemosynary aid that will do any real good for them. Food of all kinds and wine of a good quality is abundant and very cheap. I believe the Jews would work hard if taught what to do. Technical and general education would very soon transform an abject congregation into a happy and prosperous community.”

Mr. Benas delivered a large number of lectures upon the subject of his visit to Palestine and granted many interviews, all of which helped to arouse interest on behalf of the budding Jewish life in the Ancient Homeland. In its earliest days the Anglo-Jewish Association received from members of the Board of Deputies criticism not unakin to that which in later days members of the Board levelled at the Anglo-Jewish Association. In those days the Board was oligarchic, assimilative, and insular in outlook, while the Anglo-Jewish was popular, national and world-Jewish—true to the motto כל ישראל חברים. If to-day, while the Association cannot be called insular there are those who would ascribe to it the characteristic of the Board of Deputies of earlier days, signs are not wanting of a change towards the original outlook, particularly among the branches. It is in fairness due to the Anglo-Jewish Association to bear in mind that the Public Demonstration, the Conference, the International gatherings for Jewish purposes now a phenomenon of everyday life in Jewry owe to the Association and the Alliance their origin. To both no inconsiderable share of the foundation and the interest in the Western world in the foundation of the Jewish colonies in Palestine may justly be credited. Thus the organizations and those who established them merit the recognition and the gratitude of all who hold to the Jewish national ideal and strive for its fulfilment.

[The Reports of the Alliance Israélite Universelle and the Anglo-Jewish Association contain much valuable material for the History of the Resettlement in Palestine.]

LXXVII.

An Appeal of the Berlin Kadima

In 1891 the Russian Jewish Students’ Colony in Berlin submitted to the International Committee for the assistance of the Russian Jews a memorandum, in which they urged the Committee to use its endeavours to divert the stream of Jewish emigration, and, above all, of well-to-do emigrants, from America to the Holy Land. The document is of very great interest. What is called the wave of emigration, say the writers, is not so much emigration as flight. Only well-organized colonization can prove a remedy in the present calamity. A Jewish peasantry must be founded, consisting not only of the poor, but to a great extent also of the middle and intelligent classes. Palestine is the only country which affords the possibility of attaining that aim, because (1) Palestine itself, and especially Galilee and the land on the other side of the Jordan, and also Syria and Mesopotamia, contain an amount of land ready for sale and scarcely populated. The settlement of Jews there cannot meet with any objection. The Turkish Government will not only tolerate, but favour the immigration, if properly organized. An additional advantage is that in the near future no competition need be feared, because other emigrants, as a rule poor people, are not attracted by an uninhabited, uncultivated country. (2) The soil is fertile everywhere. Where no corn can be grown, wine can be produced. The Jewish wine-growers in Palestine will shortly be able to compete in the markets of Europe, and will greatly shake the monopoly of other wines. The climate of Palestine is as healthy as that of Italy, so that invalids will go there on the recommendation of their physician instead of to Italy. In the colony Rishon Le’Zion, which was founded about nine years ago, there has been up till now only one death, although there are between three hundred and four hundred people living there. (3) It is the only country able to create a peasantry, because there is no trade there. It is true that in other countries also the Jews will at first turn to agriculture; they will watch for anything offering them the means of subsistence. But a great portion will always be anxious to settle in the towns and again apply themselves to trade, whereas in Palestine the colonists will be compelled to persist in agricultural pursuits. Thus, in America, the colonists have gradually returned to the cities after millions have been wasted. But in Palestine the colonies founded by Baron Edmond de Rothschild and by the efforts of the colonists themselves are in a most thriving condition. Of course, the fact that the Jews are animated by love for Palestine and inspired by the many associations connected with the country must not be overlooked. Only in a country where every stone bears biblical reminiscences the labour is sweet to them. This idealistic motive will assist in turning traders into agriculturists. It is to this idea that some twenty larger and smaller colonies owe their existence. It is owing to this motive that the great Palestine Committee in Odessa, under the presidency of Dr. Pinsker, is able annually to give land and tools to Jewish peasants to the value of 200,000 frcs., that there is in Jaffa an Executive Committee, presided over by the engineer Vl. Temkin, that in London enormous meetings are being held in favour of the Palestine idea, that limited companies have arisen, like the Dorsche Zion in Minsk, in Kovno, in Bialystok, in Wilna, as well as in Warsaw, Riga, etc., which intend to buy land in Palestine for their members, to be repaid to them by instalments. (4) The more civilized and intelligent class of Russian Jews will also be induced to go to Palestine for the purpose of following agricultural pursuits.

The students concluded by saying that they were willing to seek for happiness and safety by readily submitting to the harvest labour in the fields of Palestine. “Then we shall be enabled to pass a happy life, for enthusiasm will make our paths straight, and provide us with a healthy courage.” The document bore sixty-four signatures.

LXXVIII.

The Jewish Colonies in Palestine

(The figures are taken mostly from the Report of the Jewish Colonisation Association for 1910.)

Name. Year. Area. Hectares. Population. Gross Income. Francs

I. Judea.

Mikveh-Israel⁠¹ 1870 225 150 —

Mozah 1873 59 28 —

Petach-Tikvah 1878 2275 1500 466,971

Katra 1882 500 150 76,415

Rishon-le-Zion 1882 1180 1190 121,213

Wady-el-Chanin 1882 285 200 —

Jehudie 1883 12 15 —

Ekron (Mazkeret Mathya) 1884 1275 300 144,918

Kastinieh 1888 550 150 —

Rehobot 1890 1300 600 128,415

Artuf 1896 460 50 —

Ben Shemen 1906 210 100 —

Bir Jakob 1907 200 70 —

Ain Ganim 1908 65 100 —

Hulda 1909 182 40 —

II. Samaria.

Zichron Jacob 1882 1850 1000 183,210

Um-el-Dschemal 1889 253 80 —

Schweja 1891 851 50 —

Hedera 1891 1750 200 121,915

Kefar Saba 1894 635 30 —

Atlit 1897 460 50 18,950

Hefzi-bah 1905 200 8 —

Tanturah — 40 16 —

III. Galilee.

Rosh-Pinah 1882 3800 800 48,096

Yessod Ha-Maaleh 1883 910 300 29,913

Mishmar Ha-Yarden 1890 230 100 27,453

Ain-Seitun 1891 509 20 —

Metula 1896 1350 310 69,685

Sedjera 1899 1850 200 —

Mahanayim 1899 100 100 —

Milhamie 1902 1350 100 74,100

Mescha 1902 900 200 70,122

Yemma 1902 2750 400 91,027

Kinnereth 1908 550 80 13,300

Delaika — — — —

Mizpah 1908 360 40 —

Dagania 1909 320 30 —

Migdal 1910 450 100 —

Merchavyah 1911 900 100 —

Poriah 1911 350 30 —

IV. Trans-jordania.

Bene Yehuda 1888 315 83 —

¹ The Mikveh Israel Colony is situated outside of Jaffa, to the south. The Alliance Israélite Universelle has here a fine and large agricultural school for Jews. At the time of our visit—in 1914—about 150 pupils were enrolled. Some of them we found in the well-kept garden, weeding and hoeing. Others were engaged in planting through a newly planted vineyard. Still another group were piling brush and rubbish; while a considerable number were in classrooms undergoing just then an examination in the theoretical branches of study. They were a fine and manly-looking lot of young men and boys, mostly Russian-Jews. The glow of health was on their cheeks. They had none of the hunted and depressed look which has been imprinted upon millions of Jews by persecution and oppression. It seemed to us that, in a minor sense, these young Jews were already lifting up their heads because of the drawing nigh of the redemption of their land and their nation. They looked as though it afforded them great satisfaction to till the soil of the land, which some day must be the happy home of their people. There was a quiet modesty, coupled with justifiable pride, in their bearing.

LIST OF COLONIES IN 1913.

Name of the colony. Year of foun- dation. Approxi- mate number of souls. Area in Dounams. Kind of work, institutions, etc.

Judea.

Mikveh Israel 1870 150 2,612 Agricultural School of the “Alliance Israélite Universelle”; 100 pupils, 15 teachers and officials. Manager: M. Krause.

Rishon le-Zion 1882 — — Plantations. School for boys and girls. Kindergarten. Religious school “Netzah Israel.” People’s Hall (Bet Am) with library and orchestra. Great wine cellar and centre of the wine trade.

Nachlath Jehuda 1913 850 11,402 Plantations. Founded in commemoration of Dr. Leo (Jehuda) Pinsker. Dwellings for labourers. The colony is situated in the neighbourhood of Rishon.

Rehobot 1890 800 14,193 Plantations; vines, olives and almonds. School for boys and girls. Kindergarten. Religious school “Netzah Israel.” Zoological collections of Dr. Ah’roni. Place of the yearly celebration “Chagigah.”

Wadi el Chanin (Ness Ziona) 1882 200 2,793 Plantations. School for boys and girls. Vineyards and gardens planted by J.C.A. for the labourers of the neighbouring colonies. Kindergarten. Bee-keeping.

Ekron (Maskeret Batja) 1884 350 12,723 Agriculture, Plantations. School for boys and girls. Kindergarten. Religious school. Most of the colonists were engaged in agricultural work in Russia.

Katrah (Gederah) 1884 200 5,632 Plantations, Agriculture. School for boys and girls. Religious school “Netzah Israel.” This colony was founded by the Bilu pioneers.

Kastinie (Beer Tobia) 1896 150 5,622 Agriculture. Religious school “Netzah Israel.” This colony was founded by the Odessa Chovevé Zion.

Dschemama (Ruchama) 1911 25 6,000 In the early stages of colonization. The land was bought by two companies of Russian Jews, and is cultivated by a group of labourers.

Bir Jacob 1907 25 2,048 Colony of labourers. Plantations. Was founded by Dagestan Jews.

Hulda 1909 50 1,890 Jewish National Fund Domain. In this colony the so-called Herzl Forest (of olive trees) in commemoration of Herzl is planted.

Ben Shemen 1906 120 2,329 J.N.F. Domain and Farm. Second part of the Herzl Forest. Houses for Yemenite Jews. Agricultural institutions and experiments (Mr. I. Wilkanski).

Abu-Shushe 1912 — 7,000 In the early stages of colonization.

Kafruriah 1912 20 5,000 In the early stages of colonization. Cultivated by a group of labourers.

Artuf 1896 70 4,670 Agriculture. School for boys and girls. The first settlers were Bulgarian Jews, Sephardim. Now property of Mr. Isaac Goldberg of Wilna.

Mozah 1890 40 1,100 Agriculture, three-quarters of an hour from Jerusalem. Synagogue. Mill. Vines and vegetable-growing.

Dilb 1913 — 1,800 In the early stages of colonization.

Petah-Tikvah 1878 — — Plantations. The largest colony in the country. Schools for boys and girls. Centre of the religious schools (Dr. Auerbach). Home for orphans. Soup kitchen for labourers. Agricultural school.

Machne Yehouda 1913 2,500 23,837 Settlement for Yemenite Jews.

Yehoudieh — — — —

Ain Ganim (Fedje) 1908 — 762 Settlement for labourers. Founded by Chovevé Zion for the Petah-Tikvah labourers (a little house and orchard for every family).

Bir Ados 1912 40 4,220 In the early stages of colonization.

Kinnereth Colony 1908 25 5,572 In the early stages of cultivation.

Kinnereth Farm 1909 60 3,703 Farm of the Jewish National Fund. Farm for girls of the “Union of Women.”

Dagania (Um d’shuni) 1910 45 3,072 Farm of the Jewish National Fund. Farm for girls of the “Union of Women.”

Poriah 1911 60 3,703 Property of one of the American Achuzah Companies.

Mispah (En Katab) 1908 50 3,420 Agriculture.

Hattin — — 2,000 Agriculture.

Lubic — — 7,082 —

Near Tiberus — — 830 —

Migdal 1910 — 5,000 Farms and Plantations belonging to a Plantation Company.

Jessod Ha-Maaleh 1883 225 12,228 Agriculture. School for boys and girls.

Rosh Pinah 1882 650 20,102 Agriculture and Plantations. School for boys and girls. Centre of the Baron’s (I.C.A.’s) administration for the Colonies of Upper Galilee (M. Kalvaryjski).

Machanaim — — 21,885 —

Ain Zeitun 1891 — 6,016 —

Mishmar Ha-Yarden 1884 125 7,596 Agriculture. School for boys and girls.

Metulah 1896 325 16,907 School for boys and girls.

Bene Yehouda — 50 — —

Jaulan.

Lands in the Jaulan 1886 — 70,000 Belong to the Jewish Colonization Association—not inhabited.

Samaria.

Kafr Saba 1892 — 7,321 Plantations, mostly almonds. Occupied by a little group of labourers.

Chederah — — — Agriculture, Plantations. School for boys and girls. In the neighbourhood of the “Garden of Samaria” (Mohilewer) ethrogim (citrons) and oranges. Baron Rothschild’s eucalyptus wood, the greatest in the country.

Nachliel — 500 31,355 Settlement for Yemenites.

Chederan Ann — — 1,200 In the early stages of colonization.

Chefzibah — — 7,000 Property of the Company “Agudath Netaim.” Olives and almonds.

Kerkur and Bedus 1912 — 11,400 In the early stages of colonization.

Zichron Jacob (Samarin) 1882 — — Plantations, Agriculture. School for boys and girls. Mostly Roumanian Jews. Centre of the Baron’s (the I.C.A.’s) administration with beautiful buildings. Library. Hospital with 20 beds.

Shveia 1888 — — School for boys and girls.

Bath Shlomo 1888 1,150 30,668 —

Marah 1907 — — —

Herbet Menshie 1911 — — —

Tantura — — 300 —

Atlit 1897 50 6,800 Experimental Station.

Lower and Upper Galilee.

Merchavia (Fule) 1911 100 9,415 Co-operative Labourers.

Sedjera Farm 1899 100 — Farm. Co-operative Labourers.

Sedjera Colony 1900 200 17,717 Agriculture.

Mesha 1902 — — Agriculture.

Melhamieh 1902 200 16,023 Agriculture.

Yemma 1902 300 24,422 Agriculture.

Bet Jen (Bet Gan) 1904 100 4,549 Agriculture.

LXXIX.

The Manifesto of the Bilu (1882)

In 1882, in a little lodging-house in Galata, Constantinople, a meeting of young Jews was held. Most of those present were students, artisans or scholars. The assembly resulted in the formation of a Society called Bilu, from the initials of the words: Beth Iakob Lechu Venelcha (House of Jacob, come, let us go!). The Society had many branches, each bearing some name well known in Jewish history, as Kreti U’phleti. There was an artisans’ branch, called He’charash Ve’hamasger (carpenters and locksmiths). From headquarters was issued the following manifesto (in Hebrew):⁠—

“To our Brethren and Sisters in the Exile, Peace be with you!

“‘If I help not myself, who will help me?’ (Hillel).

“Nearly two thousand years have elapsed since, in an evil hour, after an heroic struggle, the glory of our Temple vanished in fire and our Kings and chieftains changed their crowns and diadems for the chains of exile. We lost our country, where dwelt our beloved sires. Into the Exile we took with us, of all our glories, only a spark of the fire, by which our Temple, the abode of our Great One, was engirdled, and this little spark kept us alive while the towers of our enemies crumbled to dust, and this spark leapt into celestial flame and shed light upon the faces of the heroes of our race and inspired them to endure the horrors of the Dance of Death and the tortures of the autos-da-fé. And this spark is now again kindling and will shine for us, a true pillar of fire going before us on the road to Zion, while behind us is a pillar of cloud, the pillar of oppression threatening to destroy us. Sleepest thou, O our nation? What hast thou been doing till 1882? Sleeping and dreaming the false dream of Assimilation. Now, thank God, thou art awakened from thy slothful slumber. The Pogroms have awakened thee from thy charmed sleep. Thine eyes are open to recognize the cloudy structure of delusive hopes. Canst thou listen silently to the flaunts and the mockery of thine enemies? Wilt thou yield before the might of...? Where is thine ancient pride, thine olden spirit? Remember that thou wast a nation possessing a wise religion, a law, a constitution, a celestial Temple, whose wall is still a silent witness to the glories of the Past, that thy sons dwelt in Palaces and towers, and thy cities flourished in the splendour of civilization, while these enemies of thine dwelt like beasts in the muddy marshes of their dark woods. While thy children were clad in purple and fine linen they wore the rough skins of the wolf and the bear. Art thou not ashamed to submit to them?

“Hopeless is your state in the West; the star of your future is gleaming in the East. Deeply conscious of all this, and inspired by the true teaching of our great master Hillel: ‘If I help not myself, who will help me?’ we propose to build the following society for national ends:⁠—

“1. The Society will be named Bilu, according to the motto: ‘House of Jacob, come, let us go!’ It will be divided into local branches according to the number of members.

“2. The seat of the Committee shall be Jerusalem.

“3. Donations and contributions shall be unfixed and unlimited.

“What we want:⁠—

“1. A Home in our country. It was given to us by the mercy of God, it is ours as registered in the archives of history.

“2. To beg it of the Sultan himself, and if it be impossible to obtain this, to beg that at least we may be allowed to possess it as a state within a larger state; the internal administration to be ours, to have our civil and political rights, and to act with the Turkish Empire only in foreign affairs, so as to help our brother Ishmael in his time of need.

“We hope that the interests of our glorious nation will rouse the national spirit in rich and powerful men, and that everyone, rich or poor, will give his best labours to the holy cause.

“Greeting, dear brethren and sisters.

“Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one, and our Land, Zion, is our own hope.

“God be with us!”

The Pioneers of Bilu.

The last survivors of the Bilu still in Palestine are: Israel Belkind, S. Belkind, Mrs. Feinberg (née Belkind), Dr. Chissin, Drubin, Swerdloff, Leibowitz, Hurwitz and Zaladichin.—Of the veterans of the Chovevé Zion Colonization we met in 1914—to mention only a few—Gissin in Petach Tikvah, the Stamper family (Stamper was one of the first, and the most energetic settlers, he came from Roumania); Shalit, Meerowitz, Lubman, Freimann in Rishon; Idelowitz, now in Alexandria, managing the “Carmel” Wine business; Eisenberg, Goldin, Hirschensohn, Mme. Basia Makow in Rechoboth, and of the old “Menucha Ve-Nachla” (the Warsaw Colony) settlers: Bucharski, Padua, Weinstein, Bresner, Rafalkes, Appel.

LXXX.

Zionism and Jewish Art

It is somewhat difficult to distinguish between Jewish art, that is to say between art expressing the Jewish national spirit, and ordinary art cultivated by the Jews.

Is Jewish art possible to-day? National art requires a soil out of which to issue, and a sky towards which to unfold. We—present-day Jews—have neither. We are inhabitants of many countries, and our thoughts ascend to different skies. Within our innermost soul we know of no earth and no sky. We have no country to bear our hopes in its lap and lend firmness to the tread of our feet, and we have no national sun to bless our sowings and irradiate our day. National art requires a homogeneous community out of which it arises and for which it exists. We have merely fragments of a community, and as yet there is hardly any stirring of the part to assemble into a whole. But without these premisses national art cannot come into existence; it cannot be made. It is no hothouse growth, but healthy, sapful plant life in a free native atmosphere. No artificial conditions may be created for it, it must come and develop with the progressing renascence.⁠¹

¹ Martin Buber, Jüd. Künst., Lesser Ury.

Another question presents itself. Are, at present, Jewish artists possible, i.e. artists who respond inwardly and in their works to Jewish individuality? If we may answer this question in the affirmative, the inner possibility of Jewish art is affirmed too. Because, as a rule, two elements have to co-operate so that a national artist may be evolved: a strain of national heredity, and a national environment; the former consecutive, not acquired by experience, but brought in unconsciously, the latter rather atmospheric, and up to a certain point consciously experienced. Since, in the most favourable conditions, present-day Judaism contains only the material and the elements of transformation of national environment, a Jewish artist would have to derive his national individuality chiefly from qualities received through heredity. But this would tend to prove that the artistic aptitude of the Jewish race is still aglow like live coal under ashes, and that it only needs personalities gifted with creative energy, and in whom this aptitude concentrates, condenses and transmutes into works, to bring forth Jewish artists. Are Jewish artists possible nowadays? By way of reply it may suffice to show that there are Jewish artists, or rather that with many Jewish artists we have the impression that their art has a national character.

It is very doubtful indeed whether any clear definition can be given of Jewish national art equally acceptable from the standpoint of the nationalist and that of the artist. We shall, therefore, confine ourselves to a brief outline of the evolution of Jewish artistic activity in painting and sculpture in modern times, without entering into the old and much-discussed question of ancient Palestinian Jewish painting, sculpture, architecture, etc., medieval Jewish miniature-painting of a religious or semi-religious character and more or less Jewish origin, and the arts of poetry and music cultivated by Jews since remotest antiquity and bearing undoubtedly in some cases the national character.

The sphere of art, particularly painting and sculpture, became accessible to the Jews at the same time as the realm of modern science and European culture and education, at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The fugitives from the Ghetto began to devote themselves to the study of art with more or less zeal, according to the opportunities afforded and conditions prevailing in the countries in which they lived—in Western Europe at an earlier period and in Eastern Europe somewhat later. Having received their training in different countries, they were naturally influenced by various schools of art. Some attained great distinction and merit, deserving to be placed in the foremost rank of European art, but these repudiated their Judaism, e.g. Munkácsy; others gained locally a high reputation; the majority of them, however, did not rise above mere mediocrity.

Benjamin Ulmann, an Alsatian, born in Strasburg, 1829, was a historical and portrait painter of some merit; Jean Jules Worms, born in Paris, 1832, painted genre-pictures with a good deal of animation; Leopold Pollack, born in Lodenitz, Bohemia, 1809, was a genre-painter of much refinement. He was an artist possessed of various accomplishments, who gained distinction in artistic circles as a “Slav”; Felix Schlesinger, born in Frankfurt O/M., 1814, and educated at Paris, became a famous French painter and was much appreciated as a genre-painter; Emil Lévy, born in Paris, 1826, deserves mention as a painter of idyllic scenery that showed considerable skill combined with simplicity; Louis Neustaeter, born in Munich, 1829 (d. 1899), achieved a reputation as a portrait painter; Felix Possart, born in Munich, 1837, was a most versatile popular painter; Nathanael Sichel, born in Mainz, 1843, was a historical painter of great talent; Eugene Benjamin Fischel, born in Paris, 1821 (d. 1895), was a historical painter (“The Arrival at the Inn” at the Luxembourg Museum since 1863), and devoted himself later on to painting of miniatures; Eduard Bendemann, born in Berlin, 1811 (d. 1889) was a painter of good taste and highly artistic accomplishments: he painted for the most part historical pictures, some of which are hung in German museums; Carl Jacoby, born in Berlin, 1853, distinguished himself among German painters of his time for his remarkable correctness in drawing; Friedrich Friedlaender, born in Vienna, 1825 (d. 1895), displayed the peculiar style of “Viennois” painting of his time; Toby Rosenthal, born in New Haven, U.S.A., 1848, was a disciple of Pilloty, and endeavoured to emulate his master; Herman Junker, Frankfurt (b. 1838); Karl Blosz, Munich; Edmund Edel, Charlottenburg; Julius Ester, Munich; August Gross, Vienna; Tullo Massarini, Rome; Albert Raudnitz, Munich; Ernest Raudnitz, Paris; Emanuel Spitzer, Munich; Ernst Nelson, Berlin, and others are known more or less as painters of various subjects.

The most notable of Jewish sculptors of the earliest period were: Antoine Samuel Adam Salomon, born in La Grete, France, 1818; Max Klein, born in Hungary, 1847; Josef Rona of Budapest; Adolf Huszar of Budapest, among whose important works should be mentioned the famous monument of the Hungarian national poet, Petöfi; Johann Silbernagel of Vienna, famous for his charming little statuettes; Charles Samuel, born in Brussels, 1862, who executed the monument of the great Belgian statesman, Frère d’Orban; Moses Jacob Ezekiel, born in Richmond, Virginia, U.S.A., 1844, who established a great reputation in America and in Italy, and others.

It cannot definitely be said that this imposing host of artists belonging to the Jewish people who have enriched Art, during a comparatively short period—proving in that way the Jewish capacity for art—have in their works revealed a pronounced Jewish spirit. Jewish artists and their works are scattered all over the world, and there is no possibility even of bringing copies of their works together in one collection, so as to ascertain ad oculos whether there is, in spite of all the differences of schools and influences of environment, any trace of a special character to distinguish them from other collections of this kind, as the special character can only be distinguished when a number of pictures can be reviewed together. Seeing that the racial element is no doubt a potent factor in art, the work of the Huszars of Budapest, the Massarinis of Rome and the Possarts of Munich must have something in common because, after all, in the depths of their being, they are neither Magyars, nor Italians, nor Germans, but Jews. On the other hand, one may say that these Jews, having become an assimilated unit of the peoples among whom they had lived, been educated and worked, have no longer anything in common with and do not represent any specific school of Jewish art.

Another question is, whether the aforementioned Jewish artists have been engaged in presenting Jewish subjects (which is a question altogether removed from the previous, more fundamental question). This question can be easily answered: Jewish subjects were dealt with by Eduard Bendemann (“Boaz and Ruth,” “The Mourning Jews,” “Jeremias”); Emile Lévy “The Feast of Tabernacles” and other pictures); Moses Jacob Ezekiel (various statues of great artistic value).

Apart from these artists who proved that Jews were capable of becoming more or less important artists, there were even at an earlier period some who not only displayed generally great artistic skill, but also gave evidence of understanding something about Jewish art.

First and foremost among these pioneers was Henry Leopold Levy, born in Paris, 1840, who painted “Joash saved from the Massacre of the Grandsons of Athaliah” (1867), “Hebrew Captives weeping over the Ruins of Jerusalem” (1869), and other pictures. Being, so to speak, a divinely inspired artist, his works give proof of profound emotions and transcendental beauty and force. His mastery of dramatic effect, his extent and depth of passion remind one of an old Hebrew prophet.

Moritz Daniel Oppenheim, who was known as “Professor Oppenheim” of Frankfurt (1801‒82), is not of much importance from an artistic standpoint. In his time he was one of the most prominent illustrators of Jewish patriarchy. His “Pictures of Jewish Life” give the impression of great devotion and have gained considerable popularity through thousands of reproductions.⁠¹

¹ The Jews of the Continent offered a splendid album, bound in marone velvet, inlaid with gilt bronze, in 1842 to Sir Moses Montefiore after his return from the East, in commemoration of his efforts on behalf of the persecuted Jews of Damascus. On each cover is a painting by Jewish artists. About these paintings the authors of the address—which was signed by 1490 subscribers—say:⁠—

“The consecration of Joshua by the legislator Moses, as the leader of the armies of Israel, was the first step towards creating Israel a separate state. The pencil of Professor Oppenheim’s genius has here worthily represented this event. Israel’s mourning at the streams of Babel, painted by the masterly hand of Bendemann, brings in the background before our spirit, Jerusalem in flames, and the house of God in ruins. Thus both representations combine whatever constitutes Israel’s pride and grief; whatever in the pages of history is capable of inspiring the champion of Israel with courage and zeal” (Allg. Zeit. d. Judenthums, 10 September, 1842).

A tragic figure in the annals of art was Simeon Solomon, born in Bristol, 1834 (d. in London, 1905). At an early age he showed signs of artistic ability and—as his biographers say—“came under the influence of D. G. Rossetti.” His drawings and paintings developed the mystical and sensuous tendencies of the pre-Raphaelite school to the extreme. He published a number of designs for the “Song of Songs” and reproductions of the drawings illustrating Jewish ceremonies. Keen critics of art ascribe to his genius a stimulating originality which influenced the whole pre-Raphaelite artistic school.

The pinnacle of Art, speaking generally, was reached by three prominent masters: Joseph Israels (1824‒1911), Max Liebermann, and Solomon J. Solomon, R.A.

It was Joseph Israels who succeeded in representing the twilights of the Dutch atmosphere in all their individuality and tender charm. To understand how to portray Nature and Humanity, and more especially suffering Humanity, with equal care and art, and to bring into relief their organic interaction; to represent rural scenes, not as a stage setting but as an atmosphere, not forcible but imbued with poetic feeling; to invest human nature with a breath of such delicate lyricism that the impression created is one of love rather than of mere beauty; that is the chief characteristic of Israels’ art, which to us seems so entirely Jewish. It is the enchanting melancholy, the gentle, delicate longing, the half-uttered tones, the soft harmonies which are divined rather than seen or heard that make Israels appear so extraordinarily modern. It is not merely because Israels was a Jew, not merely because his greatest works represent Jewish subjects, but because his art was characterized by a rich poetic fancy, by kindliness and melancholy, and at the same time by a priestly solemnity and a great simplicity which harmonize so wonderfully with the deepest emotions of the Jewish Psyche, that we are justified in regarding Israels as a national-Jewish painter. We are acquainted with the Jewish Rabbi, the calm, discerning, introspective thinker, seeking for the great ethos of existence in all the passing phenomena of life. Joseph Israels was a painter-rabbi. He painted with the same fervour as a midrash scholar would teach, with which a Jehuda-ha-Levi would sing. A “Gaon” in the domain of Art, a “Baal-Shem” who works spells, causing angels to appear not by means of prayers and texts; not by means of cabbalistic incantations, but by means of colours, light and shade effects. Where so visible as in Israels, creations are the groups of Divine sparkle flying about the world, the creative embodiment of the “naked souls” thirsting for existence, peace and incarnation of which the Cabbala speaks with so much enthusiasm and of which Chassidism dreams.

In all his paintings Israels succeeded in effecting a concentration in composition which focussed all interest upon the soul, upon sensation. Israels has not been content to fix by the masterly stroke of the brush a moment of dramatic intensity surprised in his model [as for instance, in the Writer of the Law (The Thora-Writer)], or the influences of the moment upon the emotions and expressions of the subject, but the soul itself and the whole soul-state. This directness was attained by Israels through the double study of man and his destiny in direct relation to nature.

Encyclopædias give the names of his masters and types in Amsterdam and Paris. But had Israels been a mere follower of his masters, then his name would not be found in encyclopædias. For decades, for many decades, he, the versatile painter, devoted himself to historical painting. No catalogue has rescued the titles from oblivion. When questioned concerning his early works, he answered the present writer with one of his characteristic subtle smiles: “How should I know where they are?” It was not until he had attained full maturity, or according to general ideas, after he had well passed maturity, that Israels became what he now is: he found himself after the sun of his life had passed the meridian.

Max Liebermann regards himself as a disciple of Israels, but is considered by others to be superior in the brilliancy and versatility of his genius. He was practically the father of the German “Secession,” and is the greatest living painter in Germany and one of the greatest in the world. Solomon J. Solomon is one of the most celebrated English painters. Dignified and serene, he has a wonderfully extensive and many-sided grasp of his art. As to Jewish art, it is a disputable point whether Liebermann’s pictures bear indications of a pronounced Jewish character—some writers having maintained that such is the case. Israels’ “Thora-Writer,” and particularly his “Son of an Old People”—which is justly supposed to have been inspired by the new national movement—appeal undoubtedly to the Jewish consciousness by their exceptional impressiveness. The picture which established Solomon J. Solomon’s reputation was his “Samson and Delilah,” while his “Allegory” of 1904 is said to depict the triumph of Judaism as the last and only religion of the world.

In closing the review of this epoch, mention must be made of Lesser Ury of Berlin, an artist of great severity and sadness, whose “Jeremias” and other pictures display some originality singularly independent of influences from without—in which fact some critics thought they could trace some visions of Jewish awakening.

A similar change was noticeable in Eastern Europe during the period of transition which began there some decades later than in the West. Here, too, some young Jews entered the academies of art just as others went to the universities for scientific study, but, of course, with that difference in the prospects of success which distinguish art from science, that art depends more on natural gifts than on capacity to study. Some Polish, Galician and Russian Jews pursued their studies in Cracow or Petrograd, some others studied at Munich and Paris. Some deliberately emphasizing their national origin and country, others showing, through their new environment, a leaning towards a diversity of practical and theoretical motives.

Joseph Redlich (1821‒81) was an engraver of world-wide fame during the first half of the century. Alexander Lesser of Warsaw (1819‒91), the son of a Jewish merchant, was described as “the father of Polish historical painting.” Of no importance as a painter, the curious fact remains that this typical Polish Jew was in his time appreciated as a painter of Polish national history (the first and most important publishers of illustrated books and periodicals in Warsaw were Merzbach, Gliksberg, Lewenthal, the son of a Hebrew teacher, and Wolf, who was of Jewish origin).

Leopold Horowitz, born in Hungary in 1831, who lived many years in Warsaw, and since the expulsion of foreign Jews from Russia in Vienna, has the twofold distinction of being an eminent portrait painter of European fame, and a well-known and noble-minded Jew. His Jewish picture “The Ninth of Ab” (the anniversary of the Destruction of the Temple) is a work of grand style, exquisitely finished; his portraits, too, gained highest praise. He is much interested in Jewish matters, and was prominently associated with the foundation of the “Jewish Museum” at Vienna.

One of the greatest painters of the last generation in Russia was Isaac Levitan, born in 1860 (d. 1900), the master of Russian landscape. This Jew of the Russian Ghetto taught Russian artists to abandon mere topography for a poetical treatment of landscape scenery. He did not only paint admirably the rich purple of the northern sunset, the thin clouds, dawn and darkness, but also the very soul of the landscape. A writer in the (anti-Jewish) Novoye Vremia had to admit that “this full-blooded Jew knew as no other man, how to make us realize and love our plain and homely country-scene.” Levitan’s pictures adorn the Tretjakov Museum at Moscow, and have the right of undisturbed shelter in that city that was not unconditionally granted to their originator. Leonid Pasternak, born in 1862, is an important Russian painter, particularly known for his connections with Tolstoi.

The most wonderful romance of Jewish vitality and force of self-regeneration is the story of Mark Antokolski (1842‒1900). Whatever modern critics may think of the special value of his master-works—classical or pseudo-classical—from an up-to-date point of view, the fact remains that this Lithuanian Jew, who was a son of poor parents at Vilna, brought up in the atmosphere of the Cheder (religious school) and the Vilna Schulhof, which is the most typical and best known centre of what is distinctly Jewish, is recognized, as far as sculpture is concerned, in Paris the metropolis of art. He introduced Russian sculpture into European art and his works have been highly appreciated, seeing with what intense delight and admiration they have been regarded by the highest in his native land, where he was entrusted with the task of executing the greatest national monuments, but his works have also received the highest praise throughout the world. Bernstamm Aronson and ♦Ginzburg, distinguished by exceptional maturity in study and powers of concentration, the former an eminent master where powers of imagination and fascination were concerned, the latter of an observant, subtle intelligence, which proved so useful to him in the careful reproduction of details dealing with nature. They are devoted to the art of sculpture in Paris and in Russia.

All these artists proved that Jews can be artists. Jewish art in Jewish subjects was here and there to be observed. Isidore Kaufmann, a Hungarian Jew, born in 1853, executed some appreciable work in genre-painting of Polish-Jewish life. He displayed in his “Visit of the Rabbi,” “Talmud Students” and other little pictures, a great simplicity and freshness, and a delightful sense of humour, but these pictures, humorous as they are, have merely anecdotes for the outlines of their scheme. A real awakening of Jewish art in a higher sense was left to the present period of the Jewish National Revival and Zionism.

This new period was inaugurated by two Polish-Galician Jewish artists, who, while their respective artistic achievements were of different value, were instrumental in opening new perspectives for Jewish art; these were Moritz Gottlieb and Ephraim Moses Ha’Cohen Lilien.

Moritz Gottlieb, born in a small village in Galicia, about 1860, was a disciple of the great Polish national painter Jan Matejko. Of great imaginative power and intense feeling, a real artist, he succeeded in mastering the intricacies of modern painting. He soon became a favourite of his tutor, and was much admired in artistic circles at Cracow, where his works were immensely appreciated on account of the suave and well-balanced style of his pictures. His prospects of a great future increased with his popularity. It is said—se non é vero é ben trovato—that when he expressed his intention of devoting himself to Polish historical painting, Matejko remarked: “My son, you are a Jew; you cannot weep on the graves of Polish kings; leave it to others.” So Gottlieb devoted himself to Jewish subjects, the most important of which was his admirable “Jew Praying in the Synagogue.” This masterpiece so full of inspiration was more than a picture; it was a message to Jewish artists, one of the most simple and impressive: “You shall go back to your own people; you shall find and see your own greatness and glory; you shall be your own selves again!”

The hand of death removed him in early manhood—at the end of the eighties of the last century—Moritz Gottlieb’s name was cherished by the new generation of Jewish artists as that of a noble pioneer who had ushered in the era of Jewish art.

About ten years later, Lilien, having terminated his studies at Munich, settled in Berlin, and got in touch with the young Zionist intellectual movement. By means of his illustrations in black and white, which combined modernism with archaic forms, permeated by the Hebrew spirit, he soon succeeded in introducing a new element in artistic skill, and played a prominent part in shaping the modern tendencies of a somewhat independent young Jewish art. As to the artistic value and originality of his remarkable and exceedingly fruitful art, opinions may differ considerably, yet there is no doubt, as a master of an unique style of drawing, touch, finish and execution, and as a pioneer and advocate of methods expressing Jewish aspirations, types and ideas, he is unrivalled, and his works have had a far-reaching effect in encouraging Jewish artists to devote themselves to the extension of Jewish art on a self-dependent and self-inspiring basis. The message of Gottlieb and the impulses of Lilien can be easily traced, even among the important Jewish artists who have been their contemporaries or have lived at a later period and have occupied honoured positions in general as well as in Jewish art.

Samuel Hirschenberg, Leopold Pilichowski and Henry Glitzenstein form, with all the distinction of their individualistic and high artistic qualifications, a sort of triumvirate in the realm of art. All these came from the same country—Poland—and from the same district of that country; they were contemporaries in age as well as in their outlook on life, seeing that all these represent the new, emancipated intellectual type of the Polish Jew with a touch of Jewish nationalism of the eighties, who differ so distinctly from the old type of the “assimilation” Jews of a previous period.

Samuel Hirschenberg excelled in the painting of a variety of subjects. His distinctness and fine blending of colours, his skill in creating broad and accurate outlines of figures are indeed remarkable. He was a modest, earnest and most industrious worker of really artistic aspirations. He had a strong predisposition for big canvases and was averse from anecdotal subjects. He was unable to paint anything of a small type. The Jewish people, its suffering, and his persecuted brethren formed the subjects of his brush. “Golus” (copies of which are well known) is a specimen of his art and outlook. Of keen perception, the life-blood of Jewry pulsing through his veins, he painted his “Wandering Jew,” presenting with tragic force the synthesis and the resentment caused by Jewish Martyrdom.

He was one of those who had penetrated most deeply and powerfully the tragedy of the Golus, with all its great and desperate dreadfulness and all its abysmal horror, who felt it within their innermost marrow and blood, who went through life with its sad brand on their brows. The brush with which he painted was the master’s heart, and the colour—his blood, the warm life-blood. The blood which has been flowing for thousands of years from the ever-open wound of the creative genius and of the nation. He dreamt to base the future upon sacred ruins. He deemed as nothing the laurels of the Golus as compared with the feeble light which began to glow more and more vividly far away in the old country and in his bosom, which overflowed with sadness and longing. He was a priest of art and a priest of the Jewish renaissance. During the last years of his life he went to Jerusalem to take part in the art work of Bezalel, and died there—as he had lived—upright and resigned to his fate, hiding from the world the sufferings of a noble soul.

Leopold Pilichowski is quite different in artistic temperament. Cheerful, thorough and pleasant, guided by a truly artistic instinct, he possesses the natural gifts of an eminent artist, being a keen observer of life, of charming personality, and an enthusiastic worker. He achieved a high reputation by reason of his admirable blending of colours, his excellent and attractive style, the life-like expression of his portraits and the careful attention bestowed upon details. In France he attained high distinction, and recently also in this country where his works have found considerable appreciation. But the favourite subject of his art is Polish Jews. His picture entitled “Wearied,” the two figures of old wearied Polish Jewish pilgrims—is in conception and execution a masterpiece; this picture has been so frequently reproduced that it is now one of the most popular and most impressive Jewish pictures of the time. He expresses more forcibly than any other contemporary painter the intense fervour of Jewish prayer. He endeavours to penetrate the secrets of Polish-Jewish pathos in his charming picture “The Feast of our Rejoicing” and in another, entitled “Sorrow” which, probably, no other painter would have been able to understand. He describes and creates an historical record for the type of the Polish Jew as he knew him—in the fervour of his prayers, in the glory of his devotion, in the attractiveness of his misery.

Henry Glitzenstein, who now lives in Rome, is the son of a Melamed (religious teacher) in the little village of Turek, Poland. In Italy and throughout Europe, where his works have at several exhibitions gained highest distinction, he is recognized as being one of the greatest sculptors of the age. In ability, taste, gracefulness, originality and invention, he is a sculptor-poet, who excels all Jewish sculptors that ever lived, and even many non-Jewish artists of standing. It is not presumptuous to assert that Glitzenstein is one of the most modern sculptors, whose modernism does not merely amount to the acceptance of a certain “fad” but means original and constructive ability. He, too, is a dreamer of the Ghetto, but at the same time a master of a living art. His “Messiah,” the incarnation of the mighty, asleep yet about to awaken to any movement towards the Jewish future, is a work of an enormous conception.

Hirschenberg’s “Wandering Jew,” Pilichowski’s “Wearied” and Glitzenstein’s “Messiah,” though undoubtedly independent individual works, have yet to a certain extent been influenced by the new national spirit set aglow by Gottlieb and Lilien, and by the literature of the Jewish Revival.

To this category of Jewish artists belongs Hermann Struck, who combines artistic refinement with orthodox Jewish devotion and Zionist aspirations, a master of the first water, who has executed etchings of Israels’ works and those of other great artists, and has a fine record for original portrait painting, Palestinian landscapes, and other drawings of exceptional skill; Moses Maimon, a distinguished Russian-Jewish painter, the author of the very popular “Marranos in Spain,” and of other pictures of value; Jehuda Epstein, who has given proof of possessing great power of imagination by his great sketch “Maccabean,” a picture made for Herzl, who had it in his studio; Minkowski (Warsaw), whose Pogrom pictures are of really artistic value; Pffeffermann (Pan), a man of considerable artistic achievement, who has been engaged on the teaching staff of the Bezalel; Weinles and Altmann (Poland), who are responsible for various pictures and studies of Jewish subjects; Wachtel (Galicia), who emulated Lilien; and Hochmann (Cracow), who was guided by Glitzenstein’s works. In Russia there are the painters: A. A. Maneritsch, M. L. Schafrom, A. B. Lachowski, and the sculptors: F. Bloch, M. L. Dillon, J. A. Troupianski, of the younger generation, and—of the older generation—Gabowitsch, J. J. Brodski, who represent modern Jewish art. In the important colony of artists and art students in Paris, including Leo Minsenberg, Leopold Gottlieb, Cylkow, Markus, Kramstück, Elie Nadelman and others of Warsaw, a real Jewish awakening has been observed, particularly among the younger members of the colony.

Special mention should be made of the well-known landscape painter Abraham Neumann of Sierpce, Poland, who has a fine long record of artistic work. He participated most actively in stimulating Jewish artistic activity in Poland and Galicia.

With regard to sculpture, Alfred Nossig has also to be mentioned. Nossig can boast, among his various accomplishments, also that of an able sculptor con amore. In some of his works he has dealt impressively with national Jewish subjects.

Another Jewish sculptor of note should be mentioned, viz. F. Beer of Paris (died in 1910). He was an ardent Zionist and a great personal friend of Herzl, and contributed his share to Zionist artistic work (the badges of the Congress).

In this country, Will Rothenstein has become very popular through several of his pictures devoted to scenes of Jewish life; Isaac Snowman and his brother Louis [Conrad] are artists of recognized accomplishments, and have painted valuable pictures of this kind. Wolmark is well known as an artist of exquisite taste and idealistic aspirations. His inclination has led him to the rendering of subjects dealing with Jewish life, so admirably dealt with in some of the pictures. He is a strong individualist and truth-seeker, and has in recent times manifested a decided inclination for futurism, of which he is one of the champions. Jacob Epstein is the most representative of sculptors and combines genius with technical skill.

The foregoing survey of Jewish activity forces us to the following conclusions:⁠—

I. The numerous Jewish works of art, especially in painting and sculpture of such marked ability, with no previous history, patronage or encouragement, and produced under most unfavourable circumstances in a comparatively short time, showed that Jewish genius was as much capable of development in the sphere of art as in music, poetry or the drama, and has made its influence felt at every opportunity.

II. The great artistic value—with few exceptions—of the works of these masters who either were acquainted with the older Jewish traditions, like Israels, H. P. Levy, Ezekiel, or who had come direct from the Ghetto, like Antokolski, compared with the Assimilationist Jews who were either satellites or plagiarists, proves that, even during the period previous to the present national Revival, Jewish consciousness (like any other deep racial consciousness) has stimulated the vigour and originality of artistic activity.

III. The beneficial effects of the National movement in Jewish artistic craftsmanship can be observed in two directions:⁠—

(a) in the artistic value of the productions, especially with regard to Jewish subjects, and

(b) in the degree of influence of the artistic activity on the Jewish people.

With regard to the first point, the progress made can be easily gauged by comparing, for instance, Bendemann and Emil Levy with Gottlieb, or Oppenheim with Lilien, and so on. Jewish life at the period of Assimilation, like the literature of that period was presented essentially in apologetic terms and addressed itself always, consciously or unconsciously, to Gentiles, as if to say: “Think of us, we are really not as detestable as you believe us to be, we are rather attractive”; but, on the other hand, national artists say: “We are what we are,” and more than that, seeing that to deal with Jewish subjects from a national standpoint is self-centred, and therefore more of a psychological question. We are what we are, neither better nor worse than others: we endeavour to know ourselves, and we want to see our images reflected in our own art. Oppenheim’s Jews are so idealistically exaggerated that one would not recognize them if one were to meet them in their shops on the “Zeil” in Frankfurt, while Gottlieb’s Jews are so orientally peculiar, that meeting them in the market-place dealing with tapestry one would have the impression that these dealers are descendants of oriental princes, although the artist had no intention of producing this impression.

The second point is still more important. The art of the period of Assimilation, like the active character of Assimilation, is essentially individualistic and aristocratic, while the art of the period is decidedly of a collective and democratic character. Logically and psychologically, there can be no movement of Assimilation in masses, because Assimilation must be opposed to cohesion or a movement for the cohesion of Jews, except for ritual purposes. A Jew becomes a doctor, a lawyer or a painter—the more he succeeds in his career among Gentiles, the less he is brought in contact with the Jewish masses: nobility of character or generosity may make him a philanthropist to the masses whom he may endeavour to patronize; on the other hand, the absence of these qualities will make him wholly indifferent, but anyhow the chain of natural and simple intercourse is broken. This was necessarily the course of Assimilation in every direction, and also showed us the relationship of Jewish artists to the Jewish masses. All those Huszars, Ronas, Schlesingers and Pollacks had no inclination and no possibility whatever of acquiring the artistic education of the people from whom they sprang. In this respect the situation has considerably improved owing to the national movement, Chovevé Zion and Zionism. Now, many Jewish artists live among the people, and are influenced by them. Not only in Russia, where there is now a strong movement for propaganda ♦and mutual help among Jewish artists (under the tutorship of Ilja Ginzburg)—a movement which was unthinkable in the time of the Assimilation tendencies—but even in Paris a tendency has made itself felt in this direction in the Jewish colony of artists in recent times. Among the masses in the East of London, too, there is an Organization called Ben Uri, for the propaganda of art. Lectures are arranged, instruction is given, and popular articles are published on various subjects of art. That popularity is due to the activity of the publishing firms Phœnix, Libanon, the monthly Ost und West, and other publications.

Summing up the effects of relationship between Jewish art and Zionism, we see that Zionism has played its part in the revival of Jewish art. On the other hand, Jewish art has contributed much to the propaganda of Zionism. It cannot be too often repeated that the creative and active forces of Zionism have always been literature, education and art: they have stimulated the people’s hearts and minds, they have opened the people’s eyes and enlisted their generosity. One of the greatest agencies of Zionist propaganda has been the Bezalel, the work of the enthusiastical Jewish artist Boris Schatz, who is in his own art a disciple of Antokolski, but who stands himself, unrivalled, as a pioneer in the propaganda of Jewish artistic activity in Palestine.

It is not hazarding too much to assert, that with an important development of colonization and education in Palestine we are going to see a really original Jewish art. But even in the Diaspora, the awakening of Jewish consciousness will ennoble, popularize and strengthen Jewish art. Jewish artists should not pursue any particular tendency in addition to their own art; they should be only artists, and true to themselves. Art must be free, and being free it will—as a necessary and natural consequence—eventually offer ample scope for the national genius.

LXXXI.

Progress of Zionism in the West since 1897

1. England

In England Zionist propaganda was very much hampered for want of an influential and well-supported Hebrew press and literature—which, after all, form the most powerful factor in the national propaganda, and an intellectual weapon in the struggle, the more so because through them can be maintained a direct closer touch and personal relations with Palestine. These two factors have made Zionism in Eastern Europe something more than a formal organization governed by certain statutes; it has now become a living force. Zionist propaganda there has also suffered from want of extensive university groups that have brought a great educational force into the Movement in continental countries. In England, where class divisions are so pronounced, in ideas, language and customs, and where the pressure of the Jewish problem from outside is not felt, the difficulties in the way of Zionist propaganda were naturally much greater. Besides these difficulties, there was another fact that did not fail to influence the position. The centralization of the financial institutions and the greater facility for political organization were no doubt of considerable advantage, as they afforded English Zionism in this respect means of propaganda not accessible to the Movement in other countries. But there was also an important drawback, namely, the Movement has been concentrated on these two appeals. The consequences of such a development manifested themselves in two directions: in the influence upon the Organization, and in the effect on non-members of the Organization. As for the internal influences, although the general Zionist work might have appeared here as elsewhere to be of the greatest importance, nevertheless it must be admitted that the financial institutions necessarily absorbed more energy, and carried more weight, while observers from outside were faced more directly than in any other country with this particular aspect of the Zionist Organization. In Eastern Europe, the public outside of Zionism was also made aware of the existence of a political scheme and financial matters; but what they realized most immediately and forcibly was above all an intellectual activity, a new system of education, a new attitude towards all questions of the day and a new and close relationship with Palestine. In England, outsiders saw little or nothing of what others saw elsewhere. All they realized was a political scheme which they naturally endeavoured to magnify and to exaggerate for the sake of controversy, clinging obstinately to their own opposition to “Utopia,” and looking at the comparatively meagre financial means as something that was unable to impress them to any great extent.

Yet they were greatly mistaken. Zionism in England was in its essentials not in the least different from what it is in Russia or anywhere else. It must be admitted that it has not yet sufficiently developed all the various branches of its activity, but this is not due to a difference in its principle, but to the divergence in local conditions for which the idea is not responsible. If all its potentialities have not yet been developed, there is no reason why they should not be so very soon. Notwithstanding all kinds of difficulties and domestic controversies, Zionism in England was propagated and furthered by a great number of able workers. Among those who took a leading part in the work in England since the earliest period may be found: the Haham Dr. Moses Gaster, Joseph Cowen, Herbert Bentwich, the late S. B. Rubenstein, L. J. Greenberg, Jacob de Haas, Jacob Moser, Charles Dreyfus, the late Rabbi A. Werner, the late A. Vecht, the late A. Lozinsky, the late A. Ginzberg, L. Kessler, Percy Baker, the late J. Massel, E. Ish-Kishor, M. Shire, J. Cohen-Lask, Rev. J. K. Goldbloom, the late Rev. David Wasserzug, Dr. S. Fox, E. W. Rabbinowicz, Miss H. Weisberg, Dr. Moses Umanski, H. M. Raskin, H. Comor, the late H. M. Benoliel, Solomon Cohen, E. Guilaroff, and others.

Somewhat later—not exactly in the literal sense—the older leaders were joined by new workers of influence and eminent ability. The most notable are: Dr. Ch. Weizmann, Dr. Samuel Daiches, Rev. Isaiah Raffalovich, Leon Simon, Harry Sacher, Norman Bentwich, Albert M. Hyamson, Dr. S. Brodetsky, S. Landman, Leonard Stein, Rev. M. H. Segal, Bertram Benas, Joseph Jacobs, Paul Goodman, Israel Cohen, Dr. Joseph Hochman, Samuel Cohen, Israel Sieff, Simon Marks, Dr. Salis Daiches, F. S. Spiers, and others. In University and intellectual circles also important progress in Zionist thought could be perceived. One of the most prominent of the intellectual Zionists is the Haham Dr. Gaster. He was born at Bucharest in 1857. Having matriculated there, he proceeded to the Jewish Seminary, Breslau, where in due course he received his rabbinical diploma. He is also a Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Leipsic. He published numerous important works on the Roumanian language and literature, and on the subject of folklore, on which he is one of the first authorities. He has written text-books for general and Jewish schools in Roumania. His compendium of Scripture history has been adopted as a standard work throughout the country. He produced the first excellent translation of the Hebrew Prayer Book into Roumanian. In 1885 he left Roumania and came to England, where he was appointed Haham of the Spanish and Portuguese Congregations in succession to the late Haham Dr. Artom (1887). This office he resigned in 1918. He brought new life into those congregations and largely aided by his valuable literary work in the promotion of oriental studies in England. Gaster was an ardent Zionist long before the First Congress. Profoundly touched by the unfortunate position of the Jews in Roumania, he assisted in establishing the first Jewish colony in Palestine, Samarin (Zichron Jacob)—and organized meetings in Roumania which were addressed by Laurence Oliphant and others. Indeed it was the part he took in these matters that, in some measure, led to his expulsion from Roumania. In England he joined the Zionist Organization from its very beginning. His learned speeches and writings gave a great impetus to the propaganda.

Herbert Bentwich, a zealous and devoted supporter of the Jewish colonization in Palestine, was as well known in the Chovevé Zion movement as he is in the Zionist Organization. He was the organizer and leader of the Maccabean Pilgrimage to Palestine of 1897. In several articles in the English press he answered the attacks made upon Zionism. Being a lawyer by profession his services were invaluable in the foundation of the Zionist financial institutions. A well-known figure at the Zionist Congresses, he is a most active worker in local affairs, especially in the Order of Ancient Maccabeans, in connection with which organization he recently helped to found a land company for the purchase of land in Palestine. He is indefatigable in the propaganda of Zionism, and one of the few English Zionists who succeeded in making Zionism a tradition of his family by means of the closest personal contact with Palestine.

Israel Zangwill may be described as one of the most distinguished propagandists of the Zionist idea during the period 1899 until 1906, when he founded the Territorialist Organization. To this brilliant writer and orator belongs the credit of having contributed greatly towards making Zionism popular in England. An English writer of enchanting dexterity, possessed of a keen sense of humour and capacity to appeal to the crowd, he discredited the old idea of Assimilation. Though his views on the future of Palestine have undergone considerable modification, his pamphlets and early speeches are still useful and appreciated in Zionism.

Mr. Joseph Cowen, who takes a most active and responsible part in Zionist work, particularly with regard to the financial institutions, plays an important part in central as well as in local organization. He was for some years a member of the Actions Committee and one of the most prominent representatives at Zionist Congresses and Conferences. Mr. L. J. Greenberg’s name is found in the Zionist records of the first few years in connection with the movement in England, as well as internationally, and in his work he has always associated himself with Mr. Cowen. He was always deemed resourceful and an energetic propagandist in England, and was for a certain period a member of the central management of the Organization. He was Honorary Secretary of the English Zionist Federation, and a member of the Actions Committee, and in these capacities did admirable work. Both Mr. Cowen and Mr. Greenberg were deeply attached to Herzl, and assisted him in his work in England.

The late S. B. Rubenstein was one of the veterans of the old Chovevé Zion, and as a representative Zionist was very active in the movement since the First Congress. Mr. Jacob de Haas, a journalist of great versatility, combined with great devotion and inexhaustible enthusiasm for the cause, worked hard in England, and now continues his useful work zealously in the United States. Mr. Leopold Kessler, a faithful adherent to Zionism since its inception, has been active, partly in South Africa and partly in England, more especially in connection with the financial institutions and the Actions Committee. The Rev. Isaiah Raffalovich, Rabbi of the New Hebrew Congregation, Liverpool, a native of Jerusalem, an inspired Chovev Zion and Zionist, is doing excellent propaganda work. The late Joseph Massel, of Manchester, a man of great Jewish learning, a Hebrew writer and translator, was a well-known and popular figure at the Zionist Conferences in England, as well as at the Zionist Congresses. He was one of the few Hebraists who introduced an element of Hebrew literature into the Zionist propaganda in England. The late Aron Vecht (1856‒1908), a man of striking individuality, was an ardent Jewish nationalist. He founded the weekly paper, The Jewish Standard, and was one of the founders of the Chovevé Zion Association in London, and later, when Herzl launched the Zionist movement, became one of his most devoted followers.

Mr. Jacob Moser, J.P. (Lord-Mayor of Bradford, 1910‒11), deserves an honourable place among the Zionist leaders. A prominent philanthropist in his city, and a devoted Zionist, he has been for a number of years a leading representative of the Movement and was elected a member of the Actions Committee, and attended most Zionist Congresses, where he gained great popularity. He visited Palestine and became a generous and zealous patron of Hebrew education there. The Hebrew Gymnasium at Jaffa, which is the first and foremost Hebrew educational institution in the Holy Land, was practically founded by him, and owes its existence and maintenance to his exertions and generosity. Dr. Charles Dreyfus, J.P., of Manchester, has associated himself with the Zionist movement now for some years. He has been a member of the Actions Committee and President of the English Zionist Federation.

Some Zionists have worked, and are now working, with great enthusiasm in the sphere of Hebrew education. The method of Hebrew teaching known as “Ibrith B’Ibrith” (Hebrew in Hebrew), which was first introduced by Zionists into Palestine and Russia, was first recommended in England by Mr. David Yellin, of Jerusalem, at public meetings addressed by him on his visits to this country, and was strongly supported by Mr. Israel Abrahams. In the work of encouraging the diffusion of the Hebrew language in England those most active were: in London—Rev. J. K. Goldbloom—and before his removal to the United States Mr. E. Ish-Kishor, and—in Liverpool—Dr. Samuel Fox, an able Hebraist and educator, formerly editor of the Ha-Magid, assisted by a number of efficient Hebrew teachers, Mr. Maximovski (now in America), Mr. Rumianck, Mr. Wassilewsky, Mr. Port, Mr. A. Doniach, the young Hebrew poet Pinski, Mr. Beilin, Mr. Hodes, and others. There are in London, as well as in the provinces, some Hebrew-speaking societies and groups that work for the maintenance of Hebrew as a living tongue. The late J. Suwalski, an able Talmudist and Hebrew writer, edited and published in London for some years a Hebrew weekly, Ha-Yehoudi, under most difficult conditions. After his death the publication of this paper was suspended, but in Hebraist circles a propaganda is again on foot for the purpose of securing the reappearance of a Hebrew weekly.

In tracing the more recent development of Zionism in England, a number of representatives and workers of a prominently intellectual and literary character cannot escape our attention: Dr. Samuel Daiches, Lecturer in Biblical Exegesis and Talmudics at Jews’ College, and author of numerous works on Assyriologian, Biblical Babylonian and Talmudical Babylonian subjects, a scholar of recognized merits, has an excellent Zionist record as a delegate to the Congresses, a Zionist writer, and as a most faithful propagandist of the national idea and the Hebrew language. His brother, Dr. Salis Daiches, Minister of the Edinburgh Hebrew Congregation and author of studies on philosophy, is an active member of the Organization. Both are faithful to the traditions of their old rabbinical family and particularly to that of their father, the venerable Rabbi Israel Hayim Daiches of the Great Bet Ha-Midrash Congregation, Leeds, who many years ago, when Rabbi at Neustadt-Shirvint, Russia, was one of the first of the orthodox Rabbis to identify themselves with the Zionist idea.

The beginning of a University movement and the literary activity in connection with Zionism are, undoubtedly, remarkable features of Zionist development in England in recent years and deserve due consideration. Most prominent in this useful and promising movement are: Leon Simon, Norman Bentwich, Harry Sacher, Albert M. Hyamson, Dr. Selig Brodetsky, Samuel Landman, Dr. Joseph Hochman, Leonard Stein, the Rev. M. H. Segal and others, who, as Hebrew scholars and English writers of a highly cultivated literary taste, have founded University Zionist Societies, and are frequently lecturing on Zionist and general Jewish literary subjects. During the four years of the European War, despite the pressure on their time and energies which their non-Zionist duties, in most instances in the service of the State, involved, they produced a Zionist literature remarkable not only in all the circumstances for its quantity, but also for its quality. They established and produced two periodicals, The Zionist Review, the monthly organ of the English Zionist Federation (editors, Mr. A. M. Hyamson and Mr. Leon Simon), in a sense the successor to The Zionist, which ceased publication on the outbreak of war, and Palestine, the weekly organ of the British Palestine Committee (editor, Mr. Harry Sacher). Of books all of a high quality and a permanent character, Zionism and the Jewish Future (editor, Mr. H. Sacher), which immediately became the standard work in England on Zionism, and passed into a second edition which soon became exhausted, Zionism—Problems and Views (editors, Mr. Paul Goodman and Mr. Arthur D. Lewis), Palestine—The Rebirth of an Ancient People (Mr. Albert M. Hyamson), Palestine of the Jews (Mr. Norman Bentwich), and England and Palestine (Mr. H. Sidebotham), published by the British Palestine Committee, have all appeared since 1914. At the same time the same small band of writers have been active in the periodical press, and by means of a number of pamphlets, which deal with different aspects of Zionism and the Palestine question, have had considerable influence on public opinion, Jewish and non-Jewish, throughout the English-speaking world. Some members of this small band have also written on Zionism and Palestine in some of the leading American periodicals. Without being by any means exhaustive, one may mention among recent pamphlets: The Case of the Anti-Zionists (Leon Simon), Great Britain, Palestine and the Jews—(1) Jewry’s Celebration of its National Charter, (2) A Survey of Christian Opinion, What is Zionism? (Dr. Chaim Weizmann and Dr. Richard Gottheil), The Jewish Colonization in Palestine: Its History and its Prospects (S. Tolkowsky), A Jewish Palestine: The Jewish Case for a British Trusteeship (H. Sacher), Zionism and the Jewish Religion (F. S. Spiers), Zionism and the Jewish Problem (Leon Simon), A Hebrew University for Jerusalem (H. Sacher), Zionism and Socialism (Lewis Rifkind), Jewish Emancipation: The Contract Myth (H. Sacher), History and Development of Jewish Colonization in Palestine (L. Kessler), Zionism, its Organization and Institutions (S. Landman), Jewish Colonization and Enterprise in Palestine (I. M. Sieff), Zionism and Jewish Culture (Norman Bentwich), Zionism and the State (H. Sacher), Zionism and the Hebrew Revival (E. Miller), Hebrew Education in Palestine (S. Philipps), British Projects for the Restoration of the Jews (A. M. Hyamson), Cosmopolitanism and Zionism (Arthur D. Lewis), The Jewish National Fund (Joseph D. Jacobs), Zionism in the Bible (N. Sokolow), Achievements and Prospects in Palestine (S. Tolkowsky), Hebrew Education in Palestine (Leon Simon), and a number of the essays of “Achad Ha’am,” translated into English by Mr. Leon Simon.

Of important articles in the principal English weeklies and reviews may be mentioned “Palestine and Jewish Nationalism,” by Mr. Leon Simon, in The Round Table, “The Development of Political Zionism,” by Mr. Israel Cohen in The Fortnightly Review, by Mr. Albert M. Hyamson in the Quarterly Review, and also several other articles by the same writer in The New Statesman and The New Europe. The Times and The Manchester Guardian, not to mention other daily periodicals, have given valuable and frequent support, in their editorial columns and elsewhere, to the Zionist cause.

It is chiefly due to the exertions of Mr. Leon Simon, who stands at the head of the University Zionist Organization, that the revival of interest in living Hebrew has spread among the young intellectuals. It is worthy of notice that this young scholar, who was born and educated in this country, was so strongly inspired by the Zionist idea that he acquired so thorough a knowledge of the Hebrew language that he is now a good Hebrew speaker, as well as a highly appreciated contributor to the Hebrew monthly Ha-Shiloach. The Rev. M. H. Segal, formerly Minister of the Newcastle-on-Tyne Congregation, author of Mishnaic Hebrew and its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, who belongs to the same group, is an excellent Hebrew writer. This movement has been greatly influenced by Asher Ginzberg—Achad Ha’am—who lives in London, and whose writings are very highly appreciated in intellectual quarters. Mr. Simon has translated some of his books into English. A great supporter of this movement is Dr. Ch. Weizmann, who is an old worker in University circles.

Evidently Zionism is attracting more and more attention and consideration, and has the moral support and sympathy of distinguished scholars and spiritual leaders, among whom we may mention the Goldsmid Professor of Hebrew at the University of London and Rabbi of the Bayswater Synagogue, Hermann Gollancz, and Dr. S. A. Hirsch, a well-known Talmudist and Emeritus Lecturer at Jews’ College. Dr. Hirsch was one of the distinguished Chovevé Zion, and took great interest in the Zionist movement. He was for a time Chairman of the Joint Committee of the English Zionist Federation and the Maccabeans.

The foregoing sketch, incomplete as it is, gives some idea of the amount of energy and labour expended on the work of Zionist organization and propaganda in England. If it is not as large and vigorous as it might be, and as it is undoubtedly going to be owing to the new development, it cannot be denied that there is in England a strong Zionist movement supported by an ever-increasing number of able, determined and devoted workers.

2. South Africa

In South Africa Zionism is powerful and important. Among the first representatives of the movement there must be mentioned as the most notable: Dr. J. H. Hertz, Johannesburg (he was Delegate to the Fourth Zionist Congress, 1900), who is now Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Empire. Other staunch supporters were the Rev. Dr. J. L. Landau, Mr. S. Goldreich, the late Rev. D. Wasserzug, Mr. S. L. Heymann, Mr. S. Lennox-Loewe, Mr. R. Alexander, Mr. J. Heymann, Dr. Abelheim, Mr. J. L. Cohen, Mr. H. Lyons, Mr. R. Feigenbaum, Mr. H. B. Ellenbogen, Mr. S. S. Grossberg (Bulawayo), Mr. B. Aaron, Mr. J. Blum, Mr. A. Beyer, Mr. N. Richardson, Mr. J. Kark, Mr. B. J. Chaimowitz, Mr. A. Deremeik, Mr. A. M. Abrahams, Mr. J. Kaplan, Mr. J. Schwartz, Mr. Groimann, Mr. Hersh, Mr. S. Bebor and others. They have a well-organized Zionist Federation, of which the advocate, Mr. Maurice Alexander, is the Chairman. They also have their own Zionist Press, always send delegates to the Zionist Congresses and maintain a strong and successful propaganda in their country. The enthusiasm manifested by the masses is as great as the wonderful generosity with which they support all Zionist institutions in and outside of Palestine. One is simply struck with admiration at the wonderful results they have achieved in the way of contributions.

3. Canada

In Canada the Zionist movement began in 1898 and immediately met with great success. Zionists propagated their principles at mass meetings and soon attracted enthusiastic workers for their cause, and by their help they were enabled to form organizations in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Hamilton, London, Kingston (Ontario), Ottawa, and on the Pacific Coast. (The first Zionist Society in Canada was the Agudath Zion in Montreal.) First and foremost among the leaders is Mr. Clarence I. de Sola, a brother of the late Rev. Meldola de Sola, the minister of the Sephardi Community of Montreal. Both were the sons of Dr. Abraham de Sola, LL.D., who was Professor of Semitic Literature at the McGill University of Montreal, and the leading Jewish Rabbi and writer in Canada. Mr. Clarence de Sola is President of the Federation of the Zionist Societies of Canada. The Rev. A. M. Ashinski (now at Pittsburg), Dr. David M. Hart, the Rev. B. M. Kaplin, Mr. J. S. Leo, Mr. A. Levin, the Rev. D. H. Wittenberg, Mr. H. G. Levetus, Mr. Leon Goldman, Mr. B. Levi, the late Mr. Falik and many others were the principal, untiring workers from the first; and the distinguished Hebraist Rabbi Menkin (Hamilton), the eminent preacher Rabbi Abramowitz (Montreal), Mr. L. Lewinsky (Toronto), Mr. J. Friedmann (Ottawa), Mr. S. Jacobs (Montreal), Mr. Leon Cohn, Dr. Shayne, Mr. David Levy, Mr. Louis Fitch, Mr. A. A. Harris, Mr. S. Frankel, Mr. E. Geffen, Mr. Joseph Finsberg, Mr. H. Nathansohn, Mr. Bernard Lasker and many other enthusiastic speakers, workers and writers contributed to the efforts that made the Federation of the Canadian Zionists a living force in the great movement, and the most active and most respected section of Jewry in that important part of the British Empire.

4. Other Parts of the British Empire

There are also some Zionist groups as well as individual supporters in New Zealand, in Australia and in all other parts of the British Empire. In Egypt Zionism has recently made considerable progress.

5. The United States

The United States of America, with its three million Jews, of whom by far the greater number have migrated there from Russia during the past two generations, has naturally become an important centre of Zionism. It is impossible to give, in a brief outline, a proper conception of the greatness and importance of Zionist activities in America.

America is a world in itself, and this can equally be said of American Zionism. The majority of Zionists may already perhaps, or will very soon, reside in the English-speaking countries. The extent of Zionism in the United States cannot be gauged by the payment of the “Shekel” (the annual obligatory Zionist contribution), which is not by any means a criterion as far as Zionist allegiance in America is concerned. It is sufficient to mention such well-known names as: Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Nathan Straus, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Dr. Harry Friedenwald, Professor Richard Gottheil, Miss Henrietta Szold, Dr. Solomon Solis Cohen, Professor Israel Friedlaender, Rev. Dr. Pereira Mendes, E. Lewin-Epstein, Zolotkow, Louis Lipsky, J. de Haas, Professor Felix Frankfurter, Leon Sanders, Dr. C. S. Rubensohn, Nathan D. Kaplan, Judge Aaron J. Levy, Judge Julian W. Mack, Dr. H. M. Kallen, Rabbi H. H. Rubenowitz, Louis Robison, Dr. Benjamin L. Gordon, Julius Meyer, S. Abel, A. E. Lubarski, Maurice L. Avner, Rabbi S. Margolis, Rev. Max Heller, Joseph Barondess, Rev. H. Masliansky, Abraham Goldberg, Bernard Richards, B. Rosenblatt and many others, representing all classes, sections and shades of American Jewry—these names enable one to form a slight idea of the greatness of the movement.

Mr. Louis D. Brandeis, Justice of the Supreme Court, stands at the head of the Organization, and his influence in America equals almost that of Herzl in this hemisphere. Dr. Shemaryah Levin, representing the Inner Actions Committee, has done much to stimulate propaganda in America, and is strongly supported by a number of distinguished Zionists who have recently arrived there.

The movement has, however, a long and honourable record in America (where, as in other countries, the Zionist movement was preceded by a Chovevé Zion movement). There have been not only the Shove Zion in New York and the Chovevé Zion in Philadelphia in 1891; the beginning was much earlier. Mention has already been made of the Rev. M. J. Raphall’s activities; but he did not stand alone in his efforts. An attempt to form a Chovevé Zion organization was made at Cincinnati in 1855. In the Occident of Philadelphia, of March 8th, 1860, Mr. Simon Berman, the author of the Hebrew book Massot Shimon (published in 1874), published the details of a Chovevé Zion plan he had then formulated. Still later, Adam Rosenberg worked most energetically in connection with Chovevé Zion in other countries, and with the first colonists in Palestine. Rosenberg attended also the First Zionist Congress.

The Federation of American Zionists was organized on July 4th, 1897, with Professor Richard Gottheil as President, Dr. B. Felsenthal of Chicago, Dr. M. Jastrow of Philadelphia, Dr. S. Schaffer of Baltimore, Dr. J. L. Bluestone, Rev. H. Masliansky, as members; Mr. C. D. Birkhahn acted as Hon. Treasurer, and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise as Honorary Secretary.

The old and highly esteemed Dr. Gustav Gottheil, father of Professor Richard Gottheil, who had formerly been Rabbi at Manchester (and a friend of Professor Theodores), and had just then become Rabbi at New York (where he died in 1903), identified himself with the Zionist movement. Professor Richard Gottheil joined the movement from the beginning. He was a friend of Herzl, a member of the Actions Committee and a prominent figure at the Zionist Congresses. In order to spread a knowledge of the Zionist movement, the first Committee of the Federation resolved to issue a series of publications, and Professor Gottheil wrote his first pamphlet, The Aims of Zionism, in 1897. Five years ago he published an important work on Zionism. For a long time Dr. J. L. Magnes was most actively engaged in Zionist work, and he is still most active in the work of organizing Hebrew education in the United States.

The late Dr. Marcus Jastrow, who served on the first Committee, was an orientalist and a rabbi, pre-eminently known as a man of genius and thoroughness, and as an author of a great dictionary of the Aramaic-Talmudic language, and of other works of great value. It is not generally known, and therefore worthy of notice here, that when he was preacher at the Great Synagogue in Warsaw at the beginning of the sixties at the time of the Polish Insurrection, he was an enthusiastic friend of the Poles in their struggle for national liberty. Poles and Polish-Jewish patriots still cherish his memory with deep reverence.

The present Zionist movement in America, as compared with the earlier one, is of course much stronger and healthier, but it is interesting to observe that the movement in America is not one that sprang up only recently.

During the present war American Zionism has come providentially to the succour of Palestine with an enthusiasm and a generosity unequalled in history, and it is undoubtedly qualified and destined to play a prominent part in the Zionist solution of the Palestinian problem.

6. Germany

The geographical position of Germany—its proximity to Russia and Austria—the numerical strength of its Jewish population, and their long tradition of Jewish learning and Jewish activity, have combined to make that country favourable soil for the growth of Zionism. Nor must the prevalent anti-Semitism be left out of account as a factor making in the same direction. Whereas, for instance, the Jewish University student in England is welcomed in the various students’ associations and clubs, the Jewish students at a German University are practically compelled to form an organization of their own. This is one of the causes of the remarkable growth of the Zionist Students’ movement in Germany—a movement which, while it is not free from the besetting sin of over-organization, has undoubtedly done a great deal to transform the spirit of German Jewry. But from the earliest years, even before the growth of the Students’ movement, Zionism has always been in Germany a serious intellectual movement, contending for supremacy with the “Reform” theory of Judaism, and never failing to hold its own. The first official paper of the movement was Die Welt, and the Jüdischer Verlag in Berlin was for long the most important Zionist publishing concern; while in the extent of its Zionist literary and artistic output Germany is probably second to no other country. Yet it is characteristic that a Zionist Congress has only once (Hamburg, 1911) been held in Germany, though the headquarters of the movement were for a time at Cologne and afterwards at Berlin, and though Germany has been the home of such distinguished Zionists as Dr. Max Bodenheimer, for many years at the head of the Jewish National Fund, Dr. Franz Oppenheimer, the expert in co-operative colonization, and Julius Simon, to say nothing of members of the Inner Actions Committee like Wolffsohn, Hantke and Warburg.

7. Smaller European Countries

Holland gave to the movement one of its earliest leaders, Heer Jacobus Kann, who was associated with Wolffsohn in the administration after Herzl’s death. It has now a well-organized and active Zionist Organization, to which a great impetus was given by the Eighth Congress at the Hague, 1909. Dutch Zionists take a very active part in the general organization work and in that of the Jewish National Fund, the headquarters of which are at present at the Hague. The Dutch Zionist Federation has an excellent weekly paper, De Joodsche Wachter, which has appeared regularly for several years. Zionism in Holland has had for several years a University Movement. In connection with Holland, a place of honour in Zionist history belongs to Belgium, and particularly to Antwerp, which has been for several years an important Zionist centre. M. Jean Fischer, most noteworthy of the Antwerp group from the point of view of the organization, is a member of the Actions Committee and of the great financial institutions of Zionism. He and his friends have taken an important part in colonization undertakings in Palestine. Switzerland, the land of Zionist Congresses, has a good organization with many zealous and able workers. In Denmark and Sweden the Zionist organization has lately developed great activity, owing to the Zionist Office which has been established at Copenhagen. Rumania (which was almost equal to Russia in the Chovevé Zion movement) and Bulgaria are still more important as centres of Zionist activity.

LXXXII.

The Institutions of Zionism

The Zionist institutions—A. General: 1. The Congress—2. The Actions Committee—3. The Annual Conference—4. The Federations in various countries—5. The English Zionist Federation—6. The Order of Ancient Maccabeans—7. The Palestine Society.—8. The Poale Zion—9. The Mizrachi—10. Women Zionist Societies—B. Financial: 1. The Jewish Colonial Trust—2. The Anglo-Palestine Company—3. The Anglo-Levantine Company—4. The Jewish National Fund—5. The Palestine Land Development Company—6. The Kedem Company—7. The First London Achuzah Company—8. The Maccabean Land Company—C. Institutions in Palestine—D. Miscellaneous Institutions.

A. General:

1. The Congress

The Zionist Congress is the supreme authority in the Movement. Until the fifth Congress, Congresses were held annually, but since the sixth Congress they have been held biennially. The first Congress was held on the 29th of August, 1897, at Basle, Switzerland. Most of the subsequent Congresses were held at the same place: the second in August, 1898; the third in August, 1899; the fifth in December, 1901; the sixth in August, 1903; the seventh in August, 1905, and the tenth in September, 1911. The fourth Congress was held in London in August, 1900; the eighth took place at the Hague in August, 1907; the ninth at Hamburg in December, 1909, and the eleventh at Vienna in August, 1913.

The Congress consists of delegates representing the shekel payers throughout the world, who assemble for the purpose of international discussion of the Jewish question and decisions concerning the world-wide Zionist Organization. The Congress, as the controlling body of the movement, interprets the programme of Zionism, settles the details of organization, elects the executive and examines the financial affairs of the movement. The officials and committee of the movement are responsible to the Congress. The Zionist banking institution, the Jewish Colonial Trust in London, is also controlled by the Congress, as only members of the Actions Committee can become members of the Council of the Trust. A deciding voice in the control of the Jewish National Fund is secured to the Congress, as only members of the Council of the Jewish Colonial Trust can become members of the Jewish National Fund. (See below as to the Jewish Colonial Trust and Jewish National Fund.)

Only shekel payers (paying a sum of one shilling or a corresponding sum in foreign coinage) have the right to elect delegates to a Congress. The payment of that sum by a person who accepts the principles of Zionism as adopted by the first Congress entitles him or her to membership of the International Zionist Organization.

The last Zionist Congress, which was the eleventh, was attended by 538 delegates, who represented the Zionists in the following countries: Russia, France, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, United States of America, Canada, Turkey, Belgium, Holland, Roumania, China, Bulgaria, Italy, Hungary, Serbia, Australia, South Africa, Greece and England.

2. The Actions Committee

The Executive power of the movement is vested in the Greater Actions Committee, consisting of twenty-five members, and in a Smaller Actions Committee, consisting of six members. The members of the present Greater Actions Committee are:

Dr. Max Bodenheimer, Jean Fischer, Dr. Frank, Dr. Friedemann, B. A. Goldberg, Dr. H. G. Heymann,⁠¹ A. Idelsohn, Jakobus Kann, L. Kessler, Dr. Klee, J. Kremenezky, Dr. Alexander Marmorek, Leo Motzkin, J. A. Naiditsch, A. Podlischewski, Dr. Leon Reich, I. A. Rosoff, S. Rosenbaum, Heinrich Schein, Julius Simon, Adolf Stand, Robert Stricker, M. Ussischkin, Dr. Chaim Weizmann,⁠² and David Wolffsohn⁠³

¹ Died in 1918.

² Dr. Chaim Weizmann was recently elected a member of the Smaller Actions Committee.

³ Wolffsohn died in 1914.

The members of the present Smaller Actions Committee are:

Professor Dr. Otto Warburg, Dr. Arthur Hantke, Dr. Victor Jacobson, Dr. Shemaryah Levin, Nahum Sokolow, and the late Dr. E. W. Tschlenow.⁠¹

¹ Dr. Tschlenow died in London in 1918.

The Greater Actions Committee is the executive body of the Congress according to its constitution, but it is only convened to decide on important questions. It meets several times in the year, and must meet not less than once a year. Only the Greater Actions Committee is competent to consider and decide questions relating to the Zionist organizations in the various countries. The Committee has also the right to inquire into and examine the work of the Smaller Actions Committee.

The Smaller Actions Committee is the superior Executive of the whole Zionist Organization, and is entrusted with the management of all branches of the Zionist movement and activities all over the world.

3. The Annual Conference

The name of this institution is somewhat misleading, as the conference called Annual Conference is really a biennial conference held in those years in which a Zionist Congress does not take place. The holding of such conferences was decided upon by the fifth Congress. This conference is in reality an extended meeting of the Greater Actions Committee, and is attended not only by all members of that Committee, but also by the president and vice-presidents of the last Congress, the presidents of the permanent commissions, the presidents of the federations and amalgamated organizations of the various countries, the directors of the banking institutions, the members of the Congress tribunal, the legal adviser of the Congress and the auditors. The conference is somewhat limited in the scope of its activities, as it may only examine the accounts of the organization, accept resolutions, and draw up a programme of activity for the next period of administration. The conference has no right to carry out elections of committees or officials or to alter or modify the Zionist programme.