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

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

The “History” completed the breach between Graetz and his sometime teacher, Samson Raphael Hirsch. The latter had left Nikolsburg to act as the rabbi of a wealthy private congregation in Frankfort-on-the-Main. Soon after his removal, he began to issue a monthly journal, Jeshurun. In the second and third volumes of the magazine appeared a passionate, violent review of the two parts of the “History” then published, in which Hirsch sat in judgment on Graetz’s heresies. The soreness of the critic is unmistakable. It is doubtful whether his thrusts were not meant to strike the Jewish Theological Seminary at Breslau rather than the “History.” Personal attacks usually left Graetz unmoved, though he was in the habit of repelling them with caustic brevity. But he never forgave hostility towards the young institution. Thus the last slender ties that had still bound the two men to each other were snapped asunder forever. For the rest, active and joyous as his nature was, he did not trouble himself about his critics, nor did they thwart the success of his work; its triumph was complete. On the other hand, he was frankly proud of the distinction conferred upon him by the Prussian government in making him, in December, 1869, honorary professor of the Breslau University. This governmental recognition went far towards compensating him for the lack of regular professional advancement in his academic career, the sore point in his life, at which spiteful antagonists delighted to aim their shafts.

With the eleventh volume, published in 1870, he brought the history of the Jews since the Maccabean struggle down to the present time (1848); nine volumes had appeared in uninterrupted succession. To complete and crown the work it was necessary to give an account of ancient Jewish history covering the Biblical and three centuries and a half of post-Biblical times. Graetz devoted scrupulous care to this portion of his work. He considered its importance paramount, and regarded the treatment of the early epochs as a most difficult task, requiring for its adequate performance exegetical studies and original text criticism. Graetz thought himself particularly qualified and endowed for such work; it had always been his favorite pursuit. But before attacking the history of Israel and ancient Judæa, he determined to satisfy his longing to behold the Holy Land with his bodily eye, as he had often sought to picture it to his mental eye. With equal force his artistic impulse drew him to Palestine. He hoped to derive local color and inspiration for the description of hoary events from the sight of consecrated places, which had been their scenes and their witnesses. As early as 1865, he had formed the plan of a journey to Palestine, the execution of which became possible only in March, 1872, when two friends joined him. Limited to his private resources and hampered by consideration for his traveling companions, he was not able to make his trip thoroughly satisfactory from a scientific point of view. After all he obtained what he had journeyed abroad to find; he brought back impressions, enthusiasm, inspiration. In quick succession the two, or more accurately, three65 parts of his work treating of the Biblical and early post-Biblical time appeared between 1874 and 1876, and his historical work was complete according to the plan he had sketched for himself. It was the brilliant fulfillment of the promise “to furnish a history of the Jews from the most ancient times to the present day elaborated from the original sources,” which he had made in 1854, when he began his career as an historian with the publication of the fourth volume of his “History.” Grand in conception, clear and perspicuous in execution, riveting attention by its charming style, the work has not failed to find entrance into the hearts of the author’s brethren-in-faith. It remains unsurpassed in the present, and the future historian will realize that he cannot deviate from the great lines laid down in it. The little blemishes and errors of various kinds that disfigure all human creations do not affect the impression made by the work as a whole. The discovery of hidden sources, now unsuspected, may necessitate additions and changes in details, but the great points of view, the pragmatic conception, the underlying thoughts, as he deduces them from the intricate complexity of Jewish history, will never be superseded. Graetz’s “History of the Jews,” voluminous though it is, will forever remain an integral part of Jewish literature.

VI.
THE EXEGETE.

The first two, or rather three, parts of the “History” form the transition to Graetz’s exegetical studies. In their excellencies as well as in their shortcomings they betray all the characteristics of his work in Bible exposition. Obviously Graetz had only awaited the completion of the history of Judaism from the end of the Maccabean struggle to the present time to enter, with all the vigor of his intellect, upon the second phase of his activity as a writer, that devoted to Bible exegesis and textual criticism. Exegetical studies, no less than historical research, were a distinct life-aim with him. They were begun in 1871, and continued without interruption until unexpected death snatched the pen from his hand. To be accurate, the second phase of his literary activity should be dated from 1869. In that year Zacharias Frankel, wishing to devote all his energy to his work on the so-called Jerusalem Talmud, transferred the Monatsschrift to Graetz. He marked the beginning of his editorial management with an essay on “The Ebionites in the Old Testament,”66 the first of a series in Old Testament exposition and Hebrew philology. In part, they may be regarded as monographs in preparation for his history of the Biblical times. The series was continued uninterruptedly, year after year, until 1887, when Graetz discontinued the publication of the Monatsschrift.

In view of the narrow compass of Biblical literature, comprising the whole residue of ancient Israelitish writings and therefore the whole treasury of the Hebrew language at our disposal, even those expounders that cling to the word and to tradition with slavish faithfulness are granted wide scope for individual judgments and subjective hypotheses, depending for their acceptance not upon precise proof, but upon the inquirer’s will and disposition. It is natural, then, that Graetz with his strongly developed subjectivity, his delicately attuned ear, and his gift of bold conjecture, should have reached conclusions sharply contrasting with all accepted views and incapable of logical, scientific demonstration. His results and explanations, the outcome of a passionate desire for clearness and consistency, are often of startling originality. All sorts of new questions were set on foot by him, many fruitful suggestions may be traced to him, and he bore many a trophy from the battlefields of textual criticism. The boldness of his exegesis is illustrated by his treatment of the two Hagiographic books, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, which, published in quick succession in 1871, introduced him to the world as an exegete. He attributes the composition of Koheleth (or the Preacher, translation and critical commentary)67 to the reign of Herod, and places the author of Shir ha-Shirim (or the Song of Songs, translation and critical commentary)68 in the Macedonian-Syrian time. Though the hypotheses concerning the time of the composition of the two books and many other propositions are curious, and overwhelm the reader by their pronounced deviation from all opinions hitherto advanced; still it must be confessed, that the conjecture with regard to the origin of Ecclesiastes is engaging in the extreme, and it cannot be denied, that the translations are good and in unexceptionable taste, that the remarks and references are instructive, and that the older versions were used with care and attention. In the commentary on Ecclesiastes, decidedly more valuable than that on the Song of Songs, he offers besides interesting data with regard to the Greek translation. Moreover, Graetz frequently adduced analogies from the Mishna and the Talmud, made exhaustive use of whatever was advantageous for textual criticism in the Talmudic literature, and thus brought to light new material in such a way as to make it available for the “higher criticism.” This, in fact, constitutes his real and permanent distinction as an exegete.

His expositions were guided by two chief assumptions, both rooted in the depths of his character. He held that in every Biblical work an historical background can be discerned with more or less ease; that even generalizations and reflections cannot conceal their connection with special facts, which must be deduced and determined. Again, he was of the opinion, that a contradiction or obscurity in a Biblical passage cannot be resolved by a twisting of words and phrases or by far-fetched analogies in remote though related idioms. They were evidence to him that the text had come to grief, and that the original text could be restored only by a conjecture, which might be disengaged from the context, or patterned on a Talmudic parallel, or deduced from older translations. He did not doubt that catastrophes, the centuries, and perhaps also the incompetence of copyists, had mutilated the original Bible text, and wrenched it out of shape, and he thought that even later, when it had been fixed with scrupulous care, all sorts of errors might have crept in.

According to these principles Graetz treated the Psalms. In 1881 he published a German translation of them, and in 1882–83 followed a “Critical Commentary to the Psalms with Text and Translation. 2 vols.”69 The commentary is designed on a generous scale, and gives abundant evidences of ripe scholarship. But by the side of its excellent features it contains many hazardous guesses and vague, even though ingenious hypotheses. Justus Olshausen, an Orientalist highly esteemed on account of his learning and his sobriety, who was occupied with the critical examination of the Old Testament text for philological purposes, says the following about the commentary on the Psalms in a letter to the author:70

“On account of its boldness your commentary will certainly arouse serious objections with the larger number of exegetes, themselves overbold in exegesis, but weak in criticism. As for me, you know that I am not affrighted by boldness in criticism when coupled with knowledge of the language and the subject-matter, with acumen, and, above all, with sound common sense. Doubtless, I shall not be able to agree with you in every case in which, overconfident perhaps, you may believe that you have hit upon the correct solution of a difficulty. That, however, does not prevent me from recognizing that your book, by reason of its abundance of excellent emendations, is a valuable addition to exegetical literature.”

Graetz undoubtedly hit upon many a happy guess, and applause was not lacking, but in general his results met with opposition so decided that we may surely expect a later generation to review the judgment of our time and separate the chaff from the wheat. Not in the least intimidated by the adverse criticism upon his exegetical methods, he was resolved to remove the difficulties attaching to the Old Testament language by all the means at his command. He thought himself justified in his confidence in himself in matters of textual criticism, upon which chiefly he concentrated his explanations in the course of time. He grew more and more unrestrained in his efforts to restore approximately the original text of the Bible by means of audacious conjectures, which his sympathetic mind was never weary of devising. In other fields he was always careful to keep in connection and in touch with tradition; destructive tendencies were not at all characteristic of him. But in his textual criticism he permitted his zeal to run away with him, until he lost the solid ground of the Bible text and of reality from under his feet. His acumen displayed and dissipated itself chiefly in the blinding pyrotechnics of rocket-like emendations. Of this character are his exegetical studies on the prophet Jeremiah,71 on the Proverbs of Solomon,72 and his fine essay on Bible exegesis.73

This kind of work was so attractive to him, that in the latter years of his life he set about the execution of a long-cherished and widely comprehensive plan for the critical examination and the emendation of the text of the whole Bible. The realization of this plan was to be the consummation and crown of his life’s labors. But he was not destined to celebrate such unquestioned and brilliant successes in this field as in that of history, where he had earned and received the laurels due a pioneer. Yet, we must be careful not to underrate his exegetical and critical achievements as to their intrinsic value and their influence. His exegetical works and essays are replete with new points of view and interesting suggestions. Many a germ that has since proved fruitful can be traced to them, and they have had a lasting effect upon the development of Bible exegesis. His works of this class, original and important enough to fill a life of scholarly research, would suffice to secure to their author an honorable name and a prominent place in the history of Jewish science.

VII.
LAST YEARS.

From year to year Graetz received an increasing number of proofs of the recognition and veneration paid him by a large circle of readers and admirers and a growing band of friends and aspiring disciples. But the enjoyment of his success was not to be unalloyed. In 1879 the feeling against Jews in Germany, always on the point of breaking out, was set free in the shape of an anti-Semitic movement, to serve as an unfailing instrument for political agitation. Heinrich von Treitschke, an historian characterized by patriotic ardor rather than scrupulous adherence to word and truth, a writer with affecting, oratorical pathos and a brilliant style at his command, soon assumed the rôle of challenger in the fray. He was scandalized by the boasting spirit which, he alleged, was in the ascendant in Jewish circles, and was to be regarded as a menace to the German empire. He illustrated his strictures by references to Graetz, who, he maintained, made use of intemperate language in his polemics against Christianity, and in his “History” had been guilty of applying disrespectful expressions to the German nation.74 Graetz replied, and Treitschke in turn made him the subject of an article,75 in which he tried to prove his allegations. He quoted passages from the “History,” tearing them from their context, and resorted to all sorts of sophistry. The leaders of the intelligent portion of Berlin Jewry probably did not realize the gravity of the situation. At all events, they were far from having a clear idea of the means necessary for stemming the rapidly swelling tide. They were disinclined, however, to suffer Treitschke’s attacks to pass unrepulsed, for they had reason to suppose them to be more than the venomous utterances of a professor. Thereupon H. B. Oppenheim, a well-known politician and writer on political economy, and highly esteemed for his disinterested and noble character, adopted the mistaken course of sacrificing Graetz to Treitschke’s aggressive charges without examining them. Confessedly he had not read Graetz’s works, yet he disposed of their author summarily as “a man without tact and fanatically one-sided, whose great learning has been rendered nugatory by the absurdity of his practical deductions.”76 This peculiar defense of Judaism, to be sure, did not excite distressful feeling in any one, but later events prove it to have been symptomatic of the opinions and the mental constitution of the intellectual notabilities of the Berlin Jewish community.

A Berlin Jew had been put at the head of the “Union of German Israelitish Congregations,”77 when its headquarters had been moved from Leipsic to Berlin. Active and clever in practical affairs, he invested the “Union” with dignity, and stirred it up to work and enterprise. With his help all sorts of useful undertakings were executed; among them, in 1885, a plan to promote the science of Judaism, hitherto wholly neglected, along definite lines. A commission was to be appointed to make means and sources for research into the history of the Jews of Germany available under the protection of the “Union.” The project was hailed with satisfaction by Jewish scholars. It was hoped that it would eventually furnish the center from which other scientific endeavors might radiate. All hopes of this kind were early doomed to grievous disappointment. The leaders of the “Union” lacked perception of the needs of the situation; they permitted an ambitious young scholar of the Jewish faith, an “extraordinary” professor at the University of Berlin, to become the governing spirit. He was familiar with the mediæval government offices, and did valiant service in the study of documents. But he was destitute of the most elementary knowledge of Hebrew, and therefore could have no conception of the peculiar difficulties the writer of Jewish history has to grapple with. Besides, he had so completely identified himself with his specialty and with the academic world of professors that a realizing sense of the condition and needs of German Judaism was out of the question. Under these circumstances serious mistakes were inevitable. In the first place Graetz was disregarded, completely ignored, when the commission which was to organize and superintend the historical investigations was made up. The arbitrary exclusion of the only or, at all events, the most eminent historian the Jews can boast of must be considered a gross offense against good manners. What is more, the good work was thereby deprived of the best and most valuable guarantee of success. Personal animosity may have contributed to bring about the deplorable action, but that does not alter the fact that Graetz was most familiar with the field of work to be cultivated. None recognized more clearly than he the desiderata78 that occupied the attention and guided the efforts of the scholars interested in Jewish history at the time. Besides, he was an indefatigable, impulsive worker, and his name was one to conjure with. The slight put upon Graetz called forth decided ill-humor among his numerous friends and disciples, a large portion of whom were the rabbinical heads of respected congregations. Their irritation could not long remain without tangible effect. Moreover, though the commission was composed of highly esteemed scholars, among them Christians who were master historians of the first rank, there was not one member who had attained to more than respectable dilettanteism in his acquaintance with Jewish literature, a thorough knowledge of which was indispensable for the proper realization of the plan, and only one member who had given evidence of his special interest in Jewish history by a work of note. This exception was Professor Stobbe, a humane Christian scholar and eminent jurist, who has described the historico-legal status of the German Jews in “The Jews in Germany during the Middle Ages,”79 a book that has not yet been superseded. The absence of Jewish scholars, specifically of Jewish historians, awakened distrust in the ability of the commission. In fact, its achievements, as displayed in the “Journal for the History of the Jews in Germany”80 and in separate publications, are far from realizing the expectations awakened by the boastful, arrogant tone of scientific conceit in which the leaders announced the undertaking, and are out of all proportion to the expenditures incurred. The most ambitious production, “Documents on the History of the Jews, etc.,”81 is a fragment. Quietly, unnoticed, the experiment died one day in the year 1892.82

The inconsiderate treatment accorded him by the Berlin coterie or other circles did not cause Graetz much heart-ache, and whatever soreness it may have produced was completely healed by London, whence he received the flattering invitation to open the Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition with a lecture. The honorable reception accorded him in the English capital, the persons whose acquaintance he made, and the impressions he carried home with him, all this refreshed him, and put him into a buoyant frame of mind. The visit to England he accounted one of the happiest and most enjoyable events of his life. The experiences gathered there strengthened the hope, to which he had often given expression, that salvation would arise for Judaism out of England and America.

On October 31, 1887, he celebrated the seventieth anniversary of his birth. His disciples and friends made it the occasion for an extraordinary ovation, and from all countries and climes homage was laid at his feet. An overwhelming number of addresses, gifts, congratulatory letters, and poems proved that his achievements were in the mind and his honor in the keeping of the whole body of intelligent Jews. A particularly gratifying surprise came in the shape of a diploma announcing that on October 27, 1888, he, the Jew, who had not dealt leniently with the Spanish nation in his historical writings, had been elected an honorary member of its section in history by the Spanish Academy at Madrid.

Until the very last his body and mind retained remarkable elasticity and vigor; time seemed to pass him by unnoticed. His indestructible working powers and his literary fertility continued to be astonishing.83 Even after concentrating his efforts on exegetical research, he was a vigilant reader of the monographs in whatever civilized language, bearing, however remotely, on problems of the science of Judaism. He gave the conclusions reached in them a critical examination, and either noted them for the enrichment and correction of a new edition of his “History,” or refuted them in special articles, if they seemed sufficiently important. For, besides his historical and exegetical works, in number and bulk an imposing array, he published numberless essays and Programmschriften on the most various subjects, many of them real gems, models of clear writing and deep scholarship. In some of them daring theories are advanced, as, for instance, the one which he would never abandon, that the Massora originated with the Karaites, from whose literary works the Rabbanites derived it. The conjecture was received with a great display of indignation, but its refutation was not equally emphatic, and it cannot be denied that certain evidences may be interpreted in its favor.

Among his Programmschriften the following deserve to be singled out: “Visigothic Legislation with Regard to the Jews,”84 in the annual report of the Jewish Theological Seminary for 1858; “Frank and the Frankists,”85 in that for 1868; and “The Kingdom of Mesene and its Jewish Population,”86 in that for 1879. In the Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, of which, as mentioned above, he was the editor from 1869, the greater part of the articles issued from his pen. There is but one way of accounting for his numerous achievements: he understood to perfection the art of utilizing every moment.

Five o’clock in the morning found Graetz at his desk. Until nine he gave uninterrupted attention to his literary work. After that hour he was in the habit of devoting himself to his lectures. He carried on an extensive correspondence, found leisure for all sorts of things, and was fond of the innocent gayeties of social life. He retired late, and in general needed but little sleep. His sound, almost invincible nervous system was supplemented by a constitution calculated to supply his extraordinary capacity for work with a proper physical basis. He was of average height, and habitually bent forward his lean and spare, but sinewy, muscular figure, built upon a strong bony frame. His face was somewhat marred by pock-marks, but his head made a massive, unusual impression. Soft, chestnut-brown, later gray hair, in fair though not clustering abundance, crowned his board-like, square forehead. His sharp, observant eyes, grayish-brown in color, betokened the owner’s enjoyment of life, and a somewhat large, prominent nose with its delicate nostrils, quivering like “feelers,” gave his long, oval, bony face its characteristic searching expression. Sometimes sadness played about his lips, but usually they were curled by mockery, irony, and defiance, as though sarcastic words might dart out at any moment. In point of fact, sharp satire occasionally spiced his conversation, which, as a rule, however, was far from fulfilling the expectations aroused by his writings. In his younger years happy moments found him full of jokes and pranks for the delectation of his domestic circle, and at all times he displayed unquenchable zest for life and cheerful optimism. Love of family was a dominant trait in him. Towards his wife his bearing was always tender and attentive, as though the honeymoon had not passed; towards his daughter it was marked by the perfection of gallantry; towards his sons he exercised forbearance and self-sacrificing devotion, and his aged father he met with the filial respect of Talmudic times. He enjoyed and cultivated intercourse with friends. For a friend, for any person or cause that had enlisted his sympathy, he was ready to pledge himself. Deeply moved by the sad conditions prevalent in Palestine, he had brought thence a plan for the education of Jewish orphans in Jerusalem. He and his traveling companions founded a society, and he exerted himself to secure a fund, small though it might be, for the promotion of its object. For this purpose he took journey after journey, delivered lectures, at first much against his inclination, in many cities, and even accepted an invitation to go to Galicia, where he was received with joyful demonstrations and overwhelmed with flattering homage. Encouraged by such successes, he persisted, until he had put the society upon a modest but secure basis, which enables it to continue its good work to this day.

Robust and vigorous as he felt himself, he undertook in his old age a work in which he meant to sum up his Bible studies of a critical and exegetical character. He counted, not upon the sympathy of his contemporaries, but upon the appreciation of a late posterity. All subordinate occupations were dropped. In 1888 he even discontinued the publication of the Monatsschrift, none of his pupils being able then to assume the editorial management. In order to give a clear, comprehensive review of the results of his Biblical text studies, he proposed to print the Hebrew Bible in its entirety with emendations and short notes justifying them. In 1891 all preparatory work was completed, and the printing was begun. How he cherished this life-work of his is evident from the prospectus. Contrary to his custom, he addresses himself to his friends, and requests them to assist him in his venture.

“At the end of my life,” he says in the prospectus, “I have undertaken the laborious task of summarizing the emendations of the text of the Holy Scriptures, the admissibility and justification of which no less than the necessity for which the accompanying prospectus sets forth.... I beg you to aid my efforts ... in order that the pecuniary risk incurred may not too far transcend my means.”

This prospectus appeared in July, 1891, and it was the last word that issued from the author’s untiring pen for publication.

Although he was escaping the infirmities and ailments of the old, and considered himself perfectly well, and certainly felt vigorous, age had crept upon him insidiously. The action of his heart was so much impaired that his physicians became anxious about his condition. According to his annual custom he went to Carlsbad for the cure of minor indispositions. Thence he had planned to go to Munich on a few days’ visit to his oldest son, who occupied the position of “extraordinary” professor of physics at the University there, and then spend some time resting at Reichenhall with his son’s family. Shortly before the time set for his departure from Carlsbad, where he had not taken care of himself, he had a fainting spell of so serious a nature that the physician urged Mrs. Graetz to return to Breslau without delay. He considered the precaution exaggerated, and when he finally yielded, he refused to forego the trip to Munich. There, at his son’s house, he suffered, in the night between the sixth and the seventh of September, a violent attack of colic. Under the influence of opium administered by a physician the pain passed away, and he dropped to sleep. When his wife arose early in the morning to observe his condition, she found him lying in bed lifeless. His heart had ceased to act, and so a life replete with work and rich in attainment had too soon come to an end. His remains were transported to Breslau, and three days later, in the presence of a numerous gathering of his pupils and friends and amid demonstrations of general sympathy, they were consigned to the grave in the Jewish cemetery.

His wife, whose days are devoted to the memory of her celebrated husband, considered it incumbent upon her to publish his last work, the manuscript of which was all but complete, but of which only a few sheets had issued from the press at the time of Graetz’s death. The editor is Professor W. Bacher of Buda-Pesth, one of Graetz’s disciples, who has won honorable repute by his editions and his studies in the history of Hebrew grammar and exegesis. Besides the editorial work proper, he has been forced to supply from memoranda a considerable piece in the Prophets, which by some mischance had gone astray. On the whole, this critical Bible edition, by which the departed author set great store, has been pursued by peculiar ill-luck. Unlike his other productions it must miss the author’s pruning and correcting hand as it passes through the press. It is doomed to appear as an incomplete because a posthumous work. The title is: Emendationes in plerosque Sacræ Scripturæ Veteris Testamente libros secundum veterum versiones nec non auxiliis criticis cæteris adhibitis. Ex relicto defuncti auctoris manuscripto edidit Guil. Bacher. 3 Pts. Breslau, 1892–1894. The Hebrew text of the Bible is treated boldly and subjectively. But it remains for a later generation to pass final judgment upon the value of Graetz’s contributions to the critical determination of the Bible text. There can be no doubt that Graetz was as much a master in the field of exegesis as in that of history.

The time will come when his contemporaries will be envied for the privilege of having stood face to face with one so great and noble. Those days, to be sure, will not know the grief and sorrow that befell us when unexpectedly and without warning the revered teacher was removed from our sight. Still less will there be a suspicion of the self-reproaches that assail us too late for having frequently had a keen eye for the detection of minute shortcomings and inadequacies, the inherent foibles of the human kind, rather than a willing, attentive ear to listen to the suggestions and solutions so lavishly offered. After all, the most beautiful blossoms put forth by him, the best fruits produced by his mind, are in his writings; he that can read may enjoy them.

Note.--While this Memoir was passing through the press, the commission on the history of the Jews of Germany, spoken of on pp. 78–80, after five years of inactivity again showed signs of life in the form of a valuable publication by a rabbi: Das Martyrologium des Nürnberger Memorbuches by Dr. S. Salfeld. At the same time, the promise of the completion of Die Regesten zur Geschichte der Juden, etc., is held out.

TABLES OF JEWISH HISTORY.

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF JEWISH HISTORY.