Hebrew literature -- History and criticism; Jewish literature -- History and criticism; Jews in literature
theological tests at the universities, tests which indeed did “reward
and punish” doctrines. Mendelssohn goes on: “Let everyone who does not
disturb public happiness, who is obedient to the civil government,
who acts righteously towards his fellow-man, be allowed to speak as he
thinks, to pray to God after his own fashion, or after the fashion of
his fathers, and to seek eternal salvation where he thinks he may find
it.” No one, unless it be that earlier Jewish philosopher Spinoza, had
ever put the case for toleration so cogently. Whether Mendelssohn’s
own principles are consistent with his further conclusion that once a
Jew always a Jew, will ever be doubted. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 44a) had
said: An Israelite, though he sin, remains an Israelite. Mendelssohn
rather said: An Israelite has no right to sin. True, the world need
not accept Judaism, but the Jew may never reject it. “I do not see,”
cries Mendelssohn, “how those who were born in the house of Jacob can,
in any conscientious manner, disencumber themselves of the law. We are
allowed to think about the law, to inquire into its spirit ... but all
our fine reasoning cannot exonerate us from the strict obedience we owe
to it.” I am not now criticising Mendelssohn. I am trying to expound
him. To live under the law of the State and at the same time to remain
loyal to the law of Judaism is hard. But Mendelssohn went on: _Bear
both burdens_. That assuredly is a counsel which should be inscribed
in golden letters over the portal of Judaism now, even though we may
interpret the burdens differently in our different circumstances.
Mendelssohn’s masterpiece includes much else. But what precedes ought
to be enough to whet readers’ appetites for the whole meal. On an
occasion when I had a long talk with William James, I spoke to him
of Mendelssohn, and he admitted that his own Pragmatic theories were
paralleled by the _Jerusalem_. He promised to write on the subject,
but death claimed him all too soon. Whether we agree with Mendelssohn
or not, let us at least agree in appreciation of his genius. What he
did, and what we do not do, is to face unflinchingly the discussion
of fundamentals. Reading Mendelssohn is to breathe the fresh air. But
there’s the rub! _Read_ Mendelssohn? How, if we know no German? It is
deplorable that the _Jerusalem_ is no longer accessible in English. I
say no longer, because once it was accessible. And not once only, but
twice.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account