Simon Dubnow

In investigating the evolution of national types, we discover that development proceeds from the material to the spiritual and from external simplicity to inner complexity. On lower cultural levels the differences between peoples are largely natural in character; on higher levels the differences are historical-cultural in character. On the basis of the predominant characteristics of each period we can distinguish the following stages in the evolution of national types: (1) the tribal type, (2) the territorial-political or autonomous type, (3) the cultural-historical or spiritual type.
Each type is combined with the succeeding one in either mechanical or organic fashion, that is, the earlier may be preserved in the later type in its original form, or it may disappear and take on a new form. Let us examine each of these types separately.

In the earliest stage of civilization, the racial or tribal group is merely a product of nature. Common origin, territory and climate leave their stamp on the physical and mental characteristics of the members of the family group, who may be concentrated in one territory or in many (in fixed settlements or nomadic). Thus the "nation," in original and biological sense (natio, from nasci, to be born), comes into being. General tribal characteristics become crystallized, as the law of heredity operates over many generations, and in this way a fundamental pattern is established, the natural or tribal stage of nationality.

Even in this stage of development, however, the influence of material culture begins to compete with the influence of nature. Gradually the influence of nature over man decreases, as man gains mastery over it. Cultural factors weaken the more obvious effects of territory and climate and they obscure somewhat the more dominant characteristics of the tribal type (later on the same effects are produced by migrations, intermarriage, etc.). As the reciprocal influences between man and nature grow more complex, the cultural pattern creates a more complex individuality. The more the tribe adjusts itself to its natural environment and, in turn, adapts the environment to its essential needs, the more will its economic needs find expression in various forms of co-operation, thus planting the seeds of the social organization of the future. As the struggle for survival takes on definite forms, common tendencies, habits, attitudes and beliefs become fixed among the members of the whole tribal group. Common language is one of the strongest forces cementing the members of the group and setting it apart from other tribal groups. Thus, the transition from material to spiritual culture becomes marked and the second stage of nationality, the cultural, emerges from the natural or tribal foundations.

The growing social cohesion, which results from economic cooperation and other forms of human association, leads necessarily to a unified and stable organization in the form of a civic union or state.

The territory, hitherto only part of the natural environment, becomes a political factor which unites the various tribes into a nation. An organized political authority subjects the whole state to fixed laws and protects its frontiers against the attacks of foreign nations. Political life educates the nation along certain definite lines. Social discipline, well-defined duties and rights of citizens (equal at least within each class and party) and the setting off of the state from other states, all these create for the members of the political community numerous new needs, preferences and aspirations. The unifying force is the concept of native land, with the will to defend or strengthen it. The heroic deeds of patriots and the legends of the great men who won eternal fame in the annals of the nation become a powerful factor in the development of the historical consciousness during this early period.

The territorial-political type of nationality emerges in various stages and forms which are conditioned by the level of civilization of the group and by the degree of its self-government. The annals of human history contain frequent examples of small states being swallowed up by big states. As a result, the conquered nations, whose national cultural character was not too well developed, lose all or some of their characteristics and become fused with nations of a clear-cut and distinct type. Spiritually and culturally strong nations, however, preserve their identity, even under conditions of political subordination, thanks to their social autonomy, that is, their ability to order their communal self-government in keeping with their historical traditions and inner needs. The conquering nations on their side are themselves often endangered by political hypertrophy. Through conquests and forceful annexations of territory they create polyglot empires of alien and often hostile national groups. Thus arise those inner tensions which lead to the breakup of absolutist monarchies and to the destruction of the conquering nation as well (Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, ancient Rome). The ruling nation, powerful in a political sense, disappears often precisely because the element of political power outweighs its spiritual resources. After a period of social and ethical decline it comes to be absorbed in the family of younger nations, who bear within them the seeds of sound cultural development. From this we see that the decisive factor for the destiny of a nation is not its external power but its spiritual force, the quality of its culture and the inner cohesion of its members.

The culture of the political or social stage is higher and more differentiated than that of the earlier tribal stage. The growth of material culture is intimately related to the advance of its spiritual creativity. Social life gives rise to altruistic ideas and emotions. Religion is elevated to a comprehensive world view. The moral sense becomes deepened and takes on well-defined forms of ethical ideals as expressed by priests and sages. Language, up to then only a means of communication among the members of the tribal group, now becomes a tool for spiritual intercourse and for the creation of literary and scientific values. . .. History and legend no longer glorify exploits solely of conquest or defense, but also spiritual strength, dedication to lofty cultural values, to freedom of thought, religion and conviction. These historical traditions inspire succeeding generations and unite the nation in a powerful bond of common feelings of love and hatred. The earlier tribal foundation and the chain of historical traditions, when joined with the spiritual progress of the people, create a broad basis for national consciousness. From this moment the future of the nation depends mainly on the depth of this consciousness, on the strength of the national spirit, on the power of the cultural foundations created over generations and on the ability of the nation to further develop its creative powers. The natural instinct of national self-preservation creates for itself forms of autonomous development, and if they prove inadequate in the political sphere they are directed to the social or cultural spheres, to all areas of life and thought.

A test of the full development of the national type comes in the case of a people that has lost its political independence, a factor generally regarded as a necessary condition for national existence. A people that has been deprived of its political liberty, though remaining on its own territory but subject to alien rule, undoubtedly gives evidence of a strong national will and a store of vital spiritual energies if it persists in carrying on a social life of its own and aspires as far as possible to internal autonomy. History records many nations that found themselves in such a condition but succeeded for a long time in preserving their identity, beginning with Judea and Greece during the period of Roman expansion and up to Ireland and Poland in modern times. There is, however, a still more rigid test for the maturity of a nation. When a people loses not only its political independence but also its land, when the storm of history uproots it and removes it far from its natural homeland and it becomes dispersed and scattered in alien lands, and in addition loses its unifying language; if, despite the fact that the external national bonds have been destroyed, such a nation still maintains itself for many years, creates an independent existence, reveals a stubborn determination to carry on its autonomous development such a people has reached the highest stage of cultural-historical individuality and may be said to be indestructible, if only it cling forcefully to its national will. We have many examples in history of nations that have become dispersed among other nations. We find only one instance, however, of a people that has survived for thousands of years despite dispersion and loss of homeland. This unique people is the people of Israel.

This fact must not be viewed as a historical miracle. The Jewish people went through the same stages of national development as did other peoples. Due to its unique historical destiny, however, the elements which condition the national type became crystallized in different forms and value-relationships. Due to this unique destiny, the spiritual elements outweighed decisively the material and political elements. A cursory survey of the course of Jewish history will demonstrate this point.

II

Up to the period of the Kings in the history of Israel, the tribal element was decisive for the development of the Jewish national type. From various Semitic groups (the sons of Terah, Abraham, etc.) a number of nomadic tribes emerged and came to be known as "Children of Israel”. Their habitat in Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt, and the Sinai desert left its imprint upon these blood-related tribes. Their character was formed by a struggle, not only with nature, but also with men (their slavery in Egypt). The conquest of Canaan gave the Children of Israel a fixed territory and thus a powerful instrument for unity. During the period of the Judges the skeleton of tribal organization was still discernible in the dominance of the family patriarch and in the division into tribes. But the skeleton gradually became covered with the skin of a common territory. The moment of political unification was approaching. It was realized during the period of the first kings: Saul, David and Solomon.

The brilliant flash of a "great power" status lighted up the Jewish commonwealth and the ambition lured it on to conquer the neighboring tribes in order to secure its frontiers. However, under the political conditions prevailing in the Near East shortly before the emergence of the huge empires of Assyria and Babylonia, the role of conqueror was too much for the powers of the tribes of Israel. Internal divisions still alive among the tribes and the struggle for hegemony within the nation broke up the unity of their state. The period of the divided kingdom, of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel, followed.

In the meantime, a new unifying force emerged, the force of a unique spiritual culture in which religion predominated. Out of the embryo of a tribal monotheism (Jahwe, the God of Israel), which differed from the idolatry of the other nations more in degree than in essence, there developed after much agitation and stumbling the concept of universal monotheism (Jahwe, the God of all mankind) with Israel as its standard bearer. This religious nucleus served as the basis for a system of social and ethical ideas that was infused into the life stream of the people through the flaming words of the Prophets. The Prophets strove to combine the universal national elements into one harmonious whole and were forced to seek new paths to secure the inner strength of the nation. In the face of the growing power of the aggressive empires of Assyria and Babylonia and the danger of the impending political destruction of the weak Kingdom of Israel, the Prophets acted energetically to shift the center of gravity of national survival from the political sphere to the social and spiritual spheres. They taught that political weakness or even the loss of statehood were no danger as long as the people were united and bound together by inner spiritual energy, for the state was merely the shell placed around the kernel, which was the nation. The Prophets sought to lift Judaism at one stroke to the highest level of national existence; but they were ahead of their times. Of necessity the struggle for national survival led to a natural selection: the weaker elements (the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes) in the nation could not withstand the pressure of the national catastrophe and most of them were assimilated into the neighboring peoples, while the stronger elements (the Kingdom of Judah) avoided annihilation and with slow but sure steps continued their path toward the creation of a new type of spiritual nation.

This type showed its vitality for the first time in the brief period of the Babylonian exile, after the Kingdom of Judah had lost its political independence as well as its land, and somewhat later, during the prolonged period of Persian and Greek rule, when the land but not political independence was restored. Although the theocracy (or better: hierocracy, that is, the rule of the priests) of that period was still a far cry from the lofty ethical standards of the Prophets, yet it succeeded in establishing Jewish national existence on the two firm principles of social and cultural self-rule. The "People of the Book" came into being (after the time of Ezra the Scribe), drank from the stream of its earlier spiritual creations and produced new cultural values. In spite of internal differences, a definite national form emerged, fixed like a solitary island rock in the stormy sea of the neighboring peoples. As if by a powerful force, all parts of the Jewish Diaspora in the Near East and in North Africa were drawn to this island and when a new storm was unleashed by history - Greek culture extending its magic influence over the idols of Asia and its peoples - it was able to shake this Jewish island, but not to destroy it. A historical moment without parallel in the history of mankind arrived: not two political states but two cultures, two world views, Judaism and Hellenism, stood facing each other.

The triumph of Judaism for a time restored even political independence to Judea and led to the establishment of the Hasmonean kingdom. Once more the struggle for supremacy was renewed between the principles of political and spiritual nationalism, with the Sadducees as the protagonists of political and military power while the Pharisees asserted the primacy of spiritual culture and internal self-rule for the national community. The iron hand of Rome contributed to the victory of the Pharisees and their rule of the Law (nomocracy). Since the resistance of the political zealots could not break the Roman hold, a period of spiritual resistance began which was crowned with success. The destruction of the Second Temple did not lead to the annihilation of the nation. The roots of the weakened and dispersed nation continued to remain attached to its native territory, Roman Palestine, and it was here that a new center of social and spiritual self-government arose (the period of the Patriarchate) that provided sustenance to the far-flung branches of the Diaspora (the hegemony of Palestine).

History, however, once more put the national maturity of Israel to a severe test. Up to that time the Diaspora had merely been a dependency of Palestine. In the Middle Ages nothing but the Diaspora remained and the hegemony of Palestine vanished. The native land became a minute geographic point on the map of the three continents over which the Jews were dispersed. The nation without a state also became a nation without a territory. The great period of the migrations, the political conquests of Islam in the East, and of Christianity in the West split up and weakened the Jewish Diaspora. Could such a scattered and dispersed national organism exist for long? History answered in the affirmative and the organism continued on its course. The period of the hegemonic centers of the Diaspora had arrived.

In those countries where the Jews were numerically strong, concentrated centers of national-spiritual energies were created, repositories of vital cultural forces, to which the smaller centers of the Jewish Diaspora looked for leadership. In this way there came the development of the great centers of the Jewish Diaspora in Babylonia (from the fifth to the eleventh centuries), Spain (from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries), Germany and Poland (from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries). In each of these centers autonomous communal organizations came into being that embraced many diverse aspects of the social and cultural life of the people (the Exilarchs and the Geonim in Babylonia, the Aljama in Spain, the rule of the kahal and of associations of communities with their central institutions or "Councils of the Lands" in Poland) . . .. The Jewish nation, deprived of geographical boundaries, staked out for itself social and spiritual limits in all the countries of the dispersion. ... In place of political autonomy it created for itself social and cultural autonomy. All through this period the Jewish nation passed through a variety of stages: prosperity and stagnation, progress and mere survival, full and retarded growth. The nation as a whole, however, lived and developed as one, as a definite national personality, in all parts of the Diaspora.

What force, then, was it that kept alive this dispersed nation, without state and without territory, all these centuries? Was it the written law of the Bible, the ordinances of the Talmud and the decisions of the rabbis, the isolation of the ghetto, inner autonomy, faith in the coming of the Messiah? All of them indeed contributed, but they were only external manifestations of forms of national survival. These were not fixed forms, but forms that changed and were altered in the course of history. Quite apart from these, the source of vitality of the Jewish people consists in this: that this people, after it had passed through the stages of tribal nationalism, ancient culture and political territory, was able to establish itself and fortify itself in the highest stage, the spiritual and historical-cultural, and succeeded in crystallizing itself as a spiritual people that draws the sap of its existence from a natural or intellectual “will to live”. All this came only because in the play of forces that sustained Jewish nationalism those elements not dependent on territory counted more than those dependent on territory. In the measure that the positive political factors declined, the spiritual factors increased in importance, in the same way, for example, that the sense of touch or hearing of a blind man is sharpened at the expense of his defective sense of sight. Over a period of many generations, unique characteristics, emotions, and historical tendencies, the effects of the sufferings and pains of the past, were brought out by the law of heredity. The collective personality grew deeper and the power to resist the leveling influences of an alien environment waxed stronger. The weapons used by the nation in its struggle for survival were adapted to more difficult conditions. In this struggle there were critical and dangerous moments, periods of separation of the chaff from the grain, when the weaker parts of the nation were cut off and assimilated with other peoples (assimilation in varying degrees is a constant factor throughout Jewish history). In the end, however, the healthy kernel of the nation survived and drew its strength from a determined national will.

To the degree that a people creates its own history it is itself in equal measure created by it. In each generation it creates its own culture and is itself in turn the product of the creative efforts of all past generations. A nation is not merely an aggregate of individuals, but also of successive generations, a community of the living and the dead. Therefore, the law of heredity, the common denominator of various historical transformations operating below the threshold of consciousness, directs the course of development of national life and copes with the influences of the external environment.

Two forces interact in a living nation: the accumulation of culture and accumulated culture, the efforts of the living generation and the cultural storehouse and creative tools of the preceding generations. In time a national individuality becomes crystallized and leaves its imprint on the life of the individual. This national personality, however, is subject to a natural limit which emanates from the influences of the international environment to which the nation must adapt itself. A nation will survive, therefore, only if it develops a very strong individuality; otherwise, it must degenerate through assimilation and be absorbed by other nations. A nation that has the protective arsenal of a native land and state, a national language, schools and other cultural institutions, will be secure in its independent development even if it should be wanting in a pronounced national personality. But if these protective elements of the national type are lacking entirely or in part, they can only be replaced by a strengthening of inner defenses, that is, through a strong national will to develop cultural autonomy and through determined resistance against the assimilating influence of the external environment. This is the lesson to be learned from the history of the Jews in the Diaspora.

III

What is the distinguishing mark of nationality? This question has up to most recent times aroused sharp controversy both in theory and in practice. I shall not dwell on the details of the controversy. I wish to underscore but one fact: the scientific definitions of the concept "nation" exhibit the same transition from the material to spiritual factors as the concrete historical development of nations. Philosophers of the old school looked upon nationality as the product of biological elements, climate and territory. Contemporary legal philosophers and political scientists frequently confuse the terms "nation" and "state." For them the typical nation is the uni-national state and, where they find a multi-national state, they condemn the national minority to assimilation and fusion with the ruling majority (this opinion originated during the French Revolution and was for a long time widely accepted in jurisprudence). More liberal political theorists benevolently accord the right of cultural autonomy to national groups which do not have a state of their own but have not yet lost their territory and their language. Lately, however, the view has gained ground that a nation may be defined as a historical-cultural group which is conscious of itself as a nation even though it may have lost all or some of the external characteristics of nationality (state, territory or language), provided it possesses the determination to continue developing its own personality in the future. Objective criteria of nationality are giving way in the scientific definitions of the concept to subjective factors.

Theoretical sociologists and political scientists have arrived at the conclusion that subjective or spiritual factors are supreme in the development of the national type, while all the material factors are but stages leading to the highest point of this development, namely, the crystallization of a well-defined and conscious national individuality. In the same way in which spiritual affinity is a more important factor than blood relationship in families of higher cultural circles (there are numerous instances of families being broken up because of profound differences in ethical and spiritual aspirations among their members), so also in higher types of national families the common spiritual aspirations are the unifying and cohesive forces.

What is the supreme moving force in the national struggles of our time for political freedom and communal autonomy, if not this desire of nations to preserve their spiritual possessions and to develop freely their historical personality? The German War of Liberation against Napoleon I at the beginning of the nineteenth century and similarly the subsequent struggle of the Italians against Austria were battles against the injection of foreign national culture into the national life of the Germans and Italians. In all liberation movements of oppressed peoples, in all uprisings against political tyranny, a strong sense of national self-preservation is manifested which claims for itself the right to free cultural development. Usually, the shell of political or territorial independence is placed around this precious kernel - the freedom of the nation - in order to protect it. From time to time, however, a nation is forced to forego this protective shell of political autonomy and to remain content with social and cultural autonomy. In place of the external instruments of nationality, which it had to give up, it strengthens its inner resources, the consciousness of its identity, the collective will, and the common aspirations necessary for building up its autonomous organizations and institutions, its language, its educational system and its literature. If this struggle is carried on successfully over a long period, it is safe to predict that it will also succeed in the future, provided the utmost is done to increase and strengthen national unity.

IV

After what has been said above it should be clear to all how greatly mistaken are those Jews and non-Jews who deny to the Jews of the Diaspora the right to call themselves a nation, only because they lack the specific external marks of a nationality which were taken from them or which became weakened during the nation's long history. Only he who completely fails to understand the nature of the national "ego" and of its development can refuse to accord nationality to this old historic community which, during the last 2,000 years, has been transformed from a simple nation into the very archetype of a nation, a nation in the purest and loftiest sense, which has attained the highest stage of nationality.

The rejection of Jewish nationalism among Jews stems from two opposing camps, the orthodox and the freethinkers. Since religion completely dominated all spheres of Jewish life for two thousand years, the mass of orthodox Jews accepted the idea that Judaism is not a nationality in the accepted sense but a religious community living according to sacred traditions, laws and commandments that encompass the life of the individual and the community. The mass of the people who do not understand the interdependence of historic events failed to see that all the ancient national values of the Jewish nation - the historical festivals, customs and usages, laws, social institutions, the whole system of self-administration retained in the Diaspora - all had been incorporated gradually and artificially into the sphere of religion. The national body became wrapped in the garb of religion so that ... its true form was unrecognizable.

In essence the views of the orthodox may be formulated as follows: "Judaism is a religious nation, its members are held together by religious ordinances and practical commandments; whoever violates this religion removes himself from the national community.” This view is not opposed to the concept of a spiritual or cultural nation. It is mistaken only in the sense that it confuses the concepts of "spiritual" and "cultural" with "religious." It is the result of a limited perspective characteristic of men who do not distinguish between fossilized tradition and living, creative development. Let the mass of the orthodox consider nationality and religion as one, for the time being; ... let them be satisfied with this partial understanding as long as they cannot arrive at a full and complete understanding based on theoretical analysis and research. In the end they too will see the light. The observing and believing Jew will realize that there are many Jewish freethinkers who, while disregarding the religious laws and commandments, are nevertheless true and dedicated members of their people and that they not only remain within the fold of Judaism but strive with all their power to strengthen and exalt it. From this realization it is but one step to theoretical analysis and research. These Jews will then come to differentiate religion from nationality, and the scientific study of history will reveal to them how these concepts came to be confused. When that happens the movement of the secularization of the national idea, which has already begun among an important segment of the community in modern times, will gain ground among the broad strata of the people.

While the mass of old-type orthodox Jews sees itself in practice as a religious nation and resists assimilation in the surrounding nations by the force of its faith, the assimilationist intelligentsia, on the other hand (mostly freethinkers or the neo-orthodox of the West), sees in Judaism only a religious community, a union of synagogues which imposes no national duties or discipline whatsoever on its members. According to this view, the Jew can become a member of another nation and remain a member of the Mosaic faith. He is a German Jew, for example, in the same way that there are German Protestants or German Catholics. It follows logically from this premise that a freethinking or non-religious Jew must be excluded from the community of Jews of the Mosaic faith. This corollary is usually glossed over so that whatever remains of Jewish "unity" may not be disturbed. I shall discuss this doctrine, which was in vogue only a short time ago but has recently lost ground among its adherents, in greater detail in the following Letters. Here I only wish to point out that it contradicts both the traditional view of many past generations that the "religious nation" must be kept pure, and the scientific view of the non-assimilability of the spiritual or cultural nation. This kind of doctrine comes neither from religion nor from science. It is the invention of naive ideologues, or calculating opportunists, who seek to justify by means of this artificial doctrine their desire to assimilate into the foreign environment in order to benefit themselves and their children. This is but a repetition of the process of natural selection and of the weeding out of those weak elements of the nation which are unable to bear the pressure of the alien environment.

The natural tendency to strip the Jewish national idea of its religious cloak is liable to lead to still another extreme position. While the orthodox say: “The Jewish religion is the sole foundation of our nationality” the freethinkers can claim: “The Jewish religion is not at all a necessary condition of nationality; it can exist without it by virtue of the law of psychic heredity and cultural-historical factors." In practice this theory would make it possible to justify religious apostasy. A Jew could give up Judaism, embrace another religion, and still remain a Jew by nationality. Those who hold this view are guilty of a grave and dangerous error. By aspiring to secularism, by separating the national idea from religion, we aim only to negate the supremacy of religion, but not to eliminate it from the storehouse of national cultural treasures. If we wish to preserve Judaism as a cultural-historical type of nation, we must realize that the religion of Judaism is one of the integral foundations of national culture and that anyone who seeks to destroy it undermines the very basis of national existence. Between us and the orthodox Jews there is only this difference: they recognize a traditional Judaism the forms of which were set from the beginning for all eternity, while we believe in an evolutionary Judaism in which new and old forms are always being assumed or discarded and which adjusts itself unceasingly to new cultural conditions. Their main concern is holiness, ours is creative freedom. Here I may be asked: "And what of those who do not accept religion in general and the Jewish religion in particular?" This is a most important question and demands special attention.

Historical Judaism is not merely a religion, like Christianity or Islam. Judaism is a body of culture. Unique historical conditions which brought the life of the Jewish nation under the dominance of religion converted Judaism into an all-embracing world view which encompasses religious, ethical, social, messianic, political and philosophical elements. In each of these areas, history has piled up layer upon layer. The Bible, the Talmud, Rabbinic Judaism, rationalist Jewish theology, Jewish mysticism are not merely chapters in Jewish religious teaching but also stages in the development of Judaism. Judaism is broad enough and variegated enough so that any man in Israel can draw from its source according to his spirit and outlook.

The orthodox Jew accepts all the principles of religious faith and practice formed in the course of generations and rigidly set down in the codes of law and in the ordinances of the rabbis. The "reformed" Jew rejects the decisions of the rabbis and even the laws of the Talmud and accepts only the religious principles, laws and obligations of the Bible. Adherents of rationalist theology find satisfaction in the religious philosophy of the Middle Ages. The freethinking Jew who accepts only ethical teaching can find an exalted moral and social world-view in the teachings of the Hebrew Prophets. The ethical teachings of the Prophets can well become the “religion of the future,” the moral doctrine of a free society. All those who base their religion on poetic content will find in the Bible and in medieval Jewish literature a source of poetry that fills the soul with magic splendor. Followers of mysticism will find a great treasure house in the kabbala and to a greater degree in hasidism, the “religion of the heart.” Thus, one may be a Jew according to the teaching of the Prophets or of the Talmud, according to Moses Maimonides or the Shulhan Arukh, according to Moses Mendelssohn or the Besht, according to Geiger or Samson Raphael Hirsch, as long as one does not reject entirely the national idea, which is not a matter of theory but a historical fact.

In the end those Jews to whom any form of religion is alien will prefer to remain within the Jewish fold rather than embrace another faith. The enlightened among us, who in the main tend toward rationalism and scientific positivism, will not betray the Covenant of Abraham out of conviction and submit to the yoke of another religion for the simple reason that, if the principles of the Jewish religion, which are so closely related to rationalism, do not suit them, the symbols and mysticism of Christianity surely will not do so. Diderot once said that the way of science leads from Christianity to Judaism and thence to philosophical Deism. In any event, a rationalist in search of ethical ideals will turn to the philosophy of life of the biblical prophets rather than to the other-worldly doctrine of the Gospels.

A non-believing Jew may be counted as an adherent of Judaism so long as he does not identify himself with any other faith that conforms to his philosophical views. He may also join the "dissidents” or Konfessionslose, who do not believe in any religion. In any case he cannot attach himself to another Church out of sincere conviction. Absence of faith takes the Jew out of the national community only if he believes in complete national assimilation. In practice, conversion to another faith, under conditions prevailing in the Diaspora, means also separation from the Jewish nation. If this may not apply to the apostate himself, it certainly does to his family, which has no choice but to assimilate with the non-Jewish environment in the national as well as the religious sense. A convert of this kind may consider himself in his innermost heart as a “Christian son of the Jewish nation”; in fact, however, the tie between the two is broken. This does not apply, of course, to the Marranos of Spain who, under a Christian cloak, clung to Judaism and educated their children in its spirit. In general, a Jew may be a son of the Jewish faith potentially or actually, or he may be without any religion at all; but exit from Judaism by acceptance of the Christian religion means exit from the Jewish nation.

In his “Historical Letters,” the Russian publicist Lavrov (Mirtov) discusses the theory that each nation realizes its own distinct idea in the course of the general progress of mankind. More precisely, he raises the question whether there is a typical national idea which "is not limited only to a definite period but embraces and links all epochs in the life of a nation?" The author answers the question in the negative, and supports his position by pointing to the example of two “historical nations” the Jews and the French. “The Jews” says Lavrov, "despite their small numbers, fulfilled a historic role in the ancient world and in medieval Europe. Even in our own day they have not lost their historic worth. . .. The names of Jewish Socialists are so deeply inscribed in both scientific literature and in the annals of the modern Socialist movement that it is difficult to deny their influence, which can hardly be separated from their nationality. . .. However, is it possible to assume, even for a moment, that the Prophets of the first Exile and the medieval kabbalists, the rabbis of the Talmud and the translators of Ibn-Roshd, and the generation of Heine, Rothschild, Meyerbeer, Marx and Lassalle, all expressed the same idea in history? And there is hardly a nation in which separation from the environment and tradition were of such overriding importance as with the Jews." The author concludes . . .: “There is no such thing as a general idea running like a silk thread through the entire history of a nation. . ..”

I do not intend to contradict this general conclusion, especially since I myself have drawn attention to the many changes in the Jewish cultural pattern which goes by the name of “Judaism.” I am equally removed from the doctrine of a predetermined national "mission" and of a "national spirit" forced into a definite mold. . .. I agree with the Russian sociologist Struve that "every attempt to identify the content and the form of the national spirit with one constant principle is liable to stunt its growth, to petrify it and to fix its content for all time." I further agree with him "that the national spirit continues to develop in the workshop of national life." However, this does not preclude the possibility of singling out a posteriori one or more character traits typical of the history of a nation. In the history of Judaism, for example, there is no single definite idea which runs through all periods like a silk thread. There are various ideas, with increasing cultural creativity and deep yearning for social progress in every generation. A people which, in the course of the thousands of years of its existence, amassed a working capital of spirituality, a people which has developed uninterruptedly without recourse to savagery or lawlessness, has reached a level the like of which cannot be found even among nations that reached the highest stage of cultural development.

I am convinced, therefore, that every nation has the right to extol its past achievements, its historic deeds and the values which it contributed to the store of mankind in order to justify its right to national existence. . .. This fact alone should be enough to make anyone blush who dares to maintain that this old historic people, which witnessed the development of Europe from its savage prehistory to its period of culture, which has given to humanity two world religions and which continues to advance proudly on its beaten path, that this people could or should blot out its own peculiar features and become absorbed in other nations whose culture is briefer in time and inferior in experience. Against such a shameful demand we must advance, not some unique "mission" of Israel, but rather the determined will of the nation to continue its free historic development under the necessary conditions of autonomy.

We subordinate the Jewish national idea neither to a "mission" idea nor to the traditional forms of the Jewish law, but bind it to the free growth of the nation on its spiritual soil. The future of the nation depends on its autonomous culture; it is not predetermined but develops incessantly, and such autonomous culture will, as a matter of course, also be a national culture, a continuation and perfection of everything the nation created in the course of its previous historical existence.

V

The charges usually leveled against nationalism in general are also directed against Jewish nationalism. The chief point made is that it runs counter to the fundamental principle of the progress of humanity. . .. The basic error in these arguments arises from a confusion of terms, from the failure to distinguish between the two forms of nationalism, national individualism and national egotism.

National individualism, whose historical and psychological roots we have discussed above, involves the striving by every people to retain its originality and to preserve the necessary internal or external cultural or political autonomy in order to insure its own free development. It is the fruitful and creative will of a national group to remain true to itself, to improve and to adorn its historical forms, and to defend the freedom of its collective personality. This definitely is in keeping with the principles of ethics and social progress symbolized in the slogan of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The freedom of the national individual flows from the freedom of the individual as a human being. Just as the individual enjoys freedom in the community, the nation also needs to be free in the international community. The principle of freedom implies the principle of equality, which sets limits to liberty. All national cultural groups, irrespective of their size or political conditions, are equal with respect to the sanctity of their national rights; and if several national groups are joined together into one state, no single dominant nationality has the right to suppress the individuality of the national minority. Only then is national “fraternity,” that is, the quiet and peaceful coexistence of various nationalities, possible, if no group tries to suppress or devour the others and if none must fear attack on its existence. This is the meaning of national individualism.

National egotism, on the other hand, means the complete rejection of all these progressive principles. It represents the ambition of the ruling nationality to dominate over the dependent national groups, the desire of the national majority of a state or region to force its culture upon the national minority (the majority forcing the minority to accept its language, its educational system, its social organization and its economic institutions). It constitutes the negation of freedom and equality in relations between nationalities. National egotism is characterized by strife, hostility and aggression; national individualism fights only in self-defense. The former assumes the form of "national imperialism" and "national rivalry" and stands condemned by the moral principles of humanity. The latter was always looked upon with favor by enlightened circles and manifested itself either in the form of a political liberation movement ... or in the defense of the inner autonomy of national minorities living under strong nations. . ..

On the whole, people always knew in practice how to differentiate between true and false nationalism, between nationalism as a liberating force and aggressive and oppressive nationalism. It is only in theory that confusion of terms in this area still prevails and that clarification and elucidation is needed. In one of the following Letters I shall deal in detail with the problem of "national ethics." At present I can only outline in a general way the ethical standards on which Jewish nationalism rests.

There is absolutely no doubt that Jewish nationalism in essence has nothing in common with any tendency toward violence. As a spiritual or historical-cultural nation, deprived of any possibility of aspiring to political triumphs, of seizing territory by force or of subjecting other nations to cultural domination (language, religion and education), it is concerned with only one thing: protecting its national individuality and safeguarding its autonomous development in all states everywhere in the Diaspora. It has no aggressive national aspirations even of the kind found among other peoples that lack political independence but live on their own soil and show the tendency to wipe out the national minorities living in their midst (for example the behavior of the Poles toward the Jews in Russian Poland, and toward the Ruthenians and Jews in Austria). The Jewish nationality is an outstanding example of a collective individuality which protects itself against attacks from the outside but never attacks and is not able to do so. A nationality of this kind manifests the highest sense of social justice, which demands that the equality of all nations be recognized as an equal right of all to defend themselves and their internal autonomous life.

Does this, however, imply isolation and separation from the world at large, a withdrawal into a national shell? To be a true and useful member of a community one does not have to hide his face and his personality and to lower his character and his ambitions to fit a general pattern. Mass character types of this kind are not a creative element in the community, but rather a passive and slow-moving mixed multitude. A nation whose features have become indistinct has no cultural values within the family of nations. A nation that is uprooted from its spiritual soil withers and degenerates into sterility and is unable to create new cultural values for the enrichment of mankind. . ..

. . . The national principle stands between the individual and the social principle. It is not the abstract human being, but the human being as a member of a definite nationality, that is the actual member of the social organism. The individual finds expression in the state and in society with all his individual characteristics, and to these belong also his national characteristics. Every human group appears to the rest of the world in its own national physiognomy, which is connected with the inner structure of its life, and only as an individual collectivity does it become a cultural and social force. The instinct of national self-preservation grows stronger as the dangers which threaten it increase. ... In a nation without land or state and in danger of being absorbed by other peoples, the national instinct takes on the form of eternal vigilance and impresses its stamp upon all manifestations in the life of both individual and community. As the pressure from without increases, each member of a cultural nationality, not protected by state frontiers or armed might, must reaffirm the moral imperative: “Act in such a way as to preserve the autonomy of your people and its perfection!” This imperative must become the supreme criterion in the life of Jewry, exposed as it is to dangers from every side. This imperative must rouse and strengthen the national will. The absence of such strength in any part of the persecuted nation would indicate a diseased will in one part of the national organism. To diagnose precisely this disease and to prescribe the necessary therapy is one of the important tasks for our writers in this period of transition in which we live.

All that has been presented in this Letter leads us to the following general theses:

(1) A nationality, in its over-all development, is a cultural-historical collectivity whose members are united originally by common descent, language, territory, and state, but who after some time reach a spiritual unity based upon a common cultural heritage, historical traditions, common spiritual and social ideals and other typical characteristics of development.

(2) A nationality which went through all these stages of development in the past, which disposes of a store of common ideas, sentiments and needs in the present, and which gives expression to aspirations of independent development in the future must have autonomy in one form or another (political or social or cultural), in keeping with its position in the family of nations.

(3) The consciousness of the nationality itself is the main criterion of its existence. "I think of myself as a nationality therefore I am" is the formula of the national-cultural group. This consciousness manifests itself concretely in the strengthening of the national will to protect and defend its autonomy in its various social forms. A nationality which lacks the defensive protection of state or territory develops, instead, forces of inner defense and employs its national energy to strengthen the social and spiritual factors for unity which serve it as weapons in the struggle for national survival.

(4) The Jewish nationality which fulfills all these conditions is the highest type of cultural-historical or spiritual nation. Its long and unique historical development toughened the nation and energized its vital strength even though it had neither a unified state nor a territory. It will continue to exist as a nationality and strengthen its national will as it has done in the past, although the forms will be different and more in keeping with modern cultural conditions.

(5) In point of fact, the Jewish people exists as a cultural nationality in the consciousness of the majority of its members who still think of themselves as a "religious nation" since national culture was identified with religion, and since religion dominated the life of the people for many generations. The inevitable secularization of the national idea will in due time change the traditional religious consciousness into the historical evolutionary consciousness. The rejection of Jewish nationality in favor of the concept of a "religious group" ("the Jews are a religious group among every nation of the world") is rooted in assimilation and represents merely an attempt of certain parts of Diaspora Jewry to fuse with the ruling people....

(6) The teachings of Judaism, the creation of a national culture, approximate the culture of humanity through the principle of evolutionary development and not of tradition. The rejection of Judaism in this form by means of a change of religion means in fact exodus from the national community, separation from the congregation of Israel.

(7) Morally, Jewish nationalism must be understood as a manifestation of national individualism which has no connection whatever with national egotism.

These theses, presented thus far only in theoretical formulation, will be clarified in detail in the following Letters on the basis of data drawn from life in the past as well as the present.