Part 8

And though he in that loathly prison pine, Where thou hast brought him though he willed it not; What fool will trust this idle tale of thine, That he and Dante should be thus forgot; Well, let them for a time endure their fate, God's mercy will be theirs or soon or late!^[87-1]

As already stated Immanuel wrote various books on Hebrew grammar, exegesis, and cabbala, and composed, in addition to several Biblical commentaries, a collection of Hebrew novelettes and poems. But while his _Eben Bochan_ and _Migdal Oz_—which exist only in MSS. and treat of Hebrew grammar and cabbala respectively—would, at the present day, hardly be considered to have any literary or scientific value, his commentaries on the Bible, and more especially those on the Book of Proverbs (published at Naples in 1487), deserve some attention. The latter is particularly interesting, inasmuch as it throws some light on the author's views on the study of secular subjects by his Italian co-religionists, and gives us some idea of the general feeling and spirit of the time. The following example will give an idea of Immanuel's method when commenting on a passage that seemed to him to offer an opportunity for adding a thought of his own. Thus, in the commentary on the Book of Proverbs (xxvi. 13), Immanuel explains the passage, “The slothful (man) saith, There is a lion in the way; a lion in the street,” as follows:—

“This passage refers specially to those persons who are too slow in the acquirement of knowledge and wisdom, which they consider as dangerous as it is to meet a fierce lion in the street. They say, How should we apply ourselves to the study of general science, since among its most prominent devotees there are so many sceptics and unbelievers; or how should we be expected to study logic, as it is a subject that infatuates the student and leads him to erroneous conclusions? As to philosophy (they say) we must shun it altogether, since it owes its existence to Aristotle, who, like the rest of the ancient philosophers, did not believe in the divine origin of our law. But these fools (Immanuel continues) forget that we must accept truth from whatever quarter it may come. Moreover, every kind of science which these sluggards describe as ‘foreign’ (‪חיצונים‬), belonged originally to the Jewish people, and was first taught in our sacred tongue. Unfortunately those very books were lost during our perilous wanderings through the world. Of King Solomon's numerous poetical and scientific works we only possess three. It is more than a mere legend that kings and learned men of different countries came to him with the express purpose of being instructed by him in those subjects, and that they subsequently committed to writing the information they received. These teachings are still in the possession of other nations, while we, ourselves, lost them during our wanderings; and it is even a wonder that the twenty-four volumes of Holy Writ have been preserved by us up to the present day. It is, therefore, most probable that natural science, metaphysics, and philosophy were originally taught by Solomon, although their origin is nowadays ascribed to Plato and Aristotle. With regard to the excellent art of music it is well known that it originated in our religion, and has found keen votaries in men like Asaph and Samuel; but in our own time it is exclusively practised by Christians, while the Jews have very little knowledge of it. As for logic, it certainly does _not_ lead the student astray, but, on the contrary, it cultivates his mind and prepares him for the study of other sciences. Therefore, whoever calls logic a ‘foreign’ science, or speaks contemptuously of Plato and Aristotle, because they did not belong to the Jewish nation, is like the sluggard who exclaims: ‘A lion is in the way.’”

This extract, being a specimen of the contents of Immanuel's commentaries on various parts of the Bible, shows that there is nothing particularly noteworthy in the author's exposition of the text, but that the interest lies rather in his interpolations.

His reputation chiefly depends on his collection of Hebrew novelettes and poems, called _Machberoth_. This volume stands unrivalled in the whole domain of Hebrew literature. It consists of twenty-eight chapters, in almost all of which the so-called Makāmāt form is used, that is to say, they are written in rhymed prose, interspersed with poems. Some of these are composed in the melodious form introduced by the Italian poet Fra Guittone di Arezzo (about 1259), the principal characteristics of which are _rima chiusa_ and _rima alternata_. But, although his poetry is full of charm for style and expression, it must yield to his rhymed prose. The principal feature of this kind of composition lies in the application of short Biblical phrases to profane objects or actions. It was first used by certain Arabian poets, who treated the text of the Koran after this fashion, and who subsequently found several imitators among Hebrew writers, especially among those belonging to the so-called Spanish school. In fact, according to Rabbi Moses ben Chabib (about 1486), the writing of rhymed prose in Hebrew was in his time a universally approved rhetorical device. But there was a vast difference between Immanuel and the other writers of this school. While the latter, as a rule, endeavoured to preserve a spirit of reverence towards the Hebrew text, Immanuel placed no restraint upon his pen. Not seldom he sacrificed good taste and decency to his point, and many a simple Biblical phrase he turns into a vehicle for a pun or satirical remark of a coarse description. His favourite subjects were Love, Wine, and Song, and he was not less fond of occasionally making mock of sacred things. Even the sight of an old churchyard with a heap of ruined tombstones could not check his buffoonery. It seems to have become a second nature with him, so much so that having once begun to scoff at the follies of other people, he does not hesitate to make merry over his own vanities, and it is in this sense that the strange expressions of self-approbation, which are found here and there in the _Machberoth_, must be construed. That Immanuel's self-praise should be regarded as serious seems scarcely compatible with the frequent eulogies of others with which his book abounds.

It would be at once vain and superfluous to offer an apology for the frivolities and the uncouth wit which characterize the _Machberoth_. Immanuel, although a Hebrew by descent and training, and eminently proficient in Jewish lore and tradition, was at the same time thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the Italian nation and literature. The character of his writings will be recognized from the fact that the principal representative of the Italian novelists belonging to the period was Boccaccio, the author of that collection of humorous but licentious tales, the _Decameron_. It seems reasonable to suppose that Immanuel, in adopting the style of the Italian novelists of his time, thought he would attract and amuse Jewish readers by reproducing in a Hebrew garb popular ideas and expressions. In this he attained considerable success, though he was placed at a disadvantage as compared with his Italian rivals. For, while they had the whole world for their field, Immanuel had to content himself with using as the objects of his satire persons and things known only to the small circle of his own acquaintances. Thus he mostly ridiculed the vanities and follies of his Jewish neighbours, the petty quarrels of husband and wife, or the jealousies of the would-be literary man. But, notwithstanding their defects, the _Machberoth_ possess a lasting charm. They have always found a great number of readers, although they were condemned by Moses di Rieti (died about 1500), the author of a short history of Hebrew literature called _Mikdash Me'at_ (‪מקדש מעט‬), and their perusal was interdicted a century later by Joseph Caro, the compiler of the well-known code, the _Shulchan Aruch_. The best proof of their popularity lies in the fact that they have gone through several editions, the first being produced at Brescia, in the year 1492, and the last at Lemberg in 1870. In recent years parts of them have been translated into German by Steinschneider, Stern, Geiger, Fürst, and others.

As regards the title of the book and the arrangement of its parts, the following remarks are offered. The word _Machberoth_, or, as some people would read it _Mechabroth_, is the plural of the singular noun _machbereth_, formed of the radix ‪חַבֵּר‬, which originally means “to join” or “to put together,” so that in the present sense the noun signifies “collections.” Immanuel purposely used the plural form as the title of his book to prevent it from being confounded with a similar work composed by Alcharizi, which is entitled _Machbereth Ithiel_, where the same term appears in the singular. Immanuel's work consists, as already stated above, of twenty-eight chapters, which seem to have been written at different times, and to have then been loosely strung together. Only the second, third, and the last three chapters of the book bear a superscription to indicate the subject of which they treat. Several of these chapters were composed by the author when he was still comparatively young, and are distinguished by the same genial Epicureanism which Horace displayed when he sang:—

Quid sit futurum cras fuge quaerere, et Quem Fors dierum cunque dabit lucro Appone.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that the greater part of the _Machberoth_ must belong to a later period in the author's life, when he had experienced the caprices of fortune, and his troubles had disturbed the serenity of his mind. But even then his laughter does not entirely desert him. It ought, moreover, to be remembered that injustice would be done to Immanuel, if his private life and character were to be judged in the light of his writings. In these he certainly appears as an absolute libertine, and as a scoffer at religion and religious practices; but in real life he was very different. One would rather think that the _Machberoth_ were intended to serve as a mirror, in which the culpable habits of a certain class of his Jewish contemporaries were reflected. And it is for this reason that they have more than a mere literary value. They furnish the reader with a description of the moral and social condition of an important section of the Italian Jews during part of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and have been referred to by our modern Jewish historians in this connexion^[92-1]. Thus, for instance, we gather from some passages occurring in the _Machberoth_ (chap. 1) that the Jewish community of Rome was at that period in a flourishing condition, that many of its members lived in large and magnificently furnished houses, and that some of them also possessed estates in the country. Further, we are told (ibid. chap. 23) that general science, philosophy, and poetry were assiduously studied and appreciated by the Jews of Rome, and that those who attained great learning among them were held in high estimation. How eager Jewish young men in Italy were in those days to increase their knowledge of books may be seen from the following incident recorded in the _Machberoth_ (chap. 8). A Jewish bookseller, travelling from Spain to Rome, left at Perugia one of his boxes containing various books, together with a list of their titles. Immanuel and his young friends were so anxious to read the contents that, in the absence of their owner, they broke the box open, and read the books it contained with the greatest delight. When on his return the bookseller learnt what had happened, Immanuel appeased his wrath by the witty remark, “that the Prophet Moses on his once breaking the two tablets of the Covenant, not only did not arouse God's anger, but was even praised for the act.”

Of the Jewish women of the time Immanuel does not always draw a flattering picture. They, or rather those belonging to the best and most educated families, mixed freely with men; but their desire for beautiful and costly apparel led the girls to prefer the wealthy suitor to his poorer, though perhaps more deserving, rival. A great many Jewish ladies, however, were, according to him, modest and simple in their taste; and if he satirizes the luxurious habits of Jewish women, and their laxity in point of good manners, it need not be supposed that they were in the majority.

To convey to English readers some idea of the contents of the _Machberoth_ a few extracts are here given, which cannot of course be expected to present the charm of the original, but are accurate in themselves.

After a short prologue, in which Immanuel speaks of the tendency of the _Machberoth_ and of the reason which induced him to publish them, the author addresses his muse in a passage, of which the following lines form a part:—

Oh, let thy teachings softly flow like heaven's dew, That they inspire mankind with what is good and true; And let “Immanuel” a potent watchword be, Ever to make all men in soul and body free.

The first chapter of the _Machberoth_ was apparently written at a late period of the author's life, when he was in exile. He speaks bitterly of his open and secret enemies, who were the direct cause of his ruin; but he consoles himself with the thought that he is their superior in culture, and that he had a wife and comforter, who excelled their wives in virtue and beauty, and who might serve to all women as a model for imitation. That virtue and beauty do not always go hand in hand is a frequent maxim of his:—

Virtue dwells rarely in the bright-eyed and fair, But in wrinkled old crones with silver-white hair.

The author is now in his proper element, and pretending to stand with a friend of his on the public promenade, where the ladies of the town are walking to and fro, he singles out two of them. The one, called Tamar, he describes as a model of perfect beauty; and the other, Beriah by name, he designates as the personification of ugliness. The merits of the one, and the demerits of the other, are described by Immanuel in the following manner:—

Tamar looketh up, like the stars shine her eyes, Beriah appears, and Satan's self flies. Tamar's form divine excites angels' desire, Beriah e'en crows with dismay might inspire. Tamar, like the sun, makes all things bright appear, Beriah were an omen, if seen at New Year. Tamar is most lovely and fair to distraction, Beriah gives mankind of love not a fraction. Tamar, bright as the moon, is yet e'er full of light, Beriah might be queen 'mongst the fiends of the night. Tamar, would I were a flower, tender and sweet, To be trampled to earth by her pretty feet. Beriah 'tis from fear of beholding her face That Messiah delayeth in showing his grace. Tamar is enchanting, delighting the eyes, Beriah a nightmare in woman's disguise.

Some beautiful lyrics devoted to the same subject are to be found in the sixteenth chapter of the _Machberoth_, two of which, under the respective headings “Thine Eyes” and “Paradise and Hell,” run as follows:—

Thine Eyes.

Thine eyes are as bright, O thou sweetest gazelle, As the glittering rays of the sun's golden spell, And thy face glows as fair in the light of the day As the red blushing sky when the morning is gay.

Thy tresses of gold are as neatly bedight, As though they were wrought by enchantment's kind might; Thou openest thy lips in a smile or a sigh, And thy pearly teeth gleam like the stars in the sky.

Ah, shall I praise the bright charm of thine eyes, That move every heart, that win all by surprise? For peerless thy charms, and unequalled thy birth; _Thou_ art of heaven, all _others_ of earth.

Paradise and Hell.

At times in my spirit I fitfully ponder, Where shall I pass after death from this light, Do heaven's bright glories await me, I wonder, Or Lucifer's kingdom of darkness and night?

In the one, though 'tis perhaps of ill reputation, A crowd of gay damsels will sit by my side; But in heaven there's boredom and mental starvation, To hoary old men and old crones I'll be tied.

And so I will shun the abodes of the holy, And fly from the sky, which is dull, so I deem; Let hell be my dwelling; there is no melancholy, Where love reigns for ever and ever supreme.

There are several novelettes in the _Machberoth_ dealing with various piquant incidents, but the two following are perhaps most suitable for quotation. In themselves they are slight enough, but they become a ready vehicle for the author's satire. In one of them (chap. 14) a clever trick is described; how a certain legacy hunter succeeded in obtaining a large gift from some trustees. A wealthy Jew living in Rome had a quarrelsome woman for a wife and a spendthrift and a fool for a son, both of whom embittered his life. One day, the wretched man fled from his native town with all his movables, and settled in Greece, where he lived for a number of years in peace and contentment. Shortly before his death he made his will, leaving all his property to his prodigal son. As executors of his will he nominated some elders of the local community. When in due course the father died, and the intelligence of his death and testament was made known in Rome, the son took no steps to have the will executed. Meanwhile a certain swindler, hearing of this, presented himself before the executors with every sign of grief, and claimed the legacy as the son and heir of the deceased. The executors, without troubling themselves very much about his credentials, handed over the legacy to him. When some time after the rightful heir appeared, he was laughed to shame, in spite of his producing genuine credentials.

In the second novelette (chap. 23) an incident is recorded that occurred to the author in his practice as a physician. He was once called in to a patient, who was suffering from indigestion. Immanuel prescribed some medicine, and advised him to remain in bed till the following morning, when he hoped to see him again, and to find him completely recovered. Now, the patient was by way of being a poet, and on that particular night, feeling himself inspired, he got out of bed and composed a long poem. This he proudly showed Immanuel on the following morning, telling him at the same time that the medicine had done him no good. “Pardon me, my friend,” said Immanuel, “my medicine has had an excellent effect upon you: it has removed from your brain a large quantity of rubbishing poetry.”

Wit of another kind is shown in Immanuel's exegetical dialogue (chap. 11), in which he explains some Biblical passages and phrases that had been misunderstood by various persons, who had come to ask him for his opinion. The following will serve as a specimen of the whole.

A man, who apparently considered himself an expert in Biblical lore, asked the author quite seriously how it was that, having always been told that the “law” had been given on Mount Sinai, in another passage, occurring in the Book of Esther (iii. 15), it is expressly stated that “the law was given in Shushan,” thus mistaking the Mosaic law for that promulgated by King Ahasuerus (for the destruction of all his Jewish subjects). But Immanuel was equal to the occasion, and in an equally serious manner said: “You are quite right, my friend, but you seem to have misunderstood the meaning of the word “Shushan.” The latter does not refer to the _place_, but to the _time_ in which the law was given. This was in the Shushan-season (‪שושן‬=“rose”), when the rose is in its full bloom, which is, as everybody knows, in spring time.”

On another occasion Immanuel treats satirically of the theme which Horace dealt with in his first satire, beginning:—

Qui fit, Maecenas, ut nemo quam sibi sortem, &c.

The author represents a number of persons, each of whom is dissatisfied with his position. They learn, however, that those very persons who had been the objects of their envy, themselves suffered from various unimagined evils, and accordingly declare on oath that they would never consent to change from what they actually are.

Immanuel does not, however, restrict himself to humorous subjects. He shows himself possessed of tender sensibility, which finds expression in several pathetic passages. The sight of tombstones and graves, the death of a near relative or friend, or any kindred event, at once brings with it serious reflections. He then addresses himself to God in fervent prayer, and pours out his innermost soul in strains that are full of warmth and feeling, and impress the mind by their earnestness and devotion. There are nineteen prayers and hymns to be found in the _Machberoth_, most of which bear the stamp of the author's religious sentiments; the one that occurs in chapter 26, beginning with the words ‪אלהים נפלו פני בזכרי וכ׳‬, has been inserted in the so-called Roman _Machsor_ (published in the year 1436), which proves its effectiveness as a liturgical poem, and shows at the same time that even a century after the author's death his name was honourably remembered by the Jews of Italy.

To this class of poetry may be added a lengthy epitaph (chap. 21), composed by Immanuel as a kind of “In Memoriam” of himself. In the same chapter is also to be found a funeral oration in rhymed prose, which the author set down as an exemplar of the one he expected would be delivered at his bier after his death. But, even when discussing so serious a topic as death and burial, Immanuel cannot abstain from making jokes on himself and his supposed mourners. Why, he asks mockingly, should he himself fare better than Noah and Solomon, who had to leave behind them, the one a splendid vineyard, and the other a number of beautiful wives? Those who mourn for him, will, he thinks, no doubt forget how to laugh after he is no more, but he expects that they will regain their spirits when they read his posthumous work.

The last, and in some respects, perhaps, the most interesting chapter in the _Machberoth_, is the one entitled _Ha-Topheth-ve-Ha-Eden_, or “Hell and Paradise.” If, after all that has been said, there is still any doubt about the friendship between Dante and Immanuel, this chapter, as well as the circumstances in which it was written, will effectively dispel it. According to recent investigations (cp. Ersch and Gruber's _Real-Encyklopädie_, _sub_ “Dante”), it would seem that Dante's _Inferno_ and _Purgatorio_ were not published before the years 1314 and 1318 respectively, because certain incidents and events that happened during those years are mentioned therein. At that time Immanuel was about fifty years old, and had just begun his wanderings in a state of destitution. Now, considering that in those times, before the invention of printing, a written copy of any important work could only be procured by wealthy people, the question naturally arises, From whom did Immanuel obtain a MS. copy of the _Divina Commedia_ that enabled him to compose an imitation of it in Hebrew? This perplexing question can, however, be answered in the following manner. Although Immanuel was not in possession of a copy of Dante's poem, he had most likely heard it read and recited by the author himself before the members of the political and literary society called “Young Italy,” to which reference has already been made. And he was no doubt so deeply impressed by the work that it remained fresh in his memory for a number of years. It may, perhaps, be supposed that he was thus able to write his Hebrew imitation without actually having a written copy before him.