I POLITICAL AND SOCIAL THOUGHT CONTAINED IN THE JEWISH AMERICAN N’OV-ELV(1867 -1927)_ Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ARTHUR IOS’EPH GIULEN _ 1969 . Hhfilb I III IIIIIIIIII II III II IIIIIIIII This is to certify that the Arthur Joseph Gittlen thesis entitled POLITICAL AND SOCIAL THOUGHT CONTAINED IN THE JEWISH-AMERICAN NOVEL (1867 - 1927) presented bg Arthur Joseph Gittlen has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M— degree in M Baa-r 97/033 Majdr professor Date w%¢’:% l 96? 0-169 .1“ '9 F 351’ ABSTRACT POLITICAL AND SOCIAL THOUGHT CONTAINED IN THE JEWISH—AMERICAN.NOVEL.(1867—1927) By Arthur Joseph Gittlen This dissertation is concerned with the Jewish—American novel written in English between the years 1867 and 1927 by Jewish authors about Jewish subjects and characters. While in the broadest sense this dissertation is concerned with both the esthetic and social characteristics of the Jewish novel during this period, its fundamental consideration is the several social and political attitudes that are apparent in the novels of this time period. Finally, this disserta- tion argues that esthetically poor literature--and certainly nearly all of the Jewish novels of this period regrettably fall into this category—-serves, in this instance, the highly valuable purpose of providing an accurate and insightful record of an important American minority group as it moved from the virtually closed society of the Jewish ghettos of the larger American cities into the pluralistic society of the "American main stream." Clearly implicit throughout this discussion of the Jewish-American novel is a concept of the Jewish people as a distinctive and unique subculture within human society Arthur Joseph Gittlen whose historical and comtemporary activities have influenced the artist's attitudes toward his art as well as his life. In tracing the development of the JewisheAmerican novel be- tween the years 1867 and 1927 this study begins with the Southern rural novel and closes with the big city ghetto novel. The year 1867 was selected as the beginning point for an obvious reason: During that year, Differences, the first Jewish—American novel, was published. On the other hand, the reasons for drawing this study to a close after 1927 are somewhat more arbitrary. Beginning with 1928, and for a decade or more thereafter, Jewish-American fiction assumes a progressively Marxist character. Without exception, these works grow out of an exceptional set of human circum— stances and esthetic considerations shaped by the dynamic international social movements of the twenties and thirties. Because of the complexity of this phase of Jewish-American fiction, and the number of works involved, I felt it to be an undertaking worthy of an extended analysis all its own. The method employed in this study is primarily that of synopsis with explication and interpretation. A number of comparisons are drawn between works of one author and those of another. In the same manner the various works are ex- amined as to their relative merits as pieces of art. Finally, however, this study is intended to demonstrate the valuable comments these thirteen works makes on what is considered by many to be the most varied and exciting period of Jewish- American history. POLITICAL AND SOCIAL THOUGHT CONTAINED IN THE JEWISH-AMERICAN NOVEL (1867-1927) By Arthur Joseph Gittlen A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Comparative Literature 1969 Dedicated to Wandee in appreciation of her encouragement and sympathy. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A thank you is due Professors Barry Gross and Russel Nye for their careful reading of this manuscript and their thoughtful suggestions regarding its content and development. Acknowledgment is gratefully made to Funk and Wagnalls Company for permission to use excerpts frmn The Spirit of the Ghetto by Hutchins Hapgood. Copyright, l902 by Funk and Wagnalls Company and copyright, 1965 by Funk and Wagnalls Company, Incorporated. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. WET ISAmi).000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 II. LITERARY.AND SOCIAL INFLUENCES................. 36 III. PART I. EARLY FICTION; THE NINETEENTH CENWRYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.0... 60 PART II. A STEP FORWARD INTO THE TWENTIETH CENT-[TRY (1900-1910)0.09.00.00.00...on. 7“- IV. A NEW DIRECTION................................ 117 V. PASSION AND POVERTY............................ 147 POSTSCRIPT............................................. 190 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................... 202 CHAPTER I WHAT IS A JEW? This dissertation is concerned with the American Jewish novel written in English between the years 1867 and 1927 by Jewish authors about Jewish subjects and characters. While in the broadest sense this dissertation is concerned with both the esthetic and social characteristics of the Jewish novel during this period, its fundamental con- sideration is the several social and political attitudes that are apparent in the novels of this time period. Finally, this dissertation argues that esthetically poor literature—— and certainly nearly all of the Jewish novels of this period regrettably fall into this category--serves, in this instance, the highly valuable purpose of providing an accurate and insightful record of an important American minority group as it moved from the Old World mores practiced in the Jewish ghettos of the larger American cities into the mores of the "American main stream." Let me introduce my remarks regarding the Jewish novel by stating that the arbitrary distinction that I have desig- zzated as the working definition of the Jewish novel does, Vfiithout a doubt, excude more artists and fiction concerned hfiith.the Jewish theme than it includes. Of course, American 2 non-Jews write about Jewish characters and Jewish subject matter. In fact, in a number of cases, such characters and issues are the sole concerns of their fiction. Perhaps if the number of novels written by non-Jews in America about Jewish characters and issues were added up and compared with the number of Jewish novelists writing about the same topics, the former would outnumber the latter. Furthermore, if one examines the number of Jewish authors who allude to Jewish topics only as a secondary consideration of their fiction, and/or create minor Jewish characters interacting withrnn- Jews in non-Jewish concerns, it becomes increasingly clear that what constitutes Jewish subject matter in American fic- tion is a coat of many colors. It is for just such reasons that some students of literature argue that there is no literary sub-genre such as the American Jewish novel. For example, they ask, at what point does a character in an American novel cease to be an American national, irrespective of ethnic background, and become identifiable instead as an American Jew distinctly separate from.other.Americans? Furthermore, they maintain, if the Jew is a separate sub-species in literature, then what of the Pole, the German, and the Irish.American? Certainly all of these ethnic groups are represented in substantial .numbers of fictional works in American literature, Ineffect, these critics are asking: Does each of these ethnic groups 'legitimately represent a distinct literary category in Ameri- canzfiction? And if such is the case, what criteria may be 3 used to determine their differences? In other words, in the case of the Jewish character, is his first and last name sufficient basis for distinguishing his "Jewishness"? Or is "Jewishness" only made clear if the author includes, along with the name, physical features traditionally regarded as Jewish characteristics? For example, characteristics which would include a careful description of a hooked nose, kinky hdr texture, and, especially, intensity about the character's eyes? It is the opinion of students of literature who refuse to recognize the Jewish novel as a literary sub-genre that so called "Jewishness" in a character is not convincingly revealed as a result of attaching a peculiar sounding name to that character, or by cataloguing certain of his physical character- istics. Furthermore, they argue that the question of how to determine "Jewishness" in an individual character in fiction is only the first of several increasingly difficult steps that the advocates of the sub-genre called the Jewish novel are required to take in order to make it clear at what point a work of American fiction as a whole may be judged Jewish. Therefore, in recognition of these objections to the view that indeed a category known as Jewish American fiction does exist, I would take the position that students of lit- erature who oppose accepting the Jewish novel as a sub-genre of American fiction on the grounds that it is practically impossible to distinguish "Jewishness" in characters and issues do appear--at first glance--to have a strong argument. LI Admittedly, non—Jews, as well as Jews, talk about such subjects as anti-Semitism, Zionism, and intermarriage both in and out of fiction. Certainly, none of the physical characteristics or issues mentioned in the above paragraphs, in and of themselves--or even lumped together--necessarily spell out with any degree of certainty that the character or characters are Jewish. To argue otherwise would be to assume that in fact the noun Jew when applied to either American, European, or Asian, labels a clearly identifiable species. Such, however, is not, according to many authorities, the case. For example, George Simpson and Milton Yinger raise the following question: Do the Jews constitute a Race? The answer to this question depends upon the existence of a combination of physical traits which would distinguish Jews from others. No such grouping of traits has been discovered by a rep- utable scientist. In every country Jews tend to approx- imate the local gentile type because of the intermixture which has invariably occurred. Usually a considerable part of a given Jewish population is physically indistin- guishable from the Christian or Moslem inhabitants of the area.1 These same authors go on at length to discuss the lack of scientific findings which would support the position that some portion of the human group can be separated from the rest in so far as they possess characteristics which identify them as "looking Jewish". Simpson and Yinger conclude: ...that the Jews are a mixed people derived originally from Caucasoid stocks in the eastern Mediterranean area. Insofar as the original stock remains the basis of their inheritance, they can sometimes be ideatified as eastern Mediterranean people, but not as Jews. However, Simpson and Yinger were the first reputable social scientists to attempt to establish an acceptable and comprehensive definition of what constitutes the human 5 grouping known as the Jews. During the latter half of the nineteenth century, scientific findings attempted to demon- strate how the Jew might be convincingly identified in light of his racial, national, religious, cultural, historical, or linguistic origins. For example, in 1886, Joseph Jacobs presented a paper before the Royal Anthropological Institute of London in which he attempted to classify the Jewish race on the basis of scientific measurements of anatomical and physiological features. In his paper, Joseph Jacobs divides persons who considered themselves as Jews into three categories: 1. A person who is Jewish both by virtue of his parents and the religion he practices. 2. A person who practices the Jewish religion, but whose parents were not Jews. 3. A person who was born a Jew, but does not practice the Jewish religion. Jacobs felt that a thorough examination of the differ- ences between and similarities of these various classes would lead to an understanding of "the anthropology of Jews." However, lacking significant data for the latter two cate- gories, Jacobs found it necessary to apologize to the members of the Institute for his failure to produce definite state- ments regarding the anthropological make—up of the "Jewish community."3 In 19h9, Melville J. Herskovits, comments on Jacobs' paper, declared: In all this we find adumbrated a recent dictionary definition of the Jew: "...any perfion of the Hebrew race or whose religion is Judaismd" 6 In other words, Jacobs' effort to describe a human group known as the Jewish race succeeded-—at best--in producing a highly general definition of this human type. However, the failure of Jacobs' paper to provide a precise and convincing answer to the traditionally vexing question of 'What is a Jew?', should not be viewed as a total loss. Rather, Jacobs' three categories managed to initiate a shift in emphasis for future investigators away from the heretofore exclusively religious exploration of 'Jewish characteristics' —-to explorations which tend to address themselves to biolog- ical and social/cultural considerations. For instance, in 1936, J. S. Huxley and A. C. Haddon concluded that the Jews were not a race. What the investi- gators did conclude during their study of human physical types was that the Jews constituted a group of human beings identifiable as a people. The Jews can rank neither as nation nor even as ethnic unit, but rather as a socio-religious group carrying large Mediterranean, Armenoid and many other elements, and varying greatly in physical characters. Like many other groups its members are held together by external pressures of various kinds, partly by a long historic memory, partly by a religion. These factors, acting through long ages, have produced a common consciousness which is relaxed when the pres- sures ar relaxed and intensified with the reverse process. Yet three years later, Carelton S. Coon, in his volum- inous consideration of human taxonomy described the Jews as an ethnic group, who "...like all or most ethnic groups they have their 'look,‘ ...the Jewish look seems to be one of the 7 most noticeable and most easily distinguished of character- istic facial expressions found within the family of white people."6 In 1942, as a result of further study, Coon elaborated on his classification of the Jews as an ethnic group: Not only are the Jews different to a measurable degree from the other people among whom they live, but they are a population .... (Jews)...are united biolog- ically as is the average intermarrying social or geographical unit found among white peoples; they have racial peculiarities which serve to differentiate the majority of them anthropometrically from their non-Jewish compatriots and neighbors. However, Coon's examination of the problem of whether the Jews are a race, people or ethnic group did not prove to be the last word on the subject. In l9h5, Wilton M. Krogman, defines what he believes sets the Jew apart from the rest of the human race. In an article which he prepared for the World Encyclopedia Institute he states that, as a result of lengthy persecution, the Jew has developed, in an effort to compensate for his second—class citizenship, "a set of be- havioral attitudes and responses that are often characteristic to the point of recognition and group definition."8 He goes on in this same article to make it perfectly clear that these characteristic attitudes and responses that may be distinguished as Jewish traits are products of cultural influences and are not the products of biology. Finally, Krogman completes his discussion by asserting that: "A Jew belongs not to a race but to a Jewish community."9 However, Krogman's designation of the Jews as a historical/cultural people was hardly the last word on the 8 subject. For example, in l9h2, Raymond Kennedy writing in particular about the American scene described the Jews in the United States as "a religio—national group occupying the status of a quasi-caste in American society."10 Furthermore, in addition to these and other socio- logical attempts to create a meaningful definition of the Jewish people, there have also been a substantial variety of unscientific definitions and generalizations about what Jews are and what they are not. These attempts to discuss the Jews have resulted in such observations as the Jewish ll 1! H H people are ”a social anomaly, a peculiar people, a unique i social phenomenon,’ and a "chimeric people leading a life of reality."11 Melville J. Herskovits, writing on the problem of "Who Are The Jews?" has this to say: "Of all human groupings, there is none wherein the problem of definition has proved "12 to be more difficult than for the Jews. It is Herskovits' position ...that it is neither race, nor such an aspect of physical type as nasality, nor a 'Jewish look' that affords terms in which the question 'Who are the Jews?‘ is to be answered. ...In like manner, language, culture, belief all exhibit so great a range of variation that no definition cast in terms of these concepts can be more than partial. Yet the Jews do represent a historic continuum, have survived as an identifiable, yet constantly shifting series of groups. Is there any least common denominator other than the designation 'Jew' that can be found to mark the historical 'fait accompli' that the Jew, however defined, seems to be? It is seriously to be questioned. A word can mean many things to many people, and no word, one may almost conclude, means more things to more people than does the word 'Jew.' 9 Up to this point only the problems the social scientist encounters in his attempts to pin down the specific meaning underlying the noun Jew have been considered. Obviously, other critical thinkers have considered the problem also. For instance, Leslie Fiedler, though not a social scientist, but clearly a social and literary critic, as well as author of several Jewish.American novels argues that the Jew in literature is less important for whatever qualities he might possess that might be iden- tified as 'Jewish,‘ and more important because: ...in the high literature of Europe and more slowly, in that of the United States, gentile and Jew have joined forces to portray the Jewish character as a figure reprefienting man's fate in the modern, urbanized world. Fiedler closes his discussion on this matter by stating: In general, the point of such portrayals is to suggest that we live in an age of rootlessness, alienation, and terror, in which the exiled condition so long thought pecu%iar to the Jew comes to seem the common human lot...1 For the most part, in his discusSion of the Jew in "Life and Death in the American Novel," Fiedler glosses over any concern for precisely identifying the nature of "Jewishness" as an unassailable characteristic of a certain number of people. Rather, Fiedler touches on the importance of any singular physical, social, or historical character- istics which might be distinguished as "Jewish," only in so far as the Jewish experience in the human community makes a commentary on mankind in general. As Fiedler himself has written: "(JewishnessJis an eminently marketable commodity.”16 10 In the same article he adds: "(Jewishness is) a passport into the heart of Gentile culture."17 In other words, the Jewish experience has often proven to be the human experi- ence. In so far as Fiedler's primary concern with "Jewish- ness" is not as a parochial topic, but rather as a typical experience of the human community, he does not differ appreciably from nearly all of those critics who have served notice that they are willing to grant that Jewish American literature has made a lasting, profound, and measurable im— pact on American literature. For example, Irving Malin stresses in "Jews and Americans," (the first full length treatment of Jewish American authors and their fiction): ...that Exile, no matter how it is interpreted, is a crucial moment for all Jews. Because the Jew recognizes his alienation from the Promised Land, he remains an outsider from his society. The more deeply he embraces the idea of Israel, the more unhappy he is in Exile. It is not surprising that he becomes in IsaacnRgsenfield's phrase, "a specialist in aliena- tion. At this point in his discussion, Malin considers the parallel he sees between the Jew's sense of alienation and the alienation experienced by the American pioneer and frontiersman as they stood on foreign soil cut off from Europe and civilization. It is Malin's opinion that "the alienation theme is deeply American."19 Furthermore, Malin maintains that the kinship felt by many American gentile readers in the twentieth century for Jewish fictional anti- heroes is a kinship born out of this mutual heritage of 11 alienation. In other words, once again, a Jewish literary critic argues that the 'marketability' of the Jewish theme comes out of the universality of its exile quality. It would seem to me that all of the foregoing discussion still leaves us with the questions: If both the social scientist and literary critic seem unable or unwilling to define precisely the singular physical and/or social charac— teristics of the human species known as Jew, how then can the individual student of literature ever expect to be able to distinguish a Jewish character or be expected to accept such a distinction as this dissertation purports--namely, that there is in a fact a sub—genre in American literature titled, the American Jewish novel? On the basis of the scientific evidence discussed earlier, it seems obvious that the social scientist has at best--and then only to a limited degree-—been able to recognize distinguishing physical and cultural/social traits that apply t°.§9fl9 Jews more often than non-Jews. Clearly, a precise statement of what is a Jew remains an accomplish- ment for the future. Certainly it would be something less than reasonable to expect that the layman should intelli- gently distinguish Jew from non-Jew when the professional cannot. Therefore, are some students of literature correct when they assert that the 'Jewish novel' is, upon close anal- ysis, no more or no less than a novel about a man or men-- independent of race and faith--seeking the sorts of goals and happiness typical of any man or men in similar surroundings? 12 I submit that the answer to such a question is a "yes" and a "no." Yes, certainly, the Jew both in and out of literature seeks "happiness" as his lot in the universe, and for the most part many of his individual goals as well as the individual means that he uses to achieve these goals are indistinguishable from the means and goals of non-Jews in similar or identical situations. And yet, at the same time, I submit that the Jew is distinguishable from his fellow men in so far as his Jewish subculture influences certain of his individual responses to and involvements in the larger American culture. Milton Yinger and George Simpson discuss a singular characteristic that, in my opinion, dges make the vast majority of Jews distinguishable from their non-Jewish peers: The Jewish religion in its traditional form, more than language, tradition, or secular culture, distin- guished European Jews from their Christian neighbors through the Middle Ages and into the nineteenth century. Through these centuries, and until the present time, Judaism has provided the basis for group solidarity among the Jews.20 Admittedly, as a study by Arthur Ruppin points out, 'the influence of Jewish religion on the life of the Jews is now incomparably weaker than in former times.’21 For example, the current character of Jewish dogma in America reflects the secularization that is characteristic of all major religious faiths in modern America. To argue other- wise would be to argue sheer nonsense. The phenomenon of the Americanization of all major religious faiths is an undeniable fact of modern American life. And, certainly, 13 part of that Americanization of the religious faiths has resulted in the devaluation of many of the traditional tenets and practices of these faiths. Yet, as Will Herberg explains, the overall effect of this religious transfor- mation has had an unique effect on the Jewish community. I quote at length from Mr. Herberg’s discussion on this point because I feel his words clearly depict this religious feeling of 'Jewishness' which has managed to bind the Jews together into a recognizable community. The first and second generations of Jews in America repeated the common immigrant pattern: immigrant foreignness followed by an anxious effort to overcome that foreignness and become American. But the third generation of American Jews, instead of somehow finally getting rid of their Jewishness, as the Italians were getting rid of their 'Italianness' and the Poles of their 'Polishness,’ actually began to reassert their Jewish identification and to return to their Jewishness. They too were striving to 'remember' what their parents had so often striven to 'forget,‘ but the content and consequences of their 'remembering' were strikingly different. We can account for this anomaly by recalling that the Jews came to this country not merely as an immi- grant group but also as a religious community; the name 'Jewish' designated both without distinction. With the third generation, the foreign—immigrant basis of the ethnic group began to disappear and the ethnic group as such began to give way. Among the Jews, as among other immigrants, the advancing dissolution of the old ethnic group meant the returning identification of the third generation with the religious community of its forebears, but among the Jews alone this reli— gious community bore the same name as the old ethnic group and was virtually coterminous with it. The young Jew for whom the Jewish immigrant—ethnic group had lost all meaning, because he was an American and not a foreigner, could still think of himself as a Jew, because to him being a Jew now meanzidentification with the Jewish religious community. What the Jewish third generation Treturned' to was of course, that which, as American, it could 'remember' of the heritage of its forebears-- in other words, their religion--but in returning to the religion it was also returning to Jewishness, in a sense in which the Italian or Polish third generation, 11I in returning to Catholicism, was not returning to 'Italianness' or 'Polishness.’ The dual meaning of ’Jewish' as covering both ethnic group and religion made the 'return' movement of the third generation into a source of renewed strength and vigor for the American Jewish community. Nor is Will Herberg-~in his dual role as social scientist and Jew-~alone in this view of 'Jewishness' and its relationship to the Jewish community. Louis Finkelstein, Chancellor of the Jewish Theological Semi- nary of America, while granting on the one hand, that there is perhaps no longer a fountainhead of Jewish authority established in a teacher or sect within the international body described as Jewish, maintains, on the other, that despite disagreements between Orthodox and Reform Jews regarding the observance of ritual and religious dogma, a religious feeling, a "consciousness of a Keneset Yisrael (the congregation. of Israel) which Solomon Schechter translated into 'Catholic Israel,’ serves as the historical energy to draw together these religious sects into the general body known to the world as the Jewish community.23 Albert I. Gordon, in his discussion on what consti- tutes the Jewish community explores further this sense of community which serves to unite those Jews who otherwise feel no compulsive force to become involved with one another. Gordon describes the type of Jew who has no compelling urge to partake in temple or synagogue affairs, who does not observe the religious holidays nor practices the religious rituals of the Jewish faith, and yet is a human being who 15 feels drawn emotionally to identify with the Jewish come munity both internationally as well as locally. Gordon, in his discussion, then proceeds to answer the question: For what reason does this human being feel himself drawn to identify with the Jewish community? In other words, Gordon is asking and attempting to answer, why does a man who has no interest in the traditional rituals of the Jewish faith nor intellectual respect for its teachings of immor- tality in a God-centered universe, still feel most at home with the Jewish community? Basing his answer on observations he made while studying the American Jewish community in Minneapolis, Gordon writes: In modern America there is less emphasis upon ritual and observance, less concern for the theological concepts and basic beliefs. The good Jew is generally regarded as the man who is charitable, who has a sense of social sympathy which prompts him to look upon all men as his brothers. The good Jew is one who has a highly developed ethical and moral sense, who practices these virtues in his home and in the market place, as well as in the synagogue. Finally, the good Jew is one who despite any personal denominational predilections works with and for a united Jewish community. In other words, Gordon takes the position that 'Jewish- ness'[in modern America]is most often and most clearly revealed by a particular expression of ethical and moral behavior. That is to say, a Jew is a human being who of his own volition acts--while under the aegis of a sub-group within the community composed of religious contemporaries dedicated to the same ends-—in harmony with the moralism (man is fundamentally good), optimism (man is good and will 16 therefore be perpetuated), and idealism (man can be brought into harmony with the will of God) of the Jewish faith. Furthermore, Gordon seems to be saying that in modern America this ethical action on the part of the Jew most often takes the form of activity whose end is to foster the well-being of mankind. In my opinion, Gordon's definition, as far as it goes, is an accurate expression of the Jewish—American outlook. But what is of importance here, and what must be examined before this question of ”What is a Jew? can be finally resolved, is the question: How does this ethical attitude of one man's concern for another make for a uniquely reli- gious experience called "Jewish?" Certainly, what Gordon describes in terms of the Jew's ethical and moral respon- sibility for his Jewish as well as non-Jewish brethren might equally apply to many individuals as well as sub-groups throughout American history. Finally, part of Gordon's statement as included above de-emphasizes the modern American Jew's concern with theology and ritual. In other words, what Gordon describes as the uniquely modern Jewish.American experience might as aptly and completely describe the experience of the Ethical Humanist. However, if we begin rather than end with Gordon's analysis of the ethical—moral quality of Judaism, while in turn recognizing that most often this kind of conduct is organized and guided along specific religious lines, we arrive at what "Jewishness" means in contemporary America. 17 To be sure, it is indeed doubtful that the biblical Hebrew would have recognized his religious brothers in the Polish ghettos of the fifteenth century. Or for that matter, is it likely that the nineteenth—century, Yiddish speaking Russian Jew would have recognized the contemporary Americanized Jew. It must be remembered, however, that the apparent differences between the Jew of today and the Jew of yesterday are closely associated with exterior appearance (dress and speech) and the expression of liturgical and doctrinal devotion. Yet, despite these obvious differences between the Jew of the past and the present, it must also be remembered that the present ethical-moral characteristic of the American Jewish community reflects closely, in many ways, the original teachings of the faith. Certainly the feeling of brotherhood, that is to say, the responsibility that one human being has for another, is clearly a historical and social fact of Jewish activity since the days of Abraham. Indeed, I am not arguing that either the concept or practice of brotherhood is exclusively Jewish. (Though there are those who argue that the ancient Hebrew was the first to pledge his allegiance to his fellow man.) What I am arguing, however, is that the responsibility that the Jew feels (and has felt) for his fellow man (Jew and non-Jew alike) is an attitude rooted in the teachings of the Hebrew scriptures and is historically reinforced in the practices of the Jewish community. 18 Therefore, I submit that Jews, wherever they might be in the world, are held together as a people (despite the fact that no precise definition of what is a Jew has been established on the basis of physical type or racio-religious group) by:(l) particular religious beliefs; (2) social practices and cultural traditions colored by religious beliefs; (3) values and attitudes that distinguish them from other religious groups of people. Furthermore, even though the exterior differences between Jews of one historical period and another are striking, still the ethical moral tradition in the Jewish faith has proven the building block upon which Jews of all periods have built their religious, cultural and personal lives. In addition, this heritage of religious dogma and cultural experience has produced a traceable character which has set the Jews apart from other religious and societal sub-cultures. Finally, in line with these conclusions, it is clear from.the many investigations made in the United States in this century to determine who and what is a Jew that indeed some unique set of social attitudes and responses, some unique set of religious practices and points of view do occur in sufficient numbers to suggest that the designation 'Jew' is still in the twentieth century a meaningful and viable con- figuration. Whether any one of these investigations can one day prove definitive in establishing how Jews resemble one another and differ from other groups of human beings is not my main concern here. Rather, I insist that the common l9 characteristics as I have listed them.must serve as the basis for discussing what is a Jew and what is the Jewish community. Furthermore, for our purposes in this disser- tation, I maintain that the distinctly Jewish character, as illustrated earlier, has continued into this century to serve as an immediately vital, shaping influence in the American Jewish community. In the remaining chapters of this dissertation, I shall attempt to describe how the ethical-moral tradition in the Jewish faith has shaped the attitudes and aims of a number of Jewish American authors. In saying this, I am also saying that what is perhaps most important in determining whether a work of American fiction may be judged Jewish is whether the setting of the concerns of the characters in the fiction produce a statement which emphasizes the ethical-moral values of the Jewish faith. Ultimately, of course, such a statement can be expressed in various ways. Specifically, it would be an error to describe the Jewish American novel as liter- ature which invariably settles on exclusively religious issues. However much the religious issue is a part of the literature of the American Jewish novel, it is not the entire picture. To be sure, I do not wish to suggest that the reli- gious theme is not in the front line of issues employed by the American Jewish authors between the years 1867 and 1927. lflua importance of the religious theme in the Jewish American noveal must not be underestimated; it is a part of nearly everfiy novel written during this period. After all, the 2O historical identity which the immigrant Jew brought to America‘ was religious, not nationalistic. In this light, the experience of the Jewish American immigrant was unlike that of all other American immigrants. Herman Bernstein, in his novel, Contrite Hearts develops the parallel between the Jew's religious sense of history and the apocalyptic quality of the New World when he has Cantor Isroel discuss with a Russian crony a letter he has received from.a former 'chedar' pupil who has emigrated to New York City. The question is raised by the crony whether Jews in America with their new—found economic and political freedom.are not losing their identity as Jews. To this question, Cantor Isroel replies: In America a man must do as the Americans do. When Moses went up to heaven for forty days he stayed there without food, like the angels; and when the angels came down to Abraham, they ate and drank like human beings. ...King David was a wise and good king—~but he was also a shepherd, a fiddler, and composer of psalms. And yet all of this dég not interfere with his being a great king, did it? . In other words, America's meaning for the Jewish immigrant was both secular and religious. Religion and economic and political self—determination are the crucial concerns of the American.Jew--both in and out of literature-- (hiring the years between 1867 and 1927. Thus, if the student Of the Jewish novel in American literature was to ignore any CHM? of these concerns it would be tantamount to cutting hinmself off from one of the indispensable aspects of the litexrary history of this period. These three concerns-- 21 frequently side by side in the same work of fiction-- account for the fundamental conflicts and struggles which the immigrant and the first generation American Jews experienced in their daily encounter with the American way of life. The issue of religion as such was more consciously employed by the Jews writing in the closing decades of the nineteenth and earlier years of the twentieth centuries-- recent refugees as most of them were from the orthodox ghettos and 'shtels' of Russia and central Europe-—than, for example, by the substantial number of Jewish writers in this century who were either "fellow travelers" or members of the Communist party. A Jewish writer, like a non-Jewish writer does not write in a vacuum. Issues help shape his artistic and intellectual vision. It is especially true that Jewish American novels written during the thirties are filled to overflowing with commentary on political grievance, social unrest, and judg- ments about the prevailing economic systems. Undeniably, in a number of cases the novel became a political platform from.which the Jewish author roared his social bias and demands for change. Yet the Jewish novel is not unique in this sense. For instance, political and social protest are the conspicuous characteristics of 'The Great Depression' phase of American literature. The so—called 'proletarian novel' of this period in American literature--in large part written by native born American authors--is testimony that 22 fiction can be used as a vehicle to protest against prevailing social theories and practices. In fact, the very nature of the novel is designed to permit an elaborate and critical statement about man in his world. Frequently, what the artist does not dare to say outright in public, he finds license for in his fiction. The literary arsenal available to the angry but chary artist is well—stocked. His weapons may include statements couched in deliberately ambiguous prose, or veiled behind the subtle but significant gestures of polit- ically oriented characters, or perhaps disguised in esoteric symbols and/or jargon translatable to only a knowing few. Whatever the internal technique, in many instances, the novel has proven to be the mouthpiece of dissent. Furthermore, the novel as a method of protest against prevailing--or imagined--injustice is particularly attractive to the minority writer. By definition, the minority writer-- Jew or otherwise-~is outside the pale of society. Subse- quently, his minority status reinforces as well as accentuates his dissatisfaction with the nature of the social climate within which he is a minority figure. However, should a minority writer choose to express directly through speech or pamphlet any dissatisfaction he has with the prevailing system, he runs the risk of censure or even physical abuse art the hands of the majority. In general, though, a clever IN3Vel written by a skillful artist minimizes these risks arni may even gain for him a receptive audience from.among thouse very people who would otherwise reject his position. 23 In other words, social philosophy which grows naturally out of the dramatic experiences and attitudes of the characters in the fiction frequently manages to reach a sympathetic audience. The Jewish novel between the years 1867 and 1927 increasingly demonstrates this deliberate effort on the part of the Jewish writers to cause to grow radical and revolutionary ideas like humps on the backs of their flesh and bloody characters. What I am saying is that the minority writer has long recognized that 'anti-establishment' sentiment frequently finds safe passage through the techniques inherent in the novel form, And though the novel is hardly a guarantee of impunity, still in many cases the artist does manage to make his point without censure from.the opposition. But what is most interesting in all this from the standpoint of the Jewish-American novel is how in nearly all cases where the fiction has served as an instrument to abet the cause of social justice, the essential energy for the effort appears to spring from the ethical-moral teachings of historical Judaism- In other words, these historical teachings triggered the American Jewish novelist to search for and report about ways in which man might act responsibly toward his fellows as well as toward himself. In no instance is this made more clear than in the