A THIRTEENTH-CENTURY HEBREW HUMORIST AND A FRIEND OF DANTE

In the present essay a short sketch will be given of the life and works of Immanuel di Roma, the Heine of the Middle Ages, as Graetz terms him, commonly called Immanuel ben Shelomoh; and reference will also be made to his literary and friendly relationship to the poet Dante Alighieri. It ought, however, to be stated at the outset that, although Immanuel was the composer of several Italian sonnets, he owes his fame mainly to his Hebrew production entitled Machberoth. Apart from its value as an entertaining book it is at the same time the chief source from which information about its author's life is obtainable. But as such the volume is not always entirely reliable, as certain episodes mentioned therein have hitherto not been fully authenticated. Modern writers, however, among whom Graetz and GÜdemann may be especially mentioned, have ably utilized the old and new material available, and, thanks to their fruitful labours, a more complete and trustworthy sketch of Immanuel's life and works can now be given. According to Graetz's ingenious combination of dates and circumstances (cp. Die Geschichte der Juden, VII, note 3), it would seem that Immanuel was born in the year 1265, which is also the year of Dante's birth. Immanuel's parents, Solomon and Justa by name, belonged to a renowned Jewish family called Ziphroni, and occupied an honourable position in the Jewish community of Rome. They devoted great care to their son's early education. One of his earliest teachers was Benjamin ben Yechiel, a clever physician and a great Hebrew scholar, who made him acquainted with the works of Maimonides. Later on he was taught by a relative, Leone Romano by name, who held the post of Hebrew instructor to Robert, king of Naples, and was also the translator of the works of Albertus Magnus and of Thomas Aquinas. He had another master in Judah Siciliano, author of several pretty Italian poems, who cultivated in his pupil's mind a taste for poetry and literature. Through these teachers, who mingled with the best society of Rome, Immanuel often came in contact with the members of a secret literary and political society called “Young Italy.” It was composed of young men of education and talent, and its object was to propagate liberal ideas among their less enlightened countrymen, and to induce them to shake off the yoke of the dominant Church, which at that time pressed heavily upon them. Dante, during his brief stay in Rome, used to attend the meetings of this society; and there young Immanuel seems to have first entered on a friendly relationship with the poet, whose genius and personality could not fail to impress themselves on him. In fact, he has so many points in common with Dante, that it may well be believed that he took him for his model. There is also a curious similarity in the history of their life and death. Both of them, who had in the prime of life occupied prominent positions, were obliged in their declining years to wander forth into exile, and both found their last resting-place far from their native city. From the literary point of view they, too, resembled one another; but of this more will be said later on. Reference will also be made to some recent publications which seem to show that Dante, for his part, also entertained friendly feelings for Immanuel. The following two lines, which occur in Paradiso (Canto v. 80 and 81), show that their author may have been favourably disposed to the race from which Immanuel sprang. They run thus:—

It is not known whether Immanuel underwent any special training to obtain his medical qualifications. There is, however, no doubt that he practised successfully for a number of years in his native town. On reaching manhood he married the daughter of Rabbi Samuel, president of the Jewish community of Rome, whose functions seem to have been secular as well as religious.

His marriage was a happy one. Immanuel considered his wife a model of womanhood, and never wearied of singing her praises. With the exception of the untimely death of their only son Moses, which naturally caused them intense sorrow, nothing occurred during the greater part of their married life that could have seriously interfered with their happiness. In his leisure hours Immanuel continued to enlarge his acquaintance with books treating of grammar, exegesis, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, philosophy, and cabbala, and acquired at the same time some knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Arabic. He occasionally wrote essays on some of these subjects, but his favourite occupation was the composition of verses, either in his native tongue or in Hebrew. The rhymed prose (?????), which he wrote in Hebrew, was his best work. In the year 1315, when Immanuel was just fifty years old, his father-in-law was murdered by robbers whilst travelling in the country, and Immanuel succeeded him. In his new position, as the spiritual head of the Jewish community of Rome, he enjoyed a continuance of his popularity, his kindness of heart and his great literary attainments procuring for him a large following of admirers and friends. His fame as a scholar and a poet spread even as far as France and Spain.

In the midst of his prosperity, however, a misfortune occurred, which changed the whole tenor of his life. According to Immanuel's own account, he had stood security for some friends of his, and, as the latter failed to redeem their obligations, he himself was obliged to satisfy the demands of the creditors. Being thus reduced to poverty he emigrated, and turned his back for ever on the scene of his unmerited misfortune. This explanation, however plausible it may appear, does not throw any light on the mystery of Immanuel's forced resignation of the post he held in the community. But it would seem that there were among his flock several persons who hated him as the author of erotic poems, and of other compositions in which certain religious rites were lightly spoken of. While he had ample means at his disposal, and was independent of the community, they dared not attack him publicly. However, they took advantage of his monetary embarrassment to denounce him as an unbeliever and heretic, who in their opinion was unfit to occupy his position; and they ultimately succeeded in effecting his removal.

But, whatever the explanation, the fact remains that Immanuel left Rome as a prematurely aged and broken-hearted man, and that he wandered about for some time with his wife until he arrived at Fermo, a town situated in the district of Ancona. There a wealthy and liberal-minded man, Benjamin by name, and at the same time a great admirer of Immanuel's poems, took him and his wife into his house, and provided for their wants. But this happiness did not last long, for in the year 1321 he lost both his wife and his friend Dante. Bosone da Gobbio, a renowned lawyer in his time, and a friend of both Dante and Immanuel, on hearing of this sent him the following lines as a token of his sorrow and sympathy:—

When Immanuel's time of mourning was over his host suggested that he should devote himself to a collection and revision of his compositions. Immanuel gladly accepted this proposal, partly because he wished to perpetuate the memory of his beloved wife and that of his friend Dante, and partly because he thought that this would be the best occupation for his declining years.

The work occupied him till his death in 1330, when he was sixty-five years old. Bosone received some lines referring to Immanuel's death, composed by Cino da Pistoza, a noted lawyer and poet of some renown in his time. These lines are interesting in so far as they contain an unmistakable reference to the friendly relationship that existed between Dante and Immanuel. They run as follows:—

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’ (???????), 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 Makamat 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 (???? ???), 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 ??????, 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:—

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:—

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:—

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:—

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:—

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 (????=“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:—

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 ????? ???? ??? ????? ???, 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.

As regards the merits, the conception, and the style of the Ha-Topheth-ve-Ha-Eden it may be said that it holds a unique position in Hebrew literature. In the introduction the author states that, having reached his sixtieth year, the sudden death of a younger friend caused him much anxiety about his own future, and he wished to know the fate that awaited him beyond the grave. To effect this he invoked the spirit of the Prophet Daniel. Thereupon the vision of a venerable old man appeared to him amidst thunder and lightning, and told him that he had come to show him his future place in the world of spirits. Immanuel asked to be first conducted to the regions of hell, and the old man led him there. On the way they passed through several places, which are reminiscent of Dante's Inferno, such as “a valley of corpses,” and “the gate of rejection,” in front of which “a flaming sword turned in every direction.” Myriads of souls were then being dragged through the gate by evil spirits to receive their punishment for sins committed by them in life, and on that gate the words were inscribed: “Here is an entrance only, but no outlet.” These words recall the passage in Dante (Inferno, iii. 9):—

Passing through the gate into hell Immanuel sees tortures inflicted upon sinners, among whom are specially mentioned sceptics, gamblers, adulterers, misers, spendthrifts, and hypocrites. A certain class of Jewish preachers and precentors are also placed by Immanuel in the infernal regions, because they were in the habit, whilst preaching or reciting prayers, of lifting up their eyes to the women's gallery instead of heavenwards. At the mention of these hypocrites Immanuel, remembering his own failings, became pale with fear. But his conductor reassured him by saying that, though he could not pronounce him quite free from sin, yet he hoped that his virtues and his merits as an author of several excellent books would procure for him a seat in Paradise. Presently Immanuel and his leader leave Hell and betake themselves to Paradise. Looking round him, he sees the souls of all the Biblical and post-Biblical personages, who have in some way or other reflected credit on the Jewish race, either by their literary works or by their valour, honesty, and virtue. He is greeted with great joy by Moses, David, and Solomon, who eulogize the commentaries he had written on their literary productions. On leaving them, Immanuel notices another group at some distance, which was enveloped in a dazzling blaze of glory. And asking his leader who they were, he was told that they were the pious of all nations (????? ????? ?????) who, during their life on earth, had been pre-eminent in charity, virtue, and learning, and were in consequence rewarded with seats of honour in Paradise. Close to them Immanuel noticed a magnificent throne in the course of erection, which he was given to understand was to be occupied by a friend, or rather a brother of his, as he is called, Daniel by name. It is still a matter of uncertainty to whom the author referred. But, on reading the context, it seems an inevitable conclusion that he must, as Geiger suggested, have alluded to Dante (Daniel). Near the throne of his friend, he was told, his own would be erected, so that they might both be united again after death and enjoy together heavenly bliss ever after.

The few special passages bearing on this friendship are so characteristic of Immanuel's liberal-mindedness that a reproduction of them here may not be out of place. They run somewhat as follows:—

“I do not know what has caused me to think of my friend Daniel, who, as an associate and friend, was to me of inestimable worth. It was he who showed me the path of truth and righteousness, who helped me greatly when fortune had forsaken me, and whose gigantic intellect is still spoken of on earth with unqualified admiration. On my asking my guide where my own throne would be placed after my death, he said: ‘You are certainly far inferior in greatness to your friend, whose name and fame will always be held in great honour by posterity. Yet, because you have both lived after the same pattern, and have both striven after truth, you shall be united again after death. Your throne shall be erected near to his, and, sitting hereafter close to each other, you will be like Joshua, who once was the attendant and disciple of Moses. Having been united in life by a mutual bond of friendship, no power shall separate your souls for ever.’ When I heard this my joy was unbounded, so happy was I in the thought that my lot would be like his, and that we should both have seats in Paradise. And having asked my conductor to let me see the throne destined for my friend, he took me by the hand, and led me to a tent where the hand of a master builder had erected a monument wonderful to view. Angels passed to and fro, women ornamented it with different costly textures, and numerous spirits made it ablaze with gold, rubies, and sapphires. And soon there stood before my wondering eye a throne formed of ebony, covered with purple and gold, and surmounted by a beautiful, glittering crown, which shone like the beams of the sun. This, said my guide, is Daniel's throne. You see, my son, the work that he has erected in the world is full of fame and renown, and equally great and glorious shall be the throne which he is to occupy in the world of spirits.”

The Ha-Topheth-ve-Ha-Eden closes with the guide's request that he should write down for the benefit of posterity all that he saw in his wanderings through Hell and Paradise. Thereupon he vanishes in the tumult of a storm, which causes the author to awake from his dream.

From what has been said it will be seen that a marked mental affinity existed between Dante and Immanuel. To both history, scholasticism, and romanticism provided materials for their work. They were both influenced by the new national spirit that had inspired the members of “Young Italy” to struggle for the liberation of their countrymen—bodily and mentally—from the yoke of priestcraft and superstition. Finally, it will be admitted that the Ha-Topheth-ve-Ha-Eden in style, dramatic effect, and graphic description has much in common with the Divina Commedia, although the condensed imitation is, of course, vastly inferior to the original. Yet there are several features in it which are peculiar to Immanuel. The most remarkable one is this: while Dante is narrow-minded enough to exclude from Paradise all and every one who does not profess Christianity, including even his leader, Virgil, Immanuel assigns places of honour there to the good and righteous of all nations and of all ages, provided they do not deny the existence of God and of a divine spirit in man.

Professor Th. Paur refers to this point in the essay that was mentioned above, and writes as follows:—

“If we closely examine the sentiments set forth in the little poetical volume (Ha-Topheth-ve-Ha-Eden), we must confess that the Jew Immanuel need not blush in the presence of the Christian Dante. It is true that he, like Dante, condemns those philosophical theories in which the personality of God, the creation of the world by his power, and the existence of a divine spirit in man are denied. But Immanuel shows more courage than Dante by effectively stigmatizing hypocrisy in all its various shapes and forms. He also possesses a greater spirit of tolerance than the latter had shown towards men professing creeds different from his own—a beautiful human naÏvetÉ in matters of religion—which must be sought after with the lantern of Diogenes among the Christians of that period.”

In the introduction to the present essay mention was made of some sonnets composed by Immanuel in the Italian language, which show that he must have been well versed in the literature of his native country. Three of them were published for the first time some thirty years ago in a book entitled Letteratura e filosofia, opuscoli per Pasquale Garofalo, Duca di Bonita (Naples, 1872). Perhaps it will not be out of place, in conclusion, to quote one of them here. Its English translation is somewhat as follows:—

“Love has never read the Ave Maria. It knows no law, no creed, neither does it hear nor see: it is boundless. Love is an unrestricted, omnipotent power, which insists on obtaining what it craves for. ... Love does not suffer itself to be deprived of its pride and power by a Paternoster, or by any other charm; neither is it afraid of carrying into effect what it is fond of. Amor alone knows what causes me grief; whatever I may offer him as an excuse, he meets me always with the same answer: It is my will and wish.”

[87-1] It should be added that the eminent Dante scholar, Theodor Paur, was strongly inclined to doubt the authenticity of these poems, and that he was sceptical with regard to the whole question of the friendship between Immanuel and Dante. On the other hand, he readily admitted that Immanuel imitated the Commedia in his Ha-Topheth-ve-Ha-Eden. (See Jahrbuch der deutschen Dante-Gesellschaft, III, 1871, pp. 423–462.)