top of page
< Back

Lucien Wolf and Theodor Herzl

Joseph Fraenkel

<plain_text><page sequence="1">Luden Wolf and Theodor HerzP By Josef Fraenkel i INTRODUCTION OR many years past I have been intending to study the Zionist activities of Lucien Wolf and his relations with Theodor Herzl. But it seemed almost as if fate were against it. The research was beset by constant difficulties since it appears as though Lucien Wolf regarded his work for Zionism as a youthful aberration of which he did not wish ever to be reminded. Three great men stood at the side of Theodor Herzl at the dawn of Political Zionism, but after some time all three denounced Political Zionism and became estranged from Chief Rabbi Dr. Moritz Guedemann of Vienna who, at the beginning was a sup? porter of Herzl and?like Lucien Wolf?later published an anti-Zionist pamphlet entitled National Judaism, at first refused to be reminded of his original enthusiasm for Zionism. But years later, in the Memoirs intended only for his family, he described his meetings with Herzl in detail. And, before his death ten months after the Balfour Declaration he said to his successor, Rabbi Dr. H. P. Chajes, "Long before the existence of Zionism I was a fighter for Zion."2 Mathias Acher who worked for Zionism even before Herzl and who many years later became a leader of the anti-Zionist Agudath Israel, was proud of his Zionist past. In 1932 he was asked to write an article on his Zionist period for the Kadimah, the first Zionist student group. In his covering letter he stressed that "in spite of the fact that I have abandoned the road of the Kadimah, I do not regret it, but on the contrary still rejoice to have participated in its foundation."3 Not so Lucien Wolf. He derived no satisfaction from his Zionist experiences. Some two years before his death he wrote to Tulo Nussenblatt who was preparing a book on Herzl: "I regret I do not have any personal memoirs of the late Theodor Herzl for your book. I never was a Zionist and my relations with Herzl were never of any sig? nificance whatsoever to the public. They were rather, in a literary sense, personal and professional relations, no more. But in common with all who knew him I had great admiration for his character and a real affection for his genial personality."4 In this letter we are confronted with a Lucien Wolf who contradicts himself. In his first sentence he says he has "no personal memories" and immediately afterwards he mentions "personal and professional relations." He claims: "I never was a Zionist" and in the same letter admits that his relations were literary ones. Could Lucien Wolf have regarded Herzlian Zionism as a "literary" matter? I doubt it. Cecil Roth, in his work A Memoir, devotes a few lines to Wolf as a Zionist. Herzl. 1 Paper read before the Jewish Historical Society of England on 15 March, 1959. 2 H. P. Chajes, Reden und Vertraege. Herausgegeben von Moritz Rosenfeld (Vienna, 1933). 3 Festschrift der Kadimah, 1883-1933. Herausgegeben von Dr. Moritz Rosenhek (Vienna, 1933). 4 Zeitgenossen ueber Herzl. Herausgegeben von Dr. T. Nussenblatt (Brno, 1929). 161</page><page sequence="2">162 LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL He writes: "That at first there was a certain amount of sympathy and even co-operation between them is certain. It was not until 1904 at the end of Dr. Herzl's career that Wolf took a definite stand against Zionism. He took a great interest in the Zionist leader and helped him at first, and his non-Jewish friends teased him not a little on that account. A cartoon (dated 1902) even represents him comically dressed up as a general leading an army of Jews on the road to Jerusalem."1 Let me conclude this note with the following observation:?Anybody today scruti? nizing a map to trace the township whence the Wolf family originated will look in vain. I wrote to the Chief Rabbinate of Czechoslovakia for information of Jewish interest concerning the locality from which several noted Jewish families hail, and I received the reply to the effect that no such place exists in that country; perhaps it was elsewhere. The town has vanished and all the relevant London material concerning Lucien Wolf has also vanished. Lucien Wolf was among the few who understood the significance of a letter or a document. He was first and foremost a historian, a collector of historical materials, and, besides, received innumerable letters and documents from government representatives and Jewish leaders all over the world in connection with his Jewish activities. All this material has disappeared from London?I was told at Chatham House that Lucien Wolf arrived there one day with a collection of press cuttings of his articles, signed and unsigned, and handed them over for safe keeping. They too have disappeared. As someone recently said to me: "Lucien Wolf is dead and buried, and so are his docu? ments?dead and buried." What are documents or archives but graveyards? They come to life only when studied by scholars or historians. In spite of all these difficulties, I have managed to trace material on Lucien Wolf and Theodor Herzl which have connected them together. 1960 is Herzl's centenary and also the thirtieth anniversary of Lucien Wolf's death, and on this occasion I am grateful to the Jewish Historica, Society and to the President, Dr. Richard David Barnett, for the invitation to give my lecture on "Lucien Wolf and Theodor Herzl." II LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL Lucien Wolf, writes Chaim Weizmann, in Trial and Error, came "of an old Anglo Jewish family." This is incorrect. His father, like Herzl's father, was a child of the old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Both were emigrants or refugees. Edward Wolf, Lucien's father, lived in Hareth, in Czech Horany, Bohemia, "where, at the outskirts, apart from the other buildings and a considerable distance from the Catholic church"2 there were a few Jewish houses. There were altogether ten families, which later grew to eighteen, numbering 100 persons. There was a synagogue,3 built in 1817, and the Jewish community was subject to anti-Jewish regulations.4 The Wolf family had permission 1 Essays in Jewish History, by Lucien Wolf. With a Memoir. Edited by Cecil Roth (London 1934). 2 Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft fuer Geschichte der Juden in der Czechoslovakischen Republik. Published by Prof. Dr. Samuel Steinherz (III. Jahrgang, Praha, 1931). 3 Die Notablenversammlung der Israeliten Boehmens in Prag, ihre Beratungen und Beschluesse. Herausgegeben von Albert Kohn (Vienna, 1852). 4 Die Juden und Judengemeinden Boehmens in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Herausgegeben von Hugo Gold (Brno-Praha, 1934).</page><page sequence="3">LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL 163 to reside there and paid a sum of 18 gulden annually as Schutzjuden for "protection." So did Nathan Wolf, Lucien Wolf's grandfather. The precarious conditions and the stormy days of the revolution in 1848 forced many Jews to emigrate, among them Edward Wolf. In Semlin, the home-town of the Herzl family, not far from Belgrade, the Jews lived "as strangers, even if born there."1 Here too, humiliating measures were in force against the Jews2 who were striving for material and spiritual improvement. Young Jacob Herzl, the father of Theodor, left for Debreczin and a few years later settled in Pest (Budapest). Lucien Wolf and Theodor Herzl were the children of emigrants. Both chose a journalistic career. Herzl was a master of the German language, author of books and plays, and joined the staff of the Neue Freie Presse? The Times of Vienna?where he later became a famous writer of feuilletons. Lucien Wolf was a fine stylist of the English language who became foreign sub-editor and leader-writer of the Daily Graphic and was known under the pen name "Diplomaticus" in the Fortnightly Review. He contributed to a number of other English papers. As a student and journalist Herzl was concerned about the Jewish problem and was constantly searching for a solution, but he never let this interfere with his journalistic profession and did not take part in Jewish communal life. He did not write any articles on Jewish matters until 1895, except for reporting the Dreyfus case as the Paris corre? spondent of his paper in Vienna. He never published an article in a Jewish paper. Lucien Wolf, on the other hand, began his career as a Jewish journalist. His articles, which appeared in Jewish papers in London, showed a deep knowledge of Jewish history and literature and an interest even in local Jewish matters. He also wrote for Jewish publications abroad. In his "London Letter" in the Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia, 7 March 1890) he wrote: "The great strength of Anglo-Jewish union lies in the steady uniformity of the apathy of the majority" and he made the following statement: "I have often noticed that Jews who are ashamed of being known as Jews usually finish up by making their kindred ashamed of them." Herzl, who was three years younger than Wolf, published his first book, Neues von der Venus, a collection of humorous sketches and stories, at the age of 27. A year later his Buch der Narrheit, consisting of 31 essays, appeared. It was already possible to recognize the future classical feuilletonist of Vienna, but no one could foresee that he would ever achieve posterity in the history of the Jewish people. Not so Lucien Wolf. At the age of 27 he had already compiled the Centennial Biography of Sir Moses Montefiore which appeared in 1884, the year of the Kattowice Conference of the Hovevei Zion. The biography was written as a token of his affection and admiration for Sir Moses Montefiore whose activities in Palestine and whose pro? posed "foundation of a new commonwealth for Palestine" Wolf described as "wise resolutions." A characteristic passage relating to Palestine is the following: . . he [Sir Moses Montefiore] unites a liberal adherence to the hopes of a national restoration of Israel as expressed by the Prophets and Rabbis. When questioned on the subject some years ago, he answered with a satisfied smile: 'I am quite certain of it; it has been my constant dream, and I hope it will be realized some day when I shall be no more.' To the objection that it would be impossible to gather in the Israelites scattered in all corners of the globe, he 1 Suedslavische Wanderungen im Sommer, 1850, von Siegfried Kapper (Leipzig, 1851). 2 Josef Fraenkel, Herzl (Belgrade-Zagreb, 1936).</page><page sequence="4">164 LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL replied: *I do not expect that all Israelites will quit their abodes in those territories in which they feel happy, even as there are Englishmen in Hungary, Germany, America and Japan; but Palestine must belong to the Jews, and Jerusalem is destined to become the seat of a Jewish Empire.' " Reading the book on the illustrious spokesman for the Jews, one might have con? cluded that Lucien Wolf would follow in the steps of his master in securing rights for Jews from governments in England and abroad and that he would favour a new Palestine with agricultural colonization. In 1892, Theodor Herzl was already Paris correspondent of the Neue Freie Presse and began to concern himself with the growing anti-Semitism which was also making itself felt in Paris. As a young student in Vienna he had read the anti-Semitic writings of Eugen Duehring and now in Paris he read those of Edouard Drumont. Sitting in the French Chamber, he often listened to the harangues of anti-Semitic deputies; he observed how the sessions were conducted and how high politics were made. In London, at the same time, Lucien Wolf was attending meetings in honour of Colonel Albert E. W. Goldsmid. They were strange celebrations which, possibly, could only have taken place in London. Colonel Goldsmid had been a Zionist from 1882. In 1892, Elim d'Avigdor and Goldsmid were the leaders of the English Hovevei Zion. Then Baron de Hirsch invited him to take charge of the Jewish colonies in the Argentine, and Goldsmid, the Hovevei Zionist, agreed to go to the Argentine. This caused a great sensation and even Herzl sent a report on it from Paris to Vienna.1 Hovevei Zionists all over the world did not approve of de Hirsch's plans to settle Jews in the Argentine and other countries. They were therefore opposed to Goldsmid entering de Hirsch's service. It looked almost like treason against the colonization of the Holy Land. But this did not apply to the London Hovevei Zionists', they had confi? dence in Colonel Goldsmid and celebrated their leader's departure for the Argentine as great victory for the Zionist idea. They did not doubt his sincerity and knew that, even as Baron de Hirsch's representative in the Argentine, he would remain a Zionist and continue his work for his old ideals. Lucien Wolf was present at these enthusiastic gatherings and, on 10 March 1892, he published an unsigned article in the Daily Graphic with the significant heading, "The Joshua of the New Exodus?an Interview with Colonel Goldsmid." The identity of the author, who had done such excellent propaganda for Hovevei Zion, was of course, known. His article was reprinted not only in the Jewish, but in most of the English papers, and the "Joshua of the New Exodus" became almost proverbial. Thus, the British public was informed by Lucien Wolf that what the Jewish people was striving for was not a few colonies in the Argentine, but "a Jewish State guaranteed by the Powers" in Palestine. As a journalist, Lucien Wolf could have given this article an mxi-Hovevei Zion slant, had he so wished; but the impression given is that his sympathies were with Hovevei Zion and Colonel Goldsmid whom he compared to Laurence Oliphant, the great non-Jewish pioneer and champion of a Jewish Palestine. He described Goldsmid's military career and his family's alleged descent from the Maccabeans. Among other matters he quoted the following words of Goldsmid: . . But I look upon the Argentine as a nursery ground for Palestine. In a revival on a large scale of the agricultural life of their early history, the Jews will see a picture of their 1 Josef Fraenkel, "Colonel Albert E. W. Goldsmid and Theodor Herzl," Herzl Year Book, edited by Raphael Patai (New York, 1958).</page><page sequence="5">LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL 165 future. The creation of a land of milk and honey in South America will bring the question of the reclamation of the Holy Land within the bounds of practical politics. We shall train a Jewish yeomanry to whom the future of Israel will be no longer a dream. They will cultivate the national aspirations which of late years have made so much progress under the auspices of the Hovevei Zion Society. I am taking out with me a selection of songs calculated to foster this inspiration." Colonel Goldsmid promised to further the use of Hebrew as the every-day language of the settlers in the Argentine. Let me quote here only two sentences which, spoken in 1892 and mentioned in Wolf's article, seem prophetic. Colonel Goldsmid said: "The Jewish question will never be solved until a Jewish state guaranteed by the Powers is established in the Land of Israel. ... I hold that the more we Jews identify ourselves with the interests and welfare of the lands of our birth, the nearer we are bringing ourselves to this ideal, for in such an experience we are collecting precious material for building up our own State." The fact that these words of the Deputy Assistant Adjutant-General at the War Office, now administrator of the Hirsch settlements in the Argentine, were quoted in the English press was due to Lucien Wolf. Two years later, in 1894, we are confronted with a new Herzl; one who is no longer content to listen and reflect on the Jewish problem, but for the first time as a journalist takes up his pen on Jewish matters. In his play, The New Ghetto, he harangues the Jews to go "out of the ghetto!" But this slogan is not enough and soon afterwards, in 1895, he asks himself: "Out of the Ghetto"?but where? And his answer is: the Jewish State. The first step was an exchange of letters and a meeting with Baron de Hirsch. Herzl, the Jewish intellectual, was probably the only man to dare advise the great philanthropist on how to spend his millions. Herzl talked of a Jewish State and of an army, and wrote to him about a Jewish flag; "What is a flag? A pole with a coloured rag? No, Sir, a flag is much more than that. With a flag one can lead men wherever one wants to, even into the Promised Land. Men live and die for a flag; if well trained, a flag is the only thing for which men are prepared to sacrifice their lives."1 Strange to relate, Lucien Wolf also visited Baron de Hirsch on several occasions. Both, and each in his own way, wanted to save the Russian Jews, in particular, from perse? cution and oppression. But Lucien Wolf was not the man to argue with a personage such as Baron de Hirsch. In another unsigned article, "The New Exodus. A Chat with Baron de Hirsch," published in the Daily Graphic on 7 July 1894, Lucien Wolf introduced himself as follows: ". . . I just missed being born in Bohemia, I was educated in France and I practise journalism in England." Baron de Hirsch, whom Lucien Wolf called "the new Moses," aimed to settle 200,000 to 300,000 Jews in the Argentine. He explained to Lucien Wolf: "I have made up my mind not to stop in this work. If my energies or my fortune could accomplish it, believe me the whole Jewish population of Russia would be taken out of the country tomorrow." But by 1894 no more than 3,000 people had been settled in his Argentine colonies, and two years later the great benefactor of the Jews was dead. Maxim Kogan, who had succeeded Goldsmid as administrator of the Argentine settlements, stated in the Westminster Gazette of 8 May 1894: "As a philanthropist he has done a magnificent thing, but he has not done what he thought of doing. He has not solved the Russo-Jewish question. Nor will he ever solve it either in the 1 Theodor Herzl, Tagebuecher (Berlin, 1922-23).</page><page sequence="6">166 LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL Argentine or any other new country. For there are 5,000,000 oppressed Jews in Russia, and we have now some 3,000 in Argentina. To solve the problem of the mass of Jews in Russia requires other means than any private individual, even so great a philanthropist as Baron Hirsch, could produce." Lucien Wolf included the following observations on Baron de Hirsch in his Daily Graphic article: "For the honour it brings him he has no care, and it is a mistake to imagine that he is inspired by any idea of fulfilling Prophecy or of realizing Judaic national aspirations. Indeed, he is something of a sceptic in regard to these mystical matters." This evaluation of Baron de Hirsch is almost identical with that of Herzl. While it must be regretted that Baron de Hirsch did not listen to the prophetic voices urging him to think of a Jewish Palestine, the fact remains that all he did for Russian Jewry in the Argentine, Canada, U.S.A. and elsewhere, was a great blessing for the Jewish people. Baron de Hirsch told Lucien Wolf that there were no hopes of "better times" for the Jews living in Russia. "The persecution of Dissenters is inherent in the present state of things in Russia," said de Hirsch. Nothing has changed in this respect today. The descendants of the Jews saved by Baron de Hirsch today form a living part of the present Jewish people and those who remained behind are now almost severed from the body of the Jewish people. The man who advised Theodor Herzl to take his Jewish problem and his solution "to Paris or London," was Moritz Benedikt, publisher and editor-in-chief of the Vienna Neue Freie Presse. Benedikt was an opponent of Zionism and hoped that the reception by Jewish audiences in Paris or London would be sufficiently discouraging to deter Herzl from publishing his work Der Judenstaat. But in Paris, Max Nordau, who had become an admirer of political Zionism, advised Herzl to go to London. Two months earlier, in September 1895, Nordau had visited William Heinemann in Bedford Street, London, and the visit was repeated a few weeks later.1 Heinemann, the son of an emigrant from Hanover, of Jewish origin, had just published Nordau's "most remarkable book, Degeneration. What a furore it caused."2 Heinemann had also published the Children of the Ghetto and introduced Nordau to Zangwill. In October or November 1895, the author of The King of Schnorrers sent an invitation to Nordau, the author of The Conventional Lies, to address a meeting of the Maccabeans. And so it came to pass that Max Nordau advised Theodor Herzl to call upon Israel Zangwill and to address the Maccabeans. All roads towards the realization of his hopes and plans led to London and Herzl knew even before setting foot on English soil that London would become the focus of his activities. On 21 November he arrived in London and remained in England for nearly a week. He became acquainted with the leaders of the Jewish community most of whose names were new to him. But he must have come across the name of the journalist Lucien Wolf somewhat earlier. It was probably not through the Oesterreichische Wochenschrift, the Jewish Chronicle of Vienna, but through the German papers, among them the Neue Freie Presse which had published occasional contributions by Lucien Wolf. Herzl had no means of knowing that Wolf was interested in Jewish matters. It was Zangwill in his first conversation with Herzl on personalities who might help him to realize his ideas who had also mentioned Lucien Wolf. 1 Anna and Maxa Nordau, Max Nordau: A Biography (New York, 1943). 2 Frederic Whyte, William Heinemann: A Memoir (London, 1928).</page><page sequence="7">lucien wolf and theodor herzl 167 On the following day invitations were sent to the members of the Maccabeans. Herzl addressed the Maccabeans on three occasions?in November 1895, in July 1896 and in June 1901?but no single document relating to these historic meetings was preserved. The text of HerzPs first address to the Maccabeans is unobtainable and we do not even know who was present, who spoke for and who against him. Herbert Bentwich who, a few years earlier, had given a lecture on "Next Year in Jerusalem" at the Maccabeans, kept the invitation to Herzl's first meeting. It says1: Important Meeting, 22nd Nov., 1895. Your attendance is earnestly requested at a Dinner tomorrow, Sunday, at St. James* Hall Restaurant, to meet Dr. Herzl, Sub-editor of the Neue Freie Presse, Vienna, to consider an important national scheme. Dr. Herzl leaves London on Monday. I. Zangwill. Solomon J. Solomon." Israel Zangwill was in the Chair, and Herzl appearing for the first time at a meeting on Zionism?his Zionism?spoke at first in English and then in French. The Rev. Simeon Singer acted as interpreter and even before the discussion Herzl was unanimously elected as an honorary member of the Maccabeans. Strange to say not even a Jewish paper reported this meeting, but some four years later Lucien Wolf wrote on this event in the Daily Graphic2: "I shall not soon forget how strangely I was impressed when I first met Herzl at that dinner at the St. James' Restaurant four years ago, when Zangwill introduced him to a score of the younger Jews who had founded the Maccabean Society. His imperturbable 'Pourquoi pas?' when we asked him whether he really thought it possible to re-establish the kingdom of Judah shut us all up. We had become so habituated to looking at the ideal as one of those dreams which may be all the more safely indulged in because there is no chance of realizing them. Here was a man who not only thought realization possible, but who insisted that the moment for realizing had arrived. His view was not based on any of the stock apocalyptic arguments. He simply pointed to the growing danger of anti-Semitism in Europe and to the necessity of some scheme for rescuing the persecuted Jews. Would the creation of a Jewish State prove an adequate solution? We could not but assent. Why, then, not make use of the enthusiasm for Jerusalem which is in the heart of every Jew to form such a State? Place at the disposal of this enthusiasm the appliances of modern civilization and nothing will resist it. 'You want a Moses,' I remember him saying, with a smile, 'a joint stock Moses, with banks and land companies, railways and steamboats.' I am afraid this practical view shocked us a little. We were all more or less dreamers of the Ghetto, and we could not bring ourselves to the sordid facts of organization. And yet without these sordid facts nothing could be done. The result of this dilemma was that we all vowed that Herzl was an awfully good fellow, one of those madmen who make the salt of life, but we declined to make up our minds as to whether we would assist him or not. We put him off by lionizing him socially. He was too intelligent not to see through our courtesies." It may be assumed that at the dinner Herzl gave a short summary of the plans he had prepared for his brochure. Asher Myers, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, subse? quently asked him for an article which was published on 17 January 1896. Thus it came about that from London, from 2 Finsbury Square, Herzl's message to the Jewish people, his exhortation to the world, was proclaimed. When Herzl returned to Vienna and Moritz Benedikt urged him, even with financial inducements, to give up his Jewish plans, Herzl replied: "My honour is at stake. I have already published the idea in the Jewish Chronicle. It no longer belongs to me, but to the Jews."3 In the meantime, the Judenstaat had appeared in Vienna and two months later, in April 1896, the brochure was published by David Nutt in London in a translation by 1 Margery and Norman Bentwich, Herbert Bentwich, The Pilgrim Father (Jerusalem, 1940). 2 Daily Graphic, London: Thursday, 16 August, 1900. 3 Theodor Herzl, Tagebuecher (Berlin, 1922-23). M</page><page sequence="8">168 LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL Sylvie d'Avigdor, entitied The Jewish State. The translator was the daughter of Elim Henry d'Avigdor, leader of the English Hovevei Zionists. She was a poet and her poems were often read at Hovevei Zionist meetings, inspiring British Jews with enthusiasm for Zion. Some ten years ago Sylvie d'Avigdor, then a very frail old lady, informed me that she was no longer in possession of any Herzl relics. And the elderly manager of the publishing firm of David Nutt, which has since closed down, was not even aware of the fact that his firm had ever published the Jewish State and searched in vain for references to the brochure and its author in old books and catalogues. Herzl had contributed some ?20 towards the cost of the London publication, and today a first edition would fetch a sum equal to the cost of the whole original issue. The Mocatta Library has a copy with a dedication by Herzl to Asher Myers, who had published not only the first of Herzl's articles, but also the first editorial opposing Herzl's Zionism, both of them in the issue of 17 January 1896. Asher Myers once said: "Zionism is a blessing for the Jewish newspapers; it gives them live material in the dullest season."1 Among British politicians and statesmen to whom copies of the brochure were sent, were W. E. Gladstone, Joseph Chamberlain, and, probably, Arthur James Balfour. In reply to my inquiry. Viscount Samuel informed me that he believed he became a Zionist after reading The Jewish State. The overwhelming majority of the Jews did not originally believe that Herzl would succeed, and even the Hovevei Zionists rejected political Zionism. But the number of followers grew from day to day, and Herzl soon succeeded in winning the confidence and affection of the Jewish masses. Lucien Wolf discussed the Jewish problem with Herzl, listened to his speeches at the Maccabeans and read the brochure. He was impressed and attracted not only by Herzl's personality but also by his ideas. Wolf already enjoyed a high reputation as a historian and expert on the situation of the Jews and even today his first articles should be taken seriously. After all, he too, was a "diplomaticus," who had fought for political principles and convictions with his pen. Herzl, at any rate, considered him a follower who had put his journalistic abilities and his professional connections at his, Herzl's, disposal, to propagate Zionism. Herzl first approached Lucien Wolf in connection with an important mission in which Michael von Newlinsky played a prominent part. Michael von Newlinsky,2 of Polish origin, was said to be persona grata at the court of Sultan Abdul Hamid. Herzl, who wanted to deal with the Sultan direct, thought that von Newlinsky might be able to influence the Sultan favourably towards Zionism and asked him to arrange for an audience. Von Newlinsky conveyed to Herzl reports on his conversations with the Sultan and expressed the opinion that Abdul Hamid would be "grateful" if Herzl, with the help of the Jews, could bring about a truce in the conflict between Turkey and the Armenian Committees then working abroad against him. At Abdul Hamid's request, von Newlinsky travelled from Vienna to Brussels, Paris and to London for the purpose of negotiating a "truce" with the leaders of the Armenian Committees. A day after his departure, on 11 May 1896, Herzl asked his devoted friend, Rev. William H. Hechler, Chaplain of the British Embassy in Vienna, to inform the Ambassador, Sir Edward Monson, of these negotiations in the hope that this might induce 1 Jacob de Haas, "The Jewish Chronicle," The Maccabean, New York, March, 1907. 2 Josef Fraenkel, "Herzls Medschidije-Orden," Theodor Herzl Jahrbuch, vonTulo Nussenblatt, edit. (Vienna, 1937).</page><page sequence="9">lucien wolf and theodor herzl 169 Lord Salisbury, Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, to renew his endeavours to bring about a reconciliation between Turkey and the Armenians. Herzl also approached various other personalities in an effort to win over the Armenian leaders and the British and French press for von Newlinsky's peace mission. Newlinsky arrived in London about the middle of May. In spite of Herzl's inter? ventions, he made no progress and wired Herzl for an introduction to Sir Edward Lawson, the son of Joseph Moses Levy, of the Daily Telegraph. Herzl sent the following tele? gram in reply1: "Vienna, 24th May. Newlinsky, Hotel Paris, Leicester Square, London. Request Lucien Wolf of Daily Graphic with reference to Zangwill and myself to introduce you to Lawson. Herzl." On 27 May 1896, von Newlinsky wrote to Lucien Wolf in French as follows2: "Dear Sir, I enclose a telegram of introduction from Mr. Th. Herzl and should be glad if you would let me know the day and time when I could see you. I am here on a confidential mission to the Armenians. This mission has been entrusted to me personally by the Sultan. Its object is to persuade the Armenian Committees to approach the Sultan, who is guided by the best intentions, direct. A sincere and complete reconciliation could be brought about. The Armenians will of course also have to consider the very difficult situation in which the Sultan finds himself. This would enable him to grant them more than any naval demonstration could ever achieve. The main thing, as you know, is to establish an understanding with the Sultan personally without the intervention of his ministers or foreign diplomats which has spoilt everything in the past. This, in a few words, is the object of my mission. The Armenians can check with Con? stantinople that I am in fact in charge of this honourable mission, but they will have to refer to the Palace of Yildiz since I am here in the name of the Sultan himself and not of his ministers. As to you yourself, Sir, I would like to request you to introduce me to Mr. Lawson whose important position is well known to us and whose goodwill and support would be of very great importance for us. This is, in the truest sense of the word, a humanitarian effort which would, first and foremost, benefit England and it is chiefly because of this that I appeal, dear Sir, for your kind assistance. Yours sincerely, M. Newlinsky." In a detailed letter to Solomon J. Solomon, the painter and President of the Macca beans, Herzl, on 22 May 1896, explained the significance of Newlinsky's journey to London and, emphasizes several times the necessity of enhsting Lucien Wolf's journa? listic support. Herzl wrote, among other things3: "I would request you to speak to Mr. Lucien Wolf and ask him what our friends could do in this matter. The Armenians should not know that our participation is based on our own national interests. Should it not be possible to intervene directly, could not a climate of opinion in favour of the Armenian submission be created in the British press? . . . Mr. Lucien Wolf will have no difficulty in realizing the significance of this action, and I hope that he will help as much as possible. Our aim is to induce the Armenian committees, which intend to renew the struggle in July, to conclude an armistice until August. I say armistice, and not peace, since, in the meantime we may be able to deal with the Sultan and obtain some con? cessions for ourselves. Is it understood that I may count on you, Mr. Wolf and our friends in London? We must act without delay! . . ." London newspapers reported on the "secret mission" of von Newlinsky who had come with "letters of introduction to the Duke of Westminster, [to] Mr. Stevenson, M.P., 1 Zionist Central Archives, Jerusalem. 2 Zionist Central Archives, Jerusalem. 3 Zionist Central Archives, Jerusalem.</page><page sequence="10">170 LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL and one or two journalists connected with foreign politics." "The mission was heartily supported in Vienna and Lord Salisbury was privately advised of it."1 These reports refer to Herzl's influence and to Lucien Wolf's pen. Many of the comments published were positive. Thus, a London Sunday paper wrote: "We trust that the Armenian Committee will not allow itself to be enticed into a false position by lending a too willing ear to the interested counsels of the Young Turkish Party. The former ought as far as possible to welcome and co-operate with any genuine movement for aiding their compatriots."2 The British press devoted space to Newlinsky's mission, but?due chiefly to the Armenian persecution in Turkey?took an unfavourable view of the Sultan. The leaders of the Armenian Committee, too, were suspicious and assumed that Abdul Hamid was trying to mislead public opinion with regard to the real position of the Armenians. It was regrettable that the peace efforts of Herzl and von Newlinsky did not meet with much confidence and sympathy. A few months later a dreadful massacre of Armenians followed. Alex Bein was justified in writing: "Had it come to a reconciliation, the great massacre of Armenians, as a result of which thousands of them were killed, might have never happened."3 In this connection, a letter by an Armenian, James A. Malcolm, giving his views on the projected "Jewish State" is of the greatest interest. Lucien Wolf had published an unsigned article, and Malcolm, who was 20 years later to render services of historical significance to the Balfour Declaration, replied in a letter to the editor of the Observer. During the first years of the first world war the Zionists attempted direct negotiations with the British Government. This was not easy. Suddenly there was a change. "One day in October 1916 a certain Mr. James Malcolm came to visit Mark Sykes."4 The friendship then started between these two men became a blessing for Zionism. One day they discussed the serious position of the war, and Malcolm asked Sykes: "The question is, do you want the help of the Jews in the United States? The only way you can get that help is by offering Palestine to the Zionists."5 Soon afterwards in 1916 Greenberg introduced Malcolm to Dr. Weizmann and thus enabled the latter to reopen negotiations with the British Government, which were then at a dead end. These negotiations finally led to the Balfour Declaration.6 We shall see later that Lucien Wolf took the same attitude as Malcolm. He too, wrote to the British Government and suggested that they would win over American Jewry by giving the Zionists a Declaration on Palestine. Twenty-one years before the Balfour Declaration, Malcolm published a letter entitled "The Proposed Jewish State and Armenia,"7 as follows: "Sir, The particulars of this scheme, which appeared in your issue of Sunday last, were brought to my notice by a Jewish friend, and I read them with much curiosity, not only because I take a lively interest in Jews generally, but also because indirectly the proposition?a Jewish State?has a most important bearing on the future destinies of my own distracted country, Armenia. Now, Sir, owing to certain similar circumstances in which the Armenians and the 1 The Sultan and the Armenians. The Truth About the Secret Mission, Observer, London 7 June, 1896. 2 "Notes," Observer, London, 7 June, 1896. 3 Alex Bein, Theodor Herzl (Vienna, 1934). 4 and5 Two Studies in Virtue, by Christopher Sykes (London, 1953). 6 Oscar K. Rabinowicz, Fifty Years of Zionism (London, 1952), and Samuel Landman, "Origin of the Balfour Declaration," in Essays Presented to J. H. Hertz (London, 1942). 7 Observer, London, 6 July, 1896.</page><page sequence="11">lucien wolf and theodor herzl 171 Jews are placed, and to the fact that in Armenia alone the Jews were never persecuted, there exists much natural sympathy between these two races; and, therefore, as immediately after the Berlin Treaty, in connection with the same question, a terrible blunder was committed which was disastrous to the Turkish Armenians and Jews alike, I now desire, if I may be allowed the privilege of your valuable columns, to sound a word of warning which I trust in the long run may produce an equally beneficial result to both parties concerned. Among those who have for years worked for Armenia and have had opportunities of learning what was going on behind the scenes it is well known what the real reason of the non-fulfilment of the now notorious Article 61 of the Berlin Treaty was. At the same time that this international contract was signed there is no doubt whatever England was the policeman of the Turkish Empire, and she not only was able, but actually intended that the promised reforms should at least be introduced into the government of the Armenian provinces, if not in all the Pashalicks. Moreover, as a matter of fact, for that magnificent work some capable administrators, including Lord Cromer, were withdrawn from the Indian service. But the Turk, wily as ever, though crippled and back-broken, threw out a hint to Lord Beaconsfield that an autonomous Palestine might also be arranged if only the Sultan were given time for spontaneous action. And who, indeed, similarly placed would not have been tempted with such a bait? The introduction of the reforms in Armenia were consequently put off sine die. In the meantime the late Rustem Pasha, who, as a fanatic catholic, was cordially averse to the scheme, found his opportunity of once more justifying the Ottoman trust in the waste of time. And this, and not financial considerations, explains why even until recently the great Jewish influence is veering round towards the Armenians (which is a matter of great gratification to us), and newspapers owned and edited by Jews are exposing his misrule. He is again trying on the same game. The probabilities are that at the present juncture, at the sacrifice of another 30,000 or 40,000 Armenians, the Jews may get the grant of some lands in Syria for their settlements, but if they wish for the realization of their legitimate ambition?a proper Jewish State, an autono? mous Palestine?nothing, in my opinion, would hasten it more than an autonomous Armenia. As an Armenian I wish the Jews every success in their legitimate endeavours, and I trust they may be guided by the light of experience. Your obedient servant, James Aratoon Malcolm, Late Archivist, Armenian Patriotic Association, Montague Mansions, July 2, 1896." Herzl had spent weeks on the Armenian problem. And when Newlinsky returned to Vienna without having achieved his purpose, Herzl considered himself capable of proceeding with the Armenian action in spite of the fact that world opinion was incensed at reports of Turkish atrocities against Armenians. In England, an Armenian Relief Fund had been established and the Press published almost daily reports directed against Turkey. But before going to England, Herzl, together with Newlinsky, intended to visit Constantinople to negotiate with the Sultan and his government with regard to the estab Hshment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Afterwards he wanted to visit London to report to the Maccabeans and to found the Society of Jews. In Constantinople, Herzl achieved some political success. He informed the Turkish Government of the aims of Zionism and was given reason to believe that Palestine could be obtained for the Jewish people. This transpires from the optimistic letters he wrote at the time, in particular to Rev. Simeon Singer, whom he had asked to arrange that reports on his negotiations "be published in all London papers through Lucien Wolf and that this be done immediately."1 Lucien Wolf again acted as HerzPs press officer in London. In this capacity he did useful work in popularizing political Zionism in the British press. For the sake of this publicity work, Zionist historians should be lenient about many of his later trans? gressions. 1 Herzl's letter to Rev. S. Singer of 22 June, 1896, Zionist Central Archives, Jerusalem.</page><page sequence="12">172 lucien wolf and theodor herzl On 26 June 1896 Lucien Wolf wrote to Singer:1 "I have circulated a paragraph which will be all over the country tomorrow morning. Will you kindly let Herzl know this and also tell him that I should like to see him as soon as he arrives in London. I have an important communication to make to him." In his detailed report, published under the title The Projected Jewish State,2 Lucien Wolf dealt with Herzl's brochure, The Jewish State and expressed the opinion that Herzl's project "differs both in its inception and its method from the many similar projects by which it has been preceded. It is essentially modern. Hitherto the dreams of the re-establishment of the Jews in Palestine have been confined more or less to the ultra-orthodox Hebrews in retrogade countries like Russia and Morocco, where persecution is largely bound up with despotic forms of government. The present scheme has originated with the cultured wing of Young Jewry, and is a despairing reaction against the spread of anti-Semitism in constitutional countries like Austria and Germany, and its adaption as a party platform by a section of the electorate. The plan of the proposed State takes little account of the religious and mystical elements of former projects and, put briefly, is an attempt not so much to fulfil prophecy as to found a political centre for the Jewish race by the modern system of State evolution which begins with the Chartered Company and passes through the stages of a Crown colony?that is a Turkish Crown Colony?to constitutional autonomy." In the same article, Wolf gave a review of Herzl's activities during the preceding few months and of his negotiations in Constantinople. He linked his name with Zionism in the following words: "Among those who have interested themselves in his project, without, of course, committing themselves to details, are Sir Samuel Montagu, M.P., who recendy extracted a letter from Mr. Gladstone on the project, Mr. Solomon J. Solomon, A.R.A., President of the Maccabean Society, the Rev. S. Singer, pastor of the New West End Synagogue, and a few men of letters and journalists like Max Nordau, Mr. I. Zangwill and Mr. Lucien Wolf." Lucien Wolf, well satisfied and somewhat excited about his journalistic success, wrote to Herzl in French3: "The Daily Graphic, Milford Lane, Strand, W.C. 30th June, 1896. My dear Mr. Herzl, I absolutely need to see you as soon as you arrive in London. I have to talk to you about very important matters. In accordance with your wish, which Air. Singer conveyed to me, I have sent a paragraph on your mission to Constantinople to the English papers. Some hundreds published it. Give me an appointment as soon as possible. I am at home at 15, Brunswick Square from mid-day until 6 o'clock and at the office from 8 o'clock until 3 o'clock in the morning; but should you prefer it, I could come to your hotel at a time which suits you. Yours cordially, Lucien Wolf." In reply, Lucien Wolf received the following letter from Herzl, who wrote in English:4 "1 July '96. Dear Mr. Wolf, Our friend, Rev. Singer, sends me your kind letter. I shall be very glad to see you in London (Albemarle Hotel) where I hope to arrive Saturday, 4 July. Yours sincerely, I bring very important news from Constantinople." Th. Herzl. 1 Zionist Central Archives, Jerusalem. 2 Observer, London, 28 June, 1896. 8 Zionist Central Archives, Jerusalem. 4 Zionist Central Archives, Jerusalem.</page><page sequence="13">lucien wolf and theodor herzl 173 Upon Herzl's arrival in London, he sent a telegram to Wolf1: "Expect you to-morrow Sunday eleven o'clock Hotel Albemarle Herzl." Wolf replied: "4 July '96. 15, Brunswick Square, W.C. Dear Dr. Herzl, I am sorry I cannot be with you at 11 o'clock as at that hour I have to attend a meeting of the Anglo-Jewish Association. Perhaps you can come with me and we can discuss our business on the road. I will call on you at 10 on the chance of your being able to accompany me. Sincerely yours, Lucien Wolf." From Herzl diaries, we learn that Lucien Wolf called on liim twice on Sunday, 5 July 1896. The first entry reads:? "Lucien Wolf of the Daily Graphic came to interview me. A few days ago all the news? papers here started to take notice." On the same day, Herzl made a second reference to Lucien Wolf: "Lucien Wolf of the Daily Graphic came to interview me about lunch time; today's Sunday Times has already printed an interview with Zangwill about me." The interview with Zangwill was provocative and misleading. The representative of the Sunday Times was entirely ignorant of Jewish affairs. He was of the opinion? or had heard rumours?that the Maccabean Society had been established for the "pro? tection of millionaires in general, Jewish millionaires in particular, and for the general acquisition of Turkey." Zangwill informed him of the tasks of the Maccabeans and declared: "The vast majority of the world's Jews are poor as synagogue mice." The interview was published under the particular heading: "In the Witness Box. Maccabeans Unmasked." Very little was said about Herzl. It was symptomatic of the feeling then prevailing against Turkey and the sympathy for the Armenians that the Sunday Times representative appealed to the Jews to continue to wait patiently until Palestine was restored to them. "It is to be hoped, at any rate, that the Jews in England are not so anti-Christian as to be bribed by any offers of land in Palestine for their con? nivance with the extermination that is taking place of the Christian Armenians." It can be said, in all fairness, that Lucien Wolf's unsigned article, "The Projected Jewish State?Interview with Dr. Herzl,"2 was the first opportunity afforded to the English reader to form an objective and informed picture of Herzl and his Zionism. The article is topical even today. After an interesting introduction, Lucien Wolf?-so to speak?let Herzl continue. Here is Lucien Wolf's introduction: "For some mystical reasons, Piccadilly has lately been very much mixed up with schemes for the fulfilment of prophecy in regard to Palestine. The famous thoroughfare is inseparable from the memory of Laurence Oliphant, who in his day did mighty but vain things for the realization of the national dreams of the Jews. In Bath House, Piccadilly, Baron de Hirsch originated his vast scheme for the settlement of another Canaan in Argentina. A little further eastward, on the very mondain premises of the St. James's Restaurant, a society of Jewish professional men are to discuss tonight a new project for making the scattered remnant of Israel into a nation, and on the same side of the way, in a small salon on the first floor of the Albemarle Hotel, the new Moses who is to expound the scheme has lately taken up his abode. 1 Zionist Central Archives, Jerusalem. 2 Daily Graphic, Monday, 6 July, 1896.</page><page sequence="14">174 LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL In everyday life, writes the representative of the Daily Graphic, the new Moses is known as Herr Theodor Herzl. He is a Hungarian Jew, a Doctor of Law of the Vienna University, and a journalist on the staff of the Neue Freie Presse, which newspaper he has represented for some years in Paris. Like the French vaudevilliste M. Albin Valabregue, he has served an appren? ticeship to his present great scheme with a comic muse, for he has written a Book of Nonsense, and has made all Vienna laugh with his comedies. The association of Jewish national destinies with the new humour is as inexplicable as its connection with Piccadilly. That it is something more than a mere accident would seem to be shown by the fact that Dr. Herzl has found a disciple in Mr. Zangwill. However that may be, no one can listen to Dr. Herzl without feeling that he is quite in earnest. At the same time he is not altogether a dreamer." In the same interview, Theodor Herzl replied to the criticism of Dr. Hermann Adler, Chief Rabbi of the United Congregations of the British Empire. "I understand," he (Herzl) said to me yesterday, "that the Chief Rabbi, in a speech he made this morning, characterized my project as 'fantastic,' and warned the Jews of England to have nothing to do with it. Well, I scarcely expected an attack from that quarter, but I am quite accustomed to the criticism. Thirty years ago German unity was a fantastic dream, and probably not a few Chief Rabbis thought that co-religionists of theirs like Lasker, Bamberger, and Berthold Auerbach who were labouring to realize it were fools for their pains. Bah! I do not appeal to the bourgeois mind. I look to the class of men who in our days have made German and Italian unity, who have freed the Greeks and dotted the Balkans with independent nationalities. The bourgeoisie had no part in those works. They merely accepted and profited by the accomplished facts. "As a matter of fact," continued Dr. Herzl, "there is nothing fantastic in my scheme. If the Jewish liturgy and all the tear-stained literature of Judaism had not for centuries yearned for the restoration of Jewish nationality?a fact which the Chief Rabbi curiously ignores?I should still have proposed my scheme. It is purely a question of practical politics. Of late years the anti-Semitic agitation has made enormous progress in countries supposed to be enlightened. The Jews have done nothing to deserve it. But there it is. It is no use arguing with it. European Liberalism has cried out against it. Philosophy and philanthropy have grappled with it, but to no purpose. It is time that we Jews did something to protect ourselves. The nations refuse to assimilate us; let us make a beginning in finding a refuge where we need not consider the question. In other words, let us acquire a territory where we can live our own lives, or at least where those of us who are inconvenienced and threatened by the anti-Semitic agitation can find a safe asylum in political autonomy. We are a nation; let us make a state. That briefly is my idea. . . ." Herzl had come to England to continue his activities in support of an Armenian Turkish reconciliation and to establish, with the help of the Maccabeans, a "Society of Jews." In both these efforts he had the sympathy and co-operation of Lucien Wolf. Herzl discussed the Armenian affairs with Lucien Wolf and asked him to prepare the British public for negotiations between Turks and Armenians, in order to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. Herzl and Wolf were also concerned about this for humanitarian reasons. At the same time, Lucien Wolf did not hide his lack of confidence in Turkey under Abdul Hamid, both as far as the Armenians or Zionism were concerned. He told Herzl this, mentioned it in discussions at the Maccabeans and wrote about it. This distrust was nourished at the time by The Times, Daily Telegraph and other papers. Lucien Wolf shared James A. Malcolm's opinion that the Jews should not accept any "privileges" from the Sultan, which he had denied their "Christian friends," the Armenians. Lucien Wolf almost invariably stuck to this basic opinion.</page><page sequence="15">??? ^ \ Plate 29 Lucien Wolf m*</page><page sequence="16">Plate 30</page><page sequence="17">'^^^^^^ ^^^^ * ' ,\ ' ?BPS? *w-?^ Plate 31</page><page sequence="18">Colonel A. E. W. Goldsmid Herzl With English Zionists Zangwill and L. J. Greenberg are on his right, his mother on his left and Col. Goldsmid in front of her. Plate 32</page><page sequence="19">LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL 175 During his stay in London, Herzl also went to see the leader of the Armenian revo? lutionaries, Avetis Nazarbek, who did not trust the Sultan. On 6 July 1896 the second Maccabean Dinner took place at the St. James's Restaurant. Herzl had prepared his speech which Miss d'Avigdor had translated into English, and had studied accent and pronunciation with the Rev. S. Singer. In his optimistic address he emphasized that his action might lead to the possibility of a Jewish State. He did not give any details of his negotiations with statesmen, but asked for the estab? lishment of a "Society of Jews" to which he would submit all documents relating to his interventions in Constantinople and elsewhere. Herzl thought that this "Society of Jews" would undertake the task of acquiring by international law a territory for those Jews who could not assimilate themselves. In the subsequent discussion some 14 persons took part. The leaders of Hovevei Zion spoke in favour of Zionism but not of Herzl's Zionism; others opposed it?some mildly, others more sharply?and then there were those who carefully avoided committing themselves either for or against. The only one who dealt with Herzl's proposal and spoke in favour of it was Lucien Wolf. Lucien Wolf, one of the last speakers in the discussion, "complained that previous speakers had misconceived the object of the meeting"1 and he "brought the discussion to a head."2 Herzl, Lucien Wolf said, had pointed to the undeniable fact that the Jews of Eastern Europe were being persecuted, and were emigrating in consequence, but, in other countries, they found the doors closed. Until then no one could remove these obstacles. Now Herzl wanted to solve the problem "by means of the old idea of a Jewish State." And he said: "This was a perfectly practical proposal. Whether it is practicable is another question." Lucien Wolf "could not imagine a Jewish State without a Jewish State Church." He was in favour of the establishment of a comrruttee which would study Herzl's proposals and report upon their practicability. A resolution "that a com? mittee of Maccabeans and others be formed to study and discuss Herzl's scheme" again provoked a discussion and was finally accepted. There were enough outstanding personalities in London at that time, particularly among Hovevei Zionists, to form a "Society of Jews." There was Colonel Albert E. W. Goldsmid, Dr. S. A. Hirsch, J. Prag, and others. But none of the negotiations achieved any result. Not even a committee could be formed, chiefly due to the negative attitude of the Hovevei Zionists. Here already we find the beginnings of the conflict between Hovevei Zion and political Zionism, or between "infiltration" and the open demand for a Jewish State. But the negative attitude of Samuel Montagu, M.P., also contributed to Herzl's failure. Samuel Montagu, one of the first Hovevei Zionists in England, co-founder of the first committee of Chevrah Hovevei Zion?Lemaskereth Moshe in March 1885, and its treasurer had already met Herzl in November 1895 and promised him that he would co-operate towards a Jewish Palestine. Herzl was sure that he could count on him but, due to a postcard which he sent him on a Sabbath, he lost one of the best and most influential Jews in England. The pious Samuel Montagu could have achieved the immortal stature of David Wolffsohn in Zionist history had he ever been able to forgive Herzl for having sent the ill-starred Sabbath card. And others followed Montagu when he turned away from Herzl. 1 Jewish Chronicle, London, 10 July, 1896. 2 Jewish World, London, 10 July, 1896.</page><page sequence="20">176 LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL Lucien Wolf, whom Herzl described in his diaries as "a very good fellow" made efforts to form a study commission, but all negotiations remained unsuccessful. "All these people," Herzl wrote, "however willing and sympathetic they may be, by their hesitation, make me their leader."1 Since Herzl was unable to win the support of either the Maccabeans or of the Hovevei Zion, he decided to address a meeting at the Workmen's Club in the East End. Many thousands attended the meeting and this became the first demonstration in favour of political Zionism in London. Both Samuel Montagu and Colonel Goldsmid had refused to take the Chair at the East End meeting, with the result that new men became Herzl's collaborators, Haham Dr. M. Gaster, Jacob de Haas and others. But in one respect Herzl's appearance at the Maccabeans had a remarkable outcome: Herbert Bentwich, inspired by Herzl, declared in the discussion that the Maccabeans might inaugurate a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. On 29 November 1896 Bentwich talked of this to the Maccabeans and expressed the opinion that this pilgrimage would strengthen Jewish interest in Eretz Israel. "But beyond this we shall inaugurate, as those ancient pilgrims did, a new literature?a literature of Jewish pilgrimage?kindle our writers to topics higher than the Ghetto, perhaps to poetic flights worthy of the descen? dants of the Prophets, and raise in our people a spirit of pride in the Land with which their history and traditions are so inseparably associated."2 The Maccabean Pilgrimage, organized by Bentwich, was composed of 21 persons, among them Israel Zangwill. The tour lasted from 6 April to 14 May 1897. Lucien Wolf had also registered and was among the "expectant pilgrims"3 but, for certain reasons, was unable to take part in the pilgrimage. Sir Moses Montefiore had visited Palestine seven times. Each visit strengthened his love for Eretz Israel. Lucien Wolf who later was regarded as the spokesman and protagonist of Jewish rights, never saw Palestine and therefore lacked the inspiration which made Montefiore such a popular figure. To Montefiore, Palestine was the spiritual centre of his activities; for Lucien Wolf, it remained on the periphery, at some distance from the heart of his activities. This was in spite of the fact that he realized the great trials and tribulations of East European Jews and saw in Czarist Russia a permanent threat for the Jews. In 1897 Theodor Herzl founded the Zionist Organization. All over the world, including England, there were journalists who became Zionists and worked for Zionism. There was no longer any need for Herzl to ask Lucien Wolf for special journalistic inter? ventions, although he continued to be well-disposed towards Zionism. He called himself a "Zionist," or rather an "unattached Zionist." Herzl knew how to win public opinion in England for a Jewish State. His policy was based on the sympathetic attitude of England. English journalists approached him for interviews and English newspapers and periodicals published countless articles on Zionism, some of them by Herzl.4 W. T. Stead, who, in the "Review of Reviews" had published several pro-Zionist editorials and articles, wrote5: "I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Herzl at Scheveningen this spring, 1 Theodor Herzl, Tagebuecher (Berlin, 1922-23). 2 1897?5657. Maccabean Pilgrimage to Palestine. Itinerary and Programme (Thos. Cook &amp; Son, London, 1897). 3 Margery and Norman Bentwich, Herbert Bentwich: The Pilgrim Father (Jerusalem, 1940). 4 "The Eternal Jew," in Daily Chronicle, London, 12 and 13 November, 1897, or "The Zionist Congress" in Contemporary Review, London, October, 1897. 5 "Zionism" in Review of Reviews, London, September 1899.</page><page sequence="21">lucien wolf and theodor herzl 177 and having been myself under the spell, I can well understand the enthusiasm which he is liable to evoke . . ." and he appealed to "persons outside the ranks of the Jews" to support Herzl and his Zionism. On another occasion he described HerzPs idea of Zionism as a splendid one "which appeals to Christians as to Jews."1 Lucien Wolf continued to write pro-Zionist reports from time to time. In the course of the Fourth Zionist Congress in London in 1900, he published several articles, one of them entitied "The Modern Moses," which he signed as "An Unattached Zionist."2 He described Herzl as a new Prophet and as "the leader of the Chosen People, who is to plant the flag of the Maccabeans on Zion, and to restore the glories of the Kingdom of Judaea." Lucien Wolf was particularly impressed by the fact that the Zionist Organiza? tion, which represented "a sort of Jewish revolt," had acquired, after only four years, nearly 200,000 members. He continues: "There have been great movements in modern Jewry before now, but never one of this magnitude, which has formed itself in spite of the powers of the millionaires and the Rabbis." And the "Unattached Zionist" con? cludes his remarks: "Will the movement succeed? Who can say! Herzl has done wonders and I shall not be astonished at anything he may yet accomplish. He has courage and knowledge, he has even statesmanship. He has induced the Sultan to think of the scheme, and he has discussed it with the German Emperor. The time will, perhaps, come when the European Governments will ask themselves whether a solution of the Jewish question is not worth looking for. When that day comes Herzl will lead his Zionists to the Promised Land." Sir Samuel Montagu appealed to Sir Francis Montefiore not to drag the name of his illustrious uncle, Sir Moses Montefiore, into the mire of political Zionism, adding that "Palestine was a country unfit for Jews to inhabit" because the land "was barren and infertile."3 In his reply at a meeting on "Anti-Zionist Criticism," Sir Francis referred to the publications of Colonel Conder, Sir Richard Burton and Lucien Wolf to prove that Palestine could become Jewish if the Jews only wanted it enough. Lucien Wolf continued to be regarded as a Zionist and to be quoted for his pro Zionist opinions in the struggle against the anti-Zionists. In English journalist circles he was acknowledged as a champion of Zionism. In 1902 an English newspaper pub? lished a cartoon showing Wolf in the absurd uniform of a Zionist general leading an army of Jews to Jerusalem. The following comic lines explained this caricature4: The Song of the Zionist Movement I am General Wolf (not of Quebec), Who's leading the great Hebraic trek. It's all very well for you to laugh, But Zangwill will be my chief of staff. I'm starting a sort of Jewison Raid, And I'm going to lead the Ghetto brigade. We're off to "collar" all Palestine, And see if the Sultan kicks up a shine. From every part of the Continong Schnorrers are coming to join our throng. Oh, in the morning we're off to Zion, So, Hoch! Good-bye to the British Lion. 1 "Zionism and its Chief," in Review of Reviews, London, July 1901. 2 Daily Graphic, London, Thursday, 16 August 1900. 3 Jewish Chronicle, London, 24 November 1900, and Die Welt, Vienna, 28 December 1900. 4 D. Mowshowitch, "Lucien Wolf," in Jewish Chronicle, 26 August 1932.</page><page sequence="22">178 LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL But in this very year of 1902, this Zionist general Wolf, or "unattached Zionist" developed into a non-Zionist though he occasionally emphasized his Zionist sympathies. His attitude to Zionism became more distant, more vacillating, more flexible. It is likely that he was increasingly influenced by his environment, particularly by Claude Goldsmid Montefiore and Israel Abrahams. Herzl knew them both and had made efforts to win over C. G. Montefiore, who was later to become the "general speaker for the opposition,"1 by cleverly synthesizing all possible arguments against Zionism. Many years later Montefiore told how Herzl tried to enlist him as an English Zionist lieutenant.2 One day they walked from Pall Mall to Marble Arch and discussed Zionism. "By every possible means, by flattery, cajolery, argument, threat," Herzl tried "to gain his end." And Montefiore admitted that "so charming was the man, so powerful and winning his personality" that he "had to pull himself together in order to keep straight and to refuse him." "At the moment" he was even convinced that Herzl was right, but he bethought himself in time and refused to let himself be persuaded. On 11 January 1902, Lucien Wolf was, for the first time, invited to attend a meeting of the Conjoint Foreign Committee of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association.3 From then on Lucien Wolf was regarded as the only "Jewish diplomat" of Anglo-Jewry and gradually drifted further and further away from Zionism. In the course of the same year, the tenth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica was published. It contained an article entitled "Zionism" by Lucien Wolf. This was the first occasion on which one of the most eminent encyclopaedias had published an extensive article on the history of Zionism.4 Lucien Wolf started off his contribution with an account of the Zionist return of the Babylonian exiles under Zerubavel and went on to the heroic struggle of the Maccabees and the Messianic dreams of our Prophets. The longing for Zion followed the Jews into the Diaspora and remained alive in their hearts throughout the centuries. Wolf also dealt with the false Messiahs, with Sabbathai Zvi and others and explained them from a Zionist point of view. Menasseh ben Israel made efforts towards a resettlement of the Jews in England as a preliminary to their return to Palestine. Wolf described Herzl as a strong personality and had many kind words for him personally. He mentioned the Newlinsky episode and added that British Jews did not want to have anything to do with the Sultan, the persecutor of the Armenians. Lucien Wolf expressed his admiration for the Zionist movement?the greatest popular movement that Jewish history had ever known. It had a following of a quarter of a million Jews. But he doubted whether the Sultan would return Palestine to the Jews. Even in the event of Abdul Hamid coming to terms with the Jews, this would only lead to new difficulties?with the Roman and Greek Churches; and if and when these obstacles too were overcome, the Jews themselves would create new ones. Should the Jewish State be a secular or a religiously orthodox one? Neither was possible and the majority of the 250,000 Zionists would refuse to emigrate to Palestine. Finally, the population of the Jewish State would consist of Hebrew Christians and Christian M?lenarians. Wolf concluded his article by stating that Theodor Herzl's theory was based on an error, that anti-Semitism was unconquerable. This was not so, Lucien Wolf wrote: 1 Theodor Herzl, "Mr. Claude Montefiore's Ansichten" in Die Welt (Vienna, 6 May 1898). 2 Lucy Cohen, Some Recollections of Claude Goldsmid Montefiore, 1858-1938 (London, 1939). 3 Conjoint Foreign Committee Minutes. 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (Tenth Edition), XXXIII, pp. 927-930 (London, 1902).</page><page sequence="23">LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL 179 anti-Semitism was artificial and doomed to extinction. "With the passing away of anti Semitism, Jewish Nationalism will disappear. If the Jewish people disappear with it, it will be only because either their religious mission in the world has been accomplished or that they have proved themselves unworthy of it." This article was republished in the eleventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica in 1911. Lucien Wolf added some supplementary material including an account of the latest events in Zionism. Some passages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica were quoted by Zionists, others by anti-Zionists of the Union of Austrian Jews, the Alliance Israelite Universelle and the Central Association of Germans of the Jewish Faith. Each according to his needs. One could refer either to Lucien Wolf, the Zionist, or to Lucien Wolf, the anti-Zionist. The Encyclopaedia Britannica also provoked criticism by A. Coralnik. He felt that a phenomenon of such significance as Zionism deserved a more serious and objective treatment.1 In spite of criticism, the Zionist Press expressed satisfaction at Wolf's description of the movement as the most important in Jewish history. Lucien Wolf's observations on anti-Sermtism impressed neither Jews nor Gentiles, since they were followed shortly afterwards by the pogroms of Kishinev and elsewhere, thus confirming Herzl's and not Wolf's theories. In 1902, Herzl, in his capacity as President of the Zionist Organization, was invited to state his views on the Jewish question before the Royal Commission on Alien Immi? gration in London. In October 1902 Herzl had negotiations with Joseph Chamberlain, then Colonial Secretary. With the approval of the British Government, Herzl sent an expedition composed of, among others, Leopold Kessler, Colonel Goldsmid and L. J. Greenberg, to El Arish, in order to examine the region for its suitability for Jewish colonization. This was probably the first occasion?since Menasseh ben Israel?that a foreign Jew negotiated with the British Government on behalf of the Jewish people. Lucien Wolf and his friends were disturbed by these Zionist developments. They regarded such negotiations as the monopoly of the leaders of the Anglo-Jewish com? munity and considered themselves as entitled to speak before the Government. These events intensified their negative attitude towards Zionism. In addition, there was the I.C.A. affair. The Jewish Colonization Association, founded by Baron de Hirsch in 1891 with a capital of 2 milHon pounds, received further millions after the Baron's death and Herzl tried to persuade the I.C.A. leaders in Paris and London to use I.C.A. money for Pales? tine, too. But the I.C.A. refused, since they regarded Zionism as wishful thinking. Israel Zangwill in particular attacked the I.C.A. At the Fifth Zionist Congress in December 1901 he criticized the I.C.A. management and expressed the opinion that, had Baron de Hirsch been alive, he would have worked with Herzl for the achievement of Zionist aims. Zangwill wanted to induce the Congress to condemn the I.C.A. management publicly, but Herzl opposed this and no vote was taken on the matter.2 The Anglo-Jewish Association, L. J. Greenberg declared at the same Congress, held the key to the mausoleum of the I.C.A., in which the hopes of Baron de Hirsch lay buried. He too, wanted these millions to be used in the service of Zionism. When, originally, the El Arish project seemed to have prospects of succeeding, Herzl again solicited financial assistance from I.C.A., but this was once more refused. 1 Die Welt, Vienna, 30 January 1903. 2 Protokolle des V. Zionistenkongresses in Basel Vienna, 1901).</page><page sequence="24">180 LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL In 1902 the I.C.A. wanted to change their constitution. This was opposed by Zangwill who published a letter under the heading "The Hirsch Millions."1 He felt that the I.C.A. should deal only with colonization and not use funds for other purposes. He received a sharply-worded and ironical reply from Lucien Wolf,2 who declared that he was neither a Zionist nor an anti-Zionist, though he regarded the creation of the Jewish State as an impossibility. He had never attacked Zionism because he regarded Zionist idealism and enthusiasm "as qualities much too precious to be discouraged." The Zionists had the faith which could work miracles and should rely upon themselves to organize an exodus and bring back milk and honey to an exhausted land. But if they did not have this faith, the movement had no justification to exist. Baron de Hirsch, Wolf wrote, had been "uncompromisingly hostile both to political Zionism and the emigration of Jews to Palestine" and Lucien Wolf asked sarcastically for what purpose the Zionists wanted the Hirsch millions. In case they wanted to give the money to the Sultan, the persecutor of the Christian Armenians, the Jews would jeopardize the sympathy of Europeans and thus lead to an intensification of anti-Semitism. The correspondence between Zangwill and Wolf continued in The Times, and both brought their wit, satire and fighting spirit to bear upon this verbal duel. Lucien Wolf emerged as the spokesman for the Anglo-Jewish Association and the I.C.A. and he found himself pushed further into the anti-Zionist camp. After the El Arish episode, Joseph Chamberlain suggested Uganda for Jewish colonization. Herzl could neither accept nor refuse the proposal, but suggested at the Sixth Zionist Congress in Basle in 1903 that an expedition should go and examine the colonization possibilities of the area. HerzPs proposal was accepted by 295 votes against 178. Leopold Kessler, Chaim Weizmann, Joseph Cowen and L. J. Greenberg were among the members of the Commission which should appoint the members of the expedition. In the evening session of 28 August, Herzl concluded this stormy Congress with the words: "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand wither." Lucien Wolf hastened to attack Uganda. In the Zionist movement, criticism was taken as a matter of course. The Zionist Organization was a democratic institution and one could speak openly and freely at Zionist Congresses. Without criticism, Zionism would never have become a strong and powerful movement; one might almost say that there could be no Zionism at all. But Lucien Wolf's attack cannot be compared to that of, for instance, Herbert Bentwich or Dr. Gaster. The latter criticized, motivated by love of Zion, and because they felt that the movement should concentrate on Palestine. Lucien Wolf and his friends could not understand why the British Government had negotiated with Zionists as leaders of the Jewish people. They regarded this as a blow against their own authority. And it was not only a question of an intervention; the Government had in fact offered Herzl a country?not just a settlement, a village or a town but a territory of several thousand square miles. If Chamberlain had offered it to the Anglo-Jewish Association or to the I.C.A., it would have been accepted with enthusiasm but since he had offered it to Herzl, there was much feeling in these circles against the Zionist Organization and the British Government; and the diplomat, Lucien Wolf, was sent into batde to mobilize the British public against the project. On 28 August 1903, while the Congress was still in session, Lucien Wolf published a letter in The Times. It called upon the British Government to withdraw its proposal. 1 The Times, London, 23 March 1903. 2 The Times, London, 30 March 1903.</page><page sequence="25">LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL 181 Wolf complained that Lord Lansdowne, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had failed to ascertain the views and advice of the Anglo-Jewish community on this matter. He then explained the reasons why he was against an "experiment in Jewish self-govern? ment." If England offered a territory to Polish and Rumanian Jews, she would not be able to refuse similar concessions to other groups of non-Jewish emigrants. And why did England promise that the Jews would be able to observe their national customs? There were no such national customs; at the most some disagreeable habits of life of East European Jews who would create a "Polish Ghetto" in East Africa. "The emigrants would carry with them to East Africa at best a Polish standard of life, and if Dr. Herzl or Dr. Nordau supplied them with a new system of self-government the underlying principle would still be non-British, and for that matter, also non-Jewish. In a second letter,1 Wolf gave further reasons for his opposition to the East African project, attacking Israel Zangwill who was in favour of Uganda, and emphasizing that while he had always sympathized with the original idea of Zionism, he considered its realization impracticable. But if, through some political convulsion, a Jewish State under the protection of the Powers should become a possibility, he would demand that "the whole Jewish people should strain their utmost endeavour to establish the un assirnilated Jewish population of Europe in such a State and to make it a social and political success." Lucien Wolf's letters attracted a good deal of attention and also seem to have made an impression in government circles. Fourteen years later, in 1917, the British Govern? ment remembered Lucien Wolf's complaint that the views and advice of the Anglo Jewish community had not been ascertained, and this time the Jewish leaders were consulted. The majority was in favour of the Balfour Declaration. Following the publication of the letter in 1903, the English Zionist Federation called a mass meeting, attended by some 5,000 people. Once more it was Israel Zangwill who answered Lucien Wolf, and the meeting was extensively reported in The Times.2 For Zangwill, the British offer was the most significant event in Jewish history since Bar Kochba; the road to Palestine led through politics and Uganda. The Times was overwhelmed with letters. Sir Harry Johnston, an eminent expert on colonization in East Africa and others were in agreement with Lucien Wolf; others were against him. The Times also published a leading article expressing approval of Lucien Wolf's attitude and disagreement with ZangwilPs position.3 The aspirations of the Jews towards the ultimate re-establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine "do not materially concern us as Englishmen," The Times editorial asserted, adding that, should colonization in Uganda turn out a success, "the Zionists will have a stronger claim to press for the realization of their dreams elsewhere." The fight, like the earlier one on the I.C.A., was mainly one between Lucien Wolf and Israel Zangwill. They were both among the most outstanding personalities in the Anglo-Jewish community, and the saying "Who loves, teases" seems to be applicable in this instance. When, in 1905, Zangwill founded the Jewish Territorial Organization to work for the establishment of a Jewish Autonomous Colony in East Africa, Lucien Wolf joined I.T.O. It could not have been so much any enthusiasm for the East African pro? ject, which only shordy before he had persistently opposed, as the urge to work against the 1 The Times, London, 8 September 1903. 2 The Times, 7 September, 1903. 3 The Times, London, 7 September 1903.</page><page sequence="26">182 LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL Zionist movement?with which he had still sympathized in 1903?that motivated Wolf to join I.T.O. As for Theodor Herzl, the Uganda affair was nothing but one step nearer to the acquisition of Palestine. The crucial issue was not Uganda but England. Uganda, which had never made his heart beat any faster, was for him a means to an end?further political action with regard to Palestine. Politically, Lucien Wolf's contribution in The Times caused Herzl some embarrassment. In a letter of 12 September 1903 to Lord Rothschild,1 Herzl thanked him for his message of congratulation on his political success in England and complained about the "shortsighted and arrogant scribblings of a few insignificant Jews in the correspondence columns of The Times" Herzl hoped that the British Government would not let itself be influenced "by such unimportant individuals." He regarded their actions as the foolish manoeuvres of political opponents, motivated by jealousy. In another letter of 5 September 1903 to von Plehve, the Russian Minister of the Interior, Herzl referred to Sir Harry Johnston's letter in The Times and added: "East Africa is not Palestine, and Jews will not go to Uganda but only to Palestine." He asked von Plehve to persuade the Russian Government to favour a Jewish Palestine and to intervene with the Sultan. If this were to happen, Germany would endorse the Russian proposal to grant Palestine to the Jews. Herzl had visited Russia before the Sixth Zionist Congress, and had negotiated with the Ministers von Plehve and Witte regarding the Jewish question. His visit was of great significance. While still in St. Petersburg, Herzl, in his capacity as President of the Zionist Organization, received a letter from von Plehve, dated 12 August 1903, in which the Minister made the following two promises in the name of the Russian Govern? ment: (a) to support morally and materially the establishment of an independent Jewish State; (b) to favour the organized emigration of a large number of Russia's Jewish subjects to a Jewish State. The first promise was to some extent fulfilled in 1948; as to the second, it remains unfulfilled to this day. Lucien Wolf, too, visited Russia in the same year. In a report to the Anglo-Jewish Association,2 he described his difficulties of obtaining a Russian visa. Not even the Foreign Office could persuade Russia to grant a visa to a Jew. Only after considerable effort and the pulling of strings, was he permitted to visit St. Petersburg. It seems that he also undertook the journey to Russia and Rumania on behalf of the Conjoint Foreign Committee, for, shortly after his return, the Committee asked Wolf to draft a letter to Lord Lansdowne, asking for his intervention to prevent anti-Jewish disturbances in Russia.3 And this letter "should bear the signatures of Alexander and Leopold de Rothschild on behalf of the Board of Deputies, and of F. D. Mocatta, Dr. Adler and Dr. Gaster on behalf of the Anglo-Jewish Association," the resolution said. In Russia, Wolf had an interview with von Plehve which he later published in The Times.41 Von Plehve informed him that the Russian Government would view with 1 Theodor Herzl, Tagebuecher (Berlin, 1922-23). 2 Anglo-Jewish Association, Thirty-Third Annual Report, London, 1903-04. 3 Conjoint Foreign Committee Minutes, London, January 1904. 4 The Times, London, 6 February 1904.</page><page sequence="27">lucien wolf and theodor herzl 183 pleasure the intervention of the German Government with the Sultan to enable Jewish emigration to Palestine; Russia would not oppose the encouragement of Zionist ideas in Russia and would be in favour of Jewish emigration to Palestine. This declaration of von Plehve was no doubt the result of HerzPs visit, in spite of the fact that Lucien Wolf did not mention Herzl's name in his article. We do not know what Lucien Wolf told von Plehve about Herzl or Palestine. What we do know is that he submitted to von Plehve a scheme for the estabhshment of Jewish colonies in Southern Siberia, probably at the request of the I.C.A. Wolf was satisfied with von Plehve's promise to promote assimilation of the Jews with their non-Jewish fellow countrymen. Lucien Wolf's intervention was in sharp contrast to Herzl's negotiations with von Plehve. It is not quite clear why Lucien Wolf undertook the Russian mission at all. But when it comes to politicians, there is no point in asking why and wherefore? Lucien Wolf, as a diplomatic correspondent for English papers, suffered from an unrequited love for Germany and had a phobia about Russia. On the one hand he visited von Plehve, who was regarded as an instigator of pogroms; on the other, he criticized Herzl because he had negotiated with the Sultan, the assassin of the Armenians. Nevertheless, he seems to have been impressed by von Plehve's remarks on Zionism. On the return journey from Russia to London, Wolf stopped in Vienna where he wanted to see Herzl. He had never made any personal attack upon Herzl; on the contrary, in most of his writings he displayed great admiration for Herzl's personality. On 9 November 1903 he sent Herzl the following letter:1 "Dear Dr. Herzl, I am passing through Vienna after a visit to Russia and Rumania where I have seen all the people worth seeing, including Plehve and Sturdza. I shall be very glad to meet you to have an extra-political chat with you. I suppose there is nothing in our differences on the Jewish question to prevent this. With kind regards, Believe me, Sincerely yours, Lucien Wolf." It is difficult to establish whether such a meeting actually took place. But it is a fact that, from 1904 onwards, Lucien Wolf used his pen more and more against the basic principles of Zionism. In England, there was only one Lucien Wolf, but Herzl knew and had met about a dozen Jewish journalists in Vienna, Prague and Berlin of Lucien Wolf's stature. He made sincere efforts to turn them into Zionists, with some of them he succeeded, with others he failed. Lucien Wolf did not present a special problem, for in London he could now rely on a group of devoted and dedicated Zionists, some of them journalists capable of conducting diplomatic activities. Lucien Wolf devoted himself increasingly to communal work, and the vast majority of communal workers in England?as elsewhere?were not in the Zionist camp. Herzl's call to "conquer the Jewish communities'' was the reply to the negative attitude of Jewish community leaders. When the Fourth Zionist Congress was held in London in August 1900?the first Jewish world conference with several hundred delegates from all parts of the world to be held in London?neither the Board of Deputies nor any other representa? tive organization welcomed it officially. Thus it came about that Lucien Wolf, influenced by the powerful personality of Claude G. Montefiore, moved away from Zionism and devoted himself more and more to the work of the Anglo-Jewish Association and the 1 Zionist Central Archives3 Jerusalem. N</page><page sequence="28">184 LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL Conjoint Foreign Committee. It was really paradoxical that the Alliance Israelite Universelle, the Anglo-Jewish Association and other similar institutions, which had been founded by "men of Jewish nationalist sympathies"1 and had performed so much valuable work for Palestine, had now become centres of opposition against Zionism. When the Anglo-Jewish Association was invited to participate in the Zionist Conference of March 1898, which laid the foundations for the English Zionist Federation, it did not accept. The Association held a number of shares of the Jewish Colonization Association, an English company, and assisted in its adrninistration. And while there were some Zionists, such as Haham Dr. M. Gaster and Sir Francis Montefiore, among the members of the Anglo-Jewish Association, its spokesmen were usually anti-Zionist. Lucien Wolf's second letter to The Times, of 8 September 1903, already bore the strange heading "The Zionist Peril." In spite of this heading, he referred in this letter to his sympathy for "the original idea of Zionism" and attacked more fiercely the project of Uganda on a self-governing basis, with "Jewish Home Rule, Jewish national customs and a Jewish Governor." He had not yet come out on the side of the anti-Zionist, but Zionist circles in London and Vienna already regarded him as one. After his return from Vienna, Lucien Wolf proceeded to attack the foundations of Zionism in a polemical article. This article, again entitled "The Zionist Peril," pub? lished in the Jewish Quarterly Review under the editorship of I. Abrahams and C. G. Montefiore, marks his entry into history as an anti-Zionist.2 The author was not Lucien Wolf, the historian, but Lucien Wolf, the communal worker. "Peril" was confined to the title; the contents were innocuous. He wrote that he realized the perils of the Zionist movement in his controversy with I. Zangwill, Herzl's follower. As already mentioned, this controversy was centred on the funds of the I.C.A. and on the Uganda project, which Lucien Wolf now described as the"Nachtasyl fuer Jerusalem." Zionism was trying to "re-nationalize" Judaism. Sabbathai Zvi had attempted this once before and the result had led, as Lucien Wolf said, to "Allgemeine Verwilderung der Juden." The Mendelssohnian movement had saved the Jews from this terrible situation of "re-nationalization." Like many others, Lucien Wolf repeated that Zionism was largely based on a misconception of the religious mission of Israel, and that Zionism was an ally of anti-Semitism. In place of Zionism, Lucien Wolf demanded a Mendelssohnian mission, with the Jews setting an example to the nations. As a result of emancipation, Germany was honouring Heine; France, Catulle Mendes and England, Disraeli. Zionism, on the other hand, was a negation of the policy of emancipation. The Jews, though "of Aryan origin," had in the course of time developed into "the Jewish race,'" but today they formed merely a religious community. Lucien Wolf advocated assimilation, which implied that the Jews should become good citizens in the same way as Roman Catholics were good citizens in England and Protestants good citizens in France. The Jews should adopt the social manners and customs of the country in which they were living, together with its aspirations, ideals and traditions. "Intermarriage is no bar to this assimilation," Lucien Wolf said. It was wrong to assume, Lucien Wolf went on, that only the assimilated Jews of the West opposed Zionism; Jews in Eastern Europe also rejected it. All the Chassidim, Mithnagdim, members of the "Bund," as well as the Jewish upper classes, were 1 Nahum Sokolow, History of Zionism, 1600-1918 (London, 1919). 2 Lucien Wolf, "The Zionist Peril," Jewish Quarterly Review, XVII (London, October 1904).</page><page sequence="29">LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL 185 anti-Zionists. HerzPs followers were of the middle classes, not because they longed for Jerusalem, but because they were excluded from Russian national life. The vast majority of Russian Jewry did not believe in Zionism, but rather desired civil and religious emancipation. The position of Rumanian Jewry was similar, and Zionism held no attractions for Polish Jews either. Instead, they had a political ideal: the fight for Polish independence. Lucien Wolf had collected almost all the arguments advanced against Zionism in the first few years after the appearance of the Jewish State and published them in this article, with the addition of a few new ones. Lucien Wolf's exposition, like that of the "Protest-Rabbis" seven years previously, culminated in the assertion that the Jews as a holy nation of the kingdom of priests, had been entrusted with a mission, and this mission would have to be completed by the Jews in their providential dispersion. Lucien Wolf's article was written in May 1904, two months before the death of Theodor Herzl; but it was not published until October. In a preface, Wolf expressed his grief and stressed the ineffaceable impression made upon him by Herzl's "fine character, his brilliant attainments and his personal charm." Herzl's "memory cannot die," Wolf concluded, "for in the few years he devoted to the Jewish question he wrote a large and imposing chapter in Jewish history?a chapter which even in spite of his critics, and his followers, will remain an imperishable monument to his genius." On the d??y after Herzl's death, on 4 July 1904, Lucien Wolf paid tribute to Herzl's memory, not as his disciple, but as one of his greatest admirers, at a meeting of the Jewish Historical Society of England.1 He described Herzl as one of the ablest journalists of Europe and as a Jewish leader with remarkable abilities and wonderful devotion to the interests of the Jewish people. Herzl had certainly made history and would live in history. And with Lucien Wolf's farewell to Herzl this chapter on "Lucien Wolf and Theodor Herzl" draws to a close. It is possible that I may, at some time in the future, continue with a work on "Lucien Wolf and the Balfour Declaration." But before then I want to make a few further observations. After Herzl's death there were many changes in Jewish life. Zionism changed; and so did the Zionists, and Lucien Wolf, too, went a different way. Zionist opposition caused David Wolffsohn, the political Zionist and successor of Herzl, to refuse re-election as President of the Zionist Organization at the Tenth Zionist Congress in 1911. Max Nordau, in protest, stayed away from the Eleventh Zionist Congress (1913), the last before the first world war. Zionism had almost lost its political character and had returned to the old Hovevei Zionism, tinged with the spirit of Ahad Ha'am. Ahad Ha'am was present as an observer at the First Zionist Congress (1897) and for him the three days in Basle were days of mourning. Sixteen years later he was again an observer at the Eleventh Zionist Congress in Vienna and on that occasion was well satisfied with the new development of Zionism in "the right direction."2 This direction was Cultural Zionism. Cultural Zionism was weak when Political Zionism was strong, and strong when Political Zionism could not show any positive results. Cultural Zionism was a Nachtasyl for wavering Zionists who had doubts about the success of Political Zionism. 1 Jewish Chronicle, London, 8 July 1904. 2 Ahad Ha-Am. Translated from the Hebrew and edited by Leon Simon (Oxford, 1946).</page><page sequence="30">186 LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL When, in 1905,1. Zangwill founded the Jewish Territorial Organization and became its president in order to continue the Uganda action and find new territories for the colonization of Jews, Lucien Wolf joined him and even became president of the Central London Branch of I.T.O. The outbreak of the first world war led to another important change in Zionism. Suddenly, Practical Zionism and Cultural Zionism were cast aside and Political Zionism awakened to new life, particularly in England where Joseph Cowen and Leopold Green berg, and others, had worked ceaselessly for Herzl-Zionism. Chaim Weizmann also changed. The objective which he had fought against in the past now became for him the only possible path towards the realization of Zionism. He continued the political work where Herzl had left off. Lucien Wolf was during the first World War the spokesman of Anglo-Jewry and the politician of the Conjoint Foreign Cornmittee. As such, he was acknowledged by the community as well as by the British Government with whom he was frequently in contact. Though he remained an anti-Zionist, he wanted to help in his way and accord? ing to his own ideas. Unfortunately his negotiations with the Zionists did not lead to unity. Lucien Wolf wanted to replace Political Zionism by Cultural Zionism on the outlines of Ahad Ha'am. Before the war, in 1911 and 1913, the majority of Zionists would have considered this as a "victory." But now there was a new mood abroad, a new spirit of the times, which also affected Zionists in England, and Lucien Wolf, with Cultural Zionism and other activities, was less able to stem the course of Zionist history. Even admirers of Ahad Ha'am, seeing Cultural Zionism in action, took fright and turned away from Lucien Wolf, though he demanded more than Ahad Ha'am would ever have dreamed of doing. Lucien Wolf's anti-Zionist attempt to prevent the issue of the Balfour Declaration of 2 November 1917 is recorded in Zionist history. But just as during the Herzl era when he worked first for and then against Zionism, his activities during the first world war were sometimes beneficial for Zionism. His anti-Zionist actions are known, but I should now like to mention the help he gave to Zionism during the war. It should be historically recognized that Lucien Wolf was among the first during the world war to try and persuade the British Government to grant the Jews certain rights in Palestine. He proposed this as representative of the Conjoint Foreign Committee, which at that time had arrogated to itself the right to speak not only on behalf of British Jewry but of Jews throughout the British Empire. Already in 1915 he had worked out a "Palestine formula" and submitted it to the Government. He asked that Palestine be reserved in some way for the Jews and that this should be confirmed in a declaration. It is open to question whether it would have been more advantageous for Zionism if somebody other than Lucien Wolf had acted as mediator between the Conjoint Foreign Committee and the British Government. He was certainly not the worst possible choice. Lucien Wolf negotiated with Lloyd George, Balfour and many others. If, from 1915 onwards, however, the intermediaries had been Claude Montefiore (President of the Anglo-Jewish Association) or D. L. Alexander (President of the Board of Deputies), under whose direction the Conjoint Foreign Committee was operating, there can be no doubt that the outcome would have been much less favourable for Zionism. Lucien Wolf was at least acting in the spirit of Ahad Ha'am. In February 1915 Lucien Wolf had a conversation with Herbert Samuel to whom he</page><page sequence="31">LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL 187 submitted his "cultural" plan, which included a Hebrew University, free irnrnigration and facilities for colonization in Palestine. Herbert Samuel was in favour of it.1 On 16 December 1915, Lucien Wolf sent a memorandum to Robert Cecil at the Foreign Office. He emphasized that he himself was not a Zionist, but if the Foreign Office wanted to win the sympathies of American Jewry, it would first have to enlist the strong and influential Zionist movement. The American Jewish Congress was about to convene in America2 and it was the right moment to issue a Declaration, not for a Jewish State, but expressing sympathy for Jewish aspirations with regard to Palestine, with guarantees of facilities for imrnigration, colonization, for local self-government, for the establishment of a Hebrew University, and for the recognition of the Hebrew language as one of the vernaculars of the Holy Land. Such a Declaration and the fact that England would become "mistress of Palestine," Lucien Wolf wrote, could help in attracting the "whole of American Jewry" to the cause of the Allies. Lucien Wolf reminded the British Government of the Jews' historical interest in Palestine; he frequently called upon the Government to issue a public statement on Palestine, and even asked for such a Declaration to be sent to him on the occasion of a mass meeting convened by the National Union for Jewish Rights under his chairmanship in the East End in March 1916. Who can tell what direction Jewish history might have taken had the Balfour Declaration not been addressed to Lord Rothschild, with the request to "bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation," but, instead, had it been sent to Lucien Wolf, requesting him to bring it "to the knowledge of the Conjoint Foreign Comrnittee of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and of the Anglo-Jewish Association?" All these events took place long before James Malcolm and Sir Mark Sykes met Weizmann, Sokolow and the others through the intermediacy of Leopold Greenberg. Weizmann himself confirmed that, until 1916, "there did not exist real connections with the British Government."3 But Lucien Wolf had had these connections. Later, on 24 May 1917, a serious conflict arose between the Zionists and the Con? joint Foreign Cornmittee, which had published a strongly anti-Zionist letter in The Times signed by Claude Montefiore and D. L. Alexander. No doubt Lucien Wolf helped in drafting this letter. The Zionists emerged the winners in this conflict as The Times then published a pro-Zionist leading article and the British Government wrote to certain Jewish personalities asking for their views in connection with the forthcoming Declaration. The majority of Jewish leaders were in favour, and the Balfour Declaration followed soon afterwards. It remains to be added that Lucien Wolf championed the formation of the Jewish Legion, possibly due to the fact that most Zionists were against it. In a letter to Vladimir Jabotinsky of 4 September 1916, Lucien Wolf reported on his successful intervention on behalf of the Jewish Legion at the Home Office and the War Office. He also approached Mr. Henderson with regard to Mr. Meir Grossman, whom Jabotinsky wanted in London to help with propaganda for the Jewish Legion. Henderson promised that the British Consul in Copenhagen would be instructed to facilitate Grossman's journey to London on the condition that Vladimir Jabotinsky and Joseph Cowen would "vouch 1 Reports of the Conjoint Foreign Committee, London, 1915-17. 2 The Conference of the American Jewish Congress was opened in Philadelphia on 26 March 1916. 3 Oskar K. Rabinowicz, Fifty Years of Zionism. A Historical Analysis of Dr. Weizmann*s " Trial and Error" (London, 1952).</page><page sequence="32">188 LUCIEN WOLF AND THEODOR HERZL for his respectability." Lucien Wolf concluded his letter to Jabotinsky as follows: "I hope that you will now set to work energetically on your propaganda. I am always at your disposal, if I can help you in any way." When in May 1917 Leopold Greenberg received the first alarming news of the atrocious treatment of the Palestine Jews by Turkey, he asked Lucien Wolf to take some action. Lucien Wolf immediately got in touch with Mr. Oliphant and went to see Sir Ronald Graham, both of the Foreign Office. Lucien Wolf also telegraphed Chief Rabbi Ehrenpreis in Stockholm asking him to intervene on behalf of the Jews in Palestine. Sir Ronald Graham told Wolf: "Whether this succeeds or fails, Mr. Wolf, you have the satisfaction of knowing that you have done the best that could be done." Zionist history, when dealing with Lucien Wolf, takes a negative attitude and usually records only his anti-Zionist letters and activities. Schechtmann in his book also fails to mention Lucien Wolf's intervention on behalf of the Jewish Legion1 at a time when almost all leading Zionists opposed it. It is not my intention to whitewash the anti-Zionist Lucien Wolf. But it is fitting that Zionist history should not only record his anti-Zionist efforts, but also his positive endeavours for Zionism. 1 Joseph B. Schechtmann: Rebel and Statesman. The Vladimir Jabotinsky Story (New York, 1956).</page></plain_text>

bottom of page