Katz Jewish Social History

7/23/2019 Katz Jewish Social History

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/katz-jewish-social-history 1/10

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Jewish History.

http://www.jstor.org

On Jewish Social History: Epochal and Supra-Epochal HistoriographyAuthor(s): Jacob KatzSource: Jewish History, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Spring, 1993), pp. 89-97

Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20101145Accessed: 18-11-2015 08:57 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 132.64.55.31 on Wed, 18 Nov 2015 08:57:45 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20101145

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp






http://www.jstor.org/stable/20101145

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/



Jewish

History

Volume

7,

No. 1

Spring

1993_

On Jewish Social

History:

Epochal

and

Supra-Epochal

Historiography

Jacob Katz

Back

in

the

1950s,

at

th?

outset

of

a

somewhat

belated academic

career,

when the

sum

of

my

published

research consisted of

my

doctoral

dissertation

on

the

assimilation of

German

Jews

(completed

in

Germany nearly

two

decades

before)1

and

a

handful of

journal

articles,

I

attempted

to

elucidate the

concept

of

social

history

and

its

possible

utility

for historical

research

on

Jewish

communities

in

the

Diaspora.2

My

interest

in

treating

the

topic

had

been

prompted

by

an

appointment

in

1953

to

the

staff of the

Department

of

Sociology

at

the Hebrew

University

to

teach Jewish

social

history.

Now,

after

some

forty

years

of

teaching

and

research,

I

believe

the

time

is

ripe

for

taking

a

renewed

look

at

this

question,

examining

it in

the

light

of

my

own

research

findings

and

those

of

other

scholars.

When I

initially began

to

delve

into

the

topic

four decades

ago,

perusing

and

surveying

publications

by

authors

who had

explicitly

used the

term

social

history

in

their

titles,

I

was

only

able

to

locate

a

small number who had

endeavored

to

provide

a

theoretical

underpinning

for

their utilization of the

concept.

This

was

probably

due

to

the

state

of research

in

the

field

at

the

time,

a

situation

compounded

in Jerusalem

by

the

special

circumstances in the

wake of hostilities

connected

with

the establishment

of the

State

of Israel: the

holdings

of

the

National

Library

on

Mt.

Scopus lay

in

territory

inaccessible

to

inhabitants of the

city.

So,

in

actual

fact,

all

I

had

available for orientation

were

two

studies:

G.

M.

Trevelyan's English Social History and Salo W. Baron's A Social and Religious

History of

the

Jews.7,

Thus,

I

was

forced

to

rely

for the

most

part

on

my

own

wits

and

intuition,

bolstered

by

a

background

of formal

training

in

sociology.

As is

now

evident

in

retrospect,

I arrived

at

conclusions

quite

similar

to

those

of

other

scholars

who had

engaged

in

attempts

to

shed

light

on

the

concept.4






90

Jacob Katz

Right

from

the

start,

it

was

clear

to

me

that

to

introduce

the notion

of

social

history

meant

to

deflate

historiographical

interest

from

its

preoccupation

with

politics;

Trevelyan's

definition

served

to

strengthen

that

perception. According

to

his classic

formulation,

Social

history

is

the

history

of

a

people

with

the

politics

left

out. 5

This

view

extended

a

buttress

to

support

my

thesis

that

social

history

-

in

contrast to

political

history

-

in

fact

possessed

certain

decided

advantages

when

it

came

to

investigating

the

Diaspora

communities. After

all,

those communities

had

in

effect

been

condemned

to

an

almost

proverbial

political

powerlessness.

Their

contribution

to

the life of the

non-Jewish

surrounding

world had been

limited

to

a

number

of

economic

functions,

and

they

remained

excluded

from

all

other

domains,

in

particular

that

of

authority

and

power.

The

internal life of

such

communities

was

played

out

in

the

nexus

of

institutions

-

family,

school,

synagogue,

voluntary

associations and

the

like

-

all

of which

remain

legitimate

objects

for social-historical

research.

Thus,

while

Trevelyan

reasoned

that

the

political

domain should

be

left

to

one

side when

examining

the

social

history

of

various

peoples

-

an

approach

beset

with

potential

problems

-

the

same

political

dimension seemed

to vanish

virtually

of its

own

accord

if

Jewish

communities

were

selected

as

the

topic

for

investigation. Indeed, such communities appeared to be almost predestined as

potential objects

for social-historical

analysis.

In

my

view

as

conceived

at

that

time, however,

social

history

is

not

only

determined

by

concrete

objects

of

research.

It

also

requires

a

method

which

differs from

that

of conventional

historiography

and

is

oriented

toward

sociology.

The

sociological analysis

of

any

institution,

past

or

present,

is

never

focused

on

the

concrete

example

of

a

phenomenon;

rather,

it

centers

on

the

collective

essential

features

of

the

given

institution.

This

is

also

the

case

when it

comes

to its

social

history.

Attention

is

not

directed

to

delineating

the

fate

of

a

concrete

example

of

some

institution

over

the

course

of

time

-

instead,

focus

is

on

the modifications

undergone

in its

collective configuration. I chose to illustrate this postulate using the example of

the

family,

and had

already

published

a

study

in

Hebrew based

on

this

method,

dealing

with

marriage

and

sexual

behavior

in

the late medieval

period.6

In

that

article,

I

described the

structure

and

function

of

the

family

in

Ashkenaz

Jewish

communities

on

the threshold of

the

modern

age.

Thus,

this did

not

entail

a

history

of

individual

families,

as

was

the

customary

practice

in

family

research;

rather,

the

objective

was

to

arrive

at

an

abstract

picture

of

the

family,

mirroring

the

salient features of

social

reality

characteristic

of

all families

during

this

period.

The

essay

argued

programmatically

for the

notion that

a

key

task

confronting

any

social

history

of Jewish

communities

in

a

specific period

was

to present all aspects of their life, including their institutions (not just the

family,

but

schools

and

synagogues,

the

rabbinate,

etc.

as

well),

described

in

this

abstract

manner.

Undoubtedly,

I

was

guided

in

my

approach

by

the

Weberian

notion

of

the ideal

type

as

an

orientational

concept

for

social-historical research.






On Jewish

Social

History

91

I

fulfilled the

potential

promise

of that

postulate

in

my

subsequent

study

entitled

Tradition

and

Crisis.1

The

main section

of

the

monograph

is

an

ideal-typical

portrait

of traditional

Jewish

society

in

the last

phase

of its evolvement

in

Europe

during

the

16th

to

18th

centuries.

As

in

my

earlier

article

on

the

family,

the

book's

final section sketches

the

break with

tradition and the transition

to

new

social

movements

and

formations,

a

topic

Iwill

return

to

below.

Looking

back

at

these

early

contributions

to

the

theory

and

practice

of Jewish

social

history

from

today's

vantage point,

I

believe

a

few critical

observations

are in order. Even at that time, I harbored

certain

doubts about the notion,

implicit

in

the

Trevelyan

definition,

that

political

aspects

can

be

justifiably

ignored

when

focusing

on

social

history.

In

reality,

I

suspected

that

Trevelyan

himself

had

not

overlooked

English

political

history;

on

the

contrary,

he had

presupposed

that his readers

were

already

conversant

with

its

basic

facts.8

Of

course,

the historian remains

sovereign

in

the

choice

of

his research

object.

If

he

wishes

to

describe

the

development

of

a

specific

sector

in the life of

a

society,

such

as

the

history

of

its

economy,

art

or

religion,

then

reference

to

neighboring

areas

is

only

necessary

where these

exert

a

direct

and

obvious

influence

on events

within

the domain

of the

topic

under

investigation.

But if

one's historiographie intention is to paint a comprehensive picture of a society

over

the

course

of

time

-

an

aim I had

hoped

to

achieve,

and

one

often

postulated

by

social historians

today

-

then

a

researcher

can

dare

to

ignore

the

political

dimension

only

on one

condition;

namely,

if

he

is

persuaded

that

society

remains

unaffected

by

the

prevailing

form

of

authority

and

domination,

and the

practical

exercise of

such

power.

Yet that

is

of

course

a

postulate

few if

any

historians

nowadays

would find

acceptable.

Politics

is

the

all-encompassing

agent

of

government,

a

principle

aptly

enunciated

by

Napoleon.9

Whether

one

is

actively

involved

in

political

events

or

is

only

their

passive

subject

and

victim,

they

have

an

impact

on

what

occurs

in

other

spheres.

Indeed,

the

Jewish

Diaspora

communities represent a classic example of dependence on foreign

rulers

who

determined

their fate.

No historian

writing

on a

Jewish

community

or

larger

social

unit has

failed

to

deal

in

some

manner

with

the

political

conditions

forming

the

ambience

of

their

existence.

Nor

did

1

in

Tradition

and

Crisis.

Moreover,

the

political

dimension

is also

present

as

a

factor within

the internal

life

of

the

Jewish

community

itself.

The

framework

determined

by

the

non-Jewish

ruling

powers

normally

contains

a

stipulation

granting

the

community

a

certain

degree

of

autonomy.

And that

autonomy

places

a

modicum

of coercive power - in the form of taxation prerogatives, religious and civil

discipline

and the like

-

squarely

in the hands

of

the

leaders of

the

community.

So

a

comprehensive

total

history

of

a

Diaspora

society,

along

the lines of

what

I

had

attempted

to

sketch

in

Tradition

and

Crisis,

certainly

does

not

exclude

political

aspects, despite

its overall

thrust

and

presentation

as

social

history.






92

Jacob

Katz

No

historian

would

dispute

the

evident

advantages

of

an

encompassing

history

treating

all

aspects

of

a

community.

Nonetheless,

such

totalizing

historiography

has

its

drawbacks

and

must remain

problematical.

Success

is

possible only

so

long

as

sights

are

focused

on

a

specific phase

of

development,

the

picture

of

a

society

at

a

definite

point

in

time in its

evolving

existence.

That

moment

need

not

be of

brief

duration,

and

can

embrace

the

expanse

of

an

entire

epoch,

if

it is

indeed

possible

to

isolate

and

pinpoint

relatively

constant

and

abiding

features

in

the

physiognomy

of

that chosen

time-segment.

In

any

event,

the

picture

delineated

portrays

society

in

a

quasi-static

state,

tending

to

neglect

that

essential

element

characteristic

of all

historiographie description, namely,

the

tracing

of

temporal change.

In

Tradition

and

Crisis,

I

did

not content

myself

with

presenting

a

momentary

snapshot,

as

it

were,

of traditional

society.

Rather,

I tried

to

augment

the

picture

by

a

description

of

the

earliest

stage

in

a

process

of

its two

metamorphoses:

in

Western

Europe,

the

phase

of

Enlightenment

guided

by

the

lights

of

rationalism,

and the

emergence

of

Hasidism oriented

toward

mystical-kabbalistic concepts

in

Eastern

Europe.

However,

a

combination

of the

two

approaches

-

a

cross-sectional

comprehensive portrayal

of

society

and

the

sketching

of its

evolvement over time

-

would have necessitated a description and analysis of

the

new

stages,

as

well

as

of traditional

society,

in terms

of

the total

complex

of

their institutions

and

functions.

Yet that

perspective

entails

a

major

complication:

since the roots

of

traditional Jewish

society

did

not

originate

in

the

late Middle

Ages,

but

dated back

to

the

ancient Talmudic

period,

my

presentation,

given

the

requirements

of its

sociological

orientation,

would

necessarily

have

had

to

take

the

Talmudic

age

as

its

point

of

departure.

Moreover,

such

an

undertaking

would

have called

for

a

causal

explanation

-

rather than

mere

description

-

to account

for

the

transitions from

stage

to

stage;

it

would have made

it

necessary

to

explicate

the

driving

force

behind

those

transitions.

The

objective

difficulties,

and indeed

practical

impossibility,

of

an

undertaking

along

these lines would

be

readily

evident. To

forego

such

an

approach

is

certainly

not

a

decision

dependent

on

the

personal

shortcomings

and

inadequacies

of

the individual

historian.

I

am

gratified

to

note

that

I

do

not

stand

alone

in

this

pessimistic

assessment. As Dieter

Groh has observed

in

his

methodological study

of

similar

problems:

The

Archimedean

point

has

not

yet

been

located

from

which

history

can

be

investigated

and

presented

as a

series

of

events

developing

over

time

[Verlaufsgeschichte]

on

the

one

hand,

and

from

which,

on

the

other,

the

structures

precipitated

by history

can

be

researched and

described. Nor will that

point

ever be found... 10 The methodological

justification

for

a

total

comprehensive

social

history

remains

undisputed

as

long

as

it

stays

within

the

bounds of

its

inherent

capacity:

the

description

and

analysis

of

a

society

inside

a

limited

time-frame.

In

contrast to

this

objective,

French

historians

have

put

forward

the

concept

of l'histoire

de la

longue

dur?e.

In

my






On

Jewish

Social

History

93

view,

that formulation

is

a

rather

unfortunate

terminological

choice,

since

short

and

long

are

relative

terms

that

say

nothing

about the

characteristic features of

the

specific

time-periods

being

examined.11

In

this

context,

I

would

prefer

the

expressions

epochal

and

supra-epochal

duration.

A

period

of

time

that

can

be

characterized

in terms of

constant

features

is

epochal,

while

a

phenomenon

whose

impact

stretches

over

several individual

periods

or

epochs

is

supra-epochal.

Although

these

latter

phenomena

can

be

woven

into

the

texture

of

a

totalizing comprehensive

social

history

at

various

junctures

in

their

individual

stages,

they

must

be

analyzed

as

an

independent

research

object,

extricated

from

the

general

web

of

history,

if

their

supra-epochal

character is

to

be

properly

grasped.

Let

me

illustrate

this

problem

by

reference

to

two

examples

drawn

from

my

own

research.

Tradition

and Crisis

contains

a

chapter

on

the

theoretical and

practical

relations

of

Jews

to

their

non-Jewish

environment

during

the

period

under

scrutiny

there,

i.e.,

the

16th

to

18th

centuries.12

That relation

was

partially

determined

by

the

political,

economic

and social

conditions

shaping

the

life of the

Jewish

communities

at

the

time

-

namely,

a

lack

of

political

rights,

social

isolation

and

economic

restrictions.

Yet

an

important

role

was

played

here

by

a

tradition

stemming from the Talmudic period; that traditional outlook had left itsmark on

Jewish

mentality

and

contained

concrete

rules

and

precepts

in

respect

to

Jewish

relations

with

the

surrounding

non-Jewish

world. In

a

social-historical

description

and

analysis

of

the last

phase

of

traditional

society,

these

ancient

roots

could

only

be

alluded

to;

there

was

no

possibility

for

elaboration.

In

my

book

Exclusiveness

and

Tolerance,u

I

subsequently

undertook

the

task

of

tracking

the

changes

and

modifications

within Talmudic

tradition

over

the

course

of

centuries,

limiting

myself

to

the

topic

at

hand

and

touching only

tangentially

on

its

points

of

contact

with

other

sectors,

such

as

politics,

economy

and

religion.

I faced a similar methodological problem in dealing with the history of

anti-Semitism.

The

study

Out

of

the

Ghetto

described

the fate

of

Western and

Central

European

Jewry

during

the first

generation

of their

entry

into

European

society,

1780-1815.14

This

presentation

is

framed

in

terms

of the model

of

ideal-typical

abstraction,

and

treats

the

changes

in

conditions

that facilitated the

emancipation

of

Jews from

their social isolation

-

in

particular

the

emergence

of

rationalism,

which undermined

Christian

religious

justifications

for

the

exclusion

of

Jews

from

civil

society.

One

chapter

in

the

study,

however,

pointed

to

the

phenomenon

of

lingering

opposition:

adversaries who

retained

their

misgivings

about

Jews,

justifying

their

arguments

by

the

means

and

methods of

rationalism,

and this despite the quite evident changes in the general attitudes and tenor of

thought

at

the

time.15

Here

one

could

discern

the

beginnings

of

a new

animosity

toward

the

Jews,

based

on

secularized

arguments,

one

which

appropriated

strands

of

traditional

Judeophobia,

transferring

them into the

currents

of

the

modern

period.






94 JacobKatz

This

focus

provided

me

with

an

occasion for

pursuing

those

developments

further;

the

product

of that research

was

a

history

of

modern

anti-Semitism.16

While

the

first

appearance

of this

variant of anti-Jewish

sentiment

is

presented

there

within

the

comprehensive

framework of

the

circumstances

prevailing

at

the

time,

its

further

evolvement,

extending

to

the ultimate

culmination

in the

Holocaust,

is

treated

in

relative isolation

-

though

with

reference,

wherever

necessary,

to

accompanying

political,

economic and intellectual historical

events.

Thus,

once

again,

we can see an

example

illustrating

the

concrete

application

of

the

supra-epochal

method.

Given

its

evident

fruitfulness,

there

can

be

little doubt about

the

utility

of

a

social

history

which

endeavors

to

comprehend

and

present

an

interconnected

picture

of

all

aspects

in

the life of

a

society

during

a

given

epoch.

But

such

a

method

should

not

be

elevated

to

the

level

of

dogma.

Only

a

critical

analysis

of

the

available historical

sources

can

serve to

substantiate

or

negate

the

applicability

of

this

approach

in

a

specific

instance.

An

instructive

example

highlighting

the

negative

findings

of

an

investigation

can

be found

in

my

article

on

the

anti-Jewish riots

of

1819.17

Quite

naturally,

historians have

sought

to

link these riots

in

causal

terms

with

the

political

and social tensions of the time. In the 1950s, Eleonore

Sterling,

a

gifted

and

insightful

historian,

initially

elaborated

this thesis

along

psychohistorical

lines

in

an

essay,

later

employing

it

as

a

connecting

thread

in

her

extensive

monographic

study

on

the

anti-Semitism

of the

period.18

Despite Sterling's

earnest

efforts,

a

critical

examination

of

her

sources

and

the

discovery

of

new

materials have served

to

disprove

her basic

thesis.

The

social

groups

and circles

responsible

for

the

social

and

political

tensions

at

the

time

did

not

take

an

active

part

in

the

anti-Jewish

disturbances.

The outbreak

of those

riots

cannot

be

accounted

for

on

the basis

of

parallel

contemporary

phenomena.

Rather,

they

were

the result

of

actualization

of

latent animosities toward

the

Jews

carried

over

from

the

past.

Both

approaches,

the

epochal

and the

supra-epochal,

have their

obvious

advantages.

But

only

the latter

orientation

can,

in

addition

to

factual

information,

provide

an

explanation

to

help

elucidate

a

segment

of the

past.

Total,

comprehensive

social

history

has

the value of

being

able

to

treat

individual

phenomena

within

the

framework

of the

living

totality

in

which

they

were

actually

embedded.

However,

this is

not

an

explanation

of their

existence;

the

simultaneity

of

events

is

not in

itself

proof

of

an

internal

bond between

them,

nor

evidence

of

their

inevitability.

Moreover,

the

supra-epochal

presentation, tracing

the

unfolding

of a

phenomenon

over a longer period of time, offers no proof to

substantiate the

thesis

that

later

phases

necessarily

had

to

follow

from earlier

stages.

However,

it

does show

that such

later

developments

would

have been

inconceivable

without

what

preceded

them.

Thus,

a

causal chain

-

necessary,

although

not

inevitable

-

is

forged

linking

earlier

with

later

stages

of






On

Jewish

Social

History

95

development.

Let

me

elucidate

this

problem

using

the

example

of

the

anti-Semitic

movement

in

Germany during

the

1870s. The

emergence

of

that

movement

onto

the

scene

surprised

contemporaries,

since

it

seemed

to

contradict

the

general

tendency

at

the

time,

characterized

by

a

prevailing

mood of

religious

tolerance.

Even

today,

historians

are

still

attempting

to

shed

light

on

the

roots of

this

phenomenon.19

There

are

two

possible approaches,

and both

have

been

employed.

That

movement

arose

during

one

of the

most

severe

economic crises

in

modem

German

history,

the

collapse

of

the

boom

Gr?nderjahre

economy

that

had

surged

in

the

wake

of

the establishment

of the Second

Empire

in

1871,

following the Franco-Prussian War. Simultaneous

with

this

economic

debacle,

the

emancipation

of the

Jews,

a

process

which

had

been

underway

for

generations,

was,

under

the

aegis

of

liberalism,

then

reaching

its

apogee.

Yet

liberalism

was

subsequently

discredited

as a

result

of

the economic

collapse,

a

fact

that

had

a

striking political

expression:

the

liberal

parties

ceased

to

function

as

a

pillar

of

support

for

the

governing

establishment.

Thus,

the

anti-Jewish

reaction would

appear

to

have

been

closely

bound

up

with

general

contemporary

events

and

trends,

a

partial

aspect

of

a

broader

abandonment

of

liberalism

by

society

at

large.

Correspondingly, historians have attempted to describe the susceptibility of

individual

groups, age-groups

or

strata to

the

pathology

of

anti-Semitism,

attributing

that

susceptibility

to

their

respective

inclination

to

reject

liberalism.20

Others

have discussed

the

function

of

anti-Semitism

as

a

kind

of

slogan

to

promote

in-group

identity

and

cohesion.21

All

this

falls

under the

rubric

of

what

is

customarily

labeled

the

history

of

anti-Semitism ,

though,

from

my

perspective,

with

dubious

justification.

Despite

the

significance

of their

findings,

such studies

can

be

better

conceptualized

as

contributions

to

German social

history

rather

than

the

history

of

anti-Semitism.

After

all,

one

fails

to

find

in

them

any

answer

which

could

help

to

illuminate the

preliminary question

on

which all other investigation hinges: namely, why the Jews, already considered

citizens

with

equal

rights,

again

became

the

target

of

animosity.

The

fact

that

Jewish civil

equality

was

promoted

by

liberalism,

and that

liberalism

had

forfeited

a

portion

of its

credibility,

does

not

constitute

a

sufficient

reason;

after

all,

it is

by

no means

the

case

that all

the achievements of

liberalism

were

jettisoned

wholesale

with

its

disavowal.

It

is

a

well-known fact

that

the national

movement

which

led

to

German

unification

was

originally

supported

and

propelled

by bourgeois-liberal

strata;

and

yet,

that national

movement

did

not

founder

with the demise of

liberalism.

The advent of the anti-Semitic movement did not simply involve some demand

for

a

revision

of Jewish

emancipation.

Its leaders

believed

that

they

had

in

fact

discovered

the

principal

evil of

their

time:

the

acceptance

of Jews

as

equals

within German

society.

This

is

precisely

the

underlying

notion

expressed

in

the

slogan

propagated

by

Heinrich

von

Treitschke:

Die Juden

sind

unser






96

Jacob

Katz

Ungl?ck. 22

Other

spokespersons

of the

movement

provided

that

catchword

with

a

concrete

interpretation

by declaring

that

German

society

had

no

need

to

worry

about its

other

vexing

problems,

such

as

the

social

question.

These,

they

argued,

would

resolve

themselves

once

the

danger

of

Jewish

predominance

was

averted.23

What is

the

origin

of

this

conception

of

the

diabolical influence of

the

Jews?

An

answer

to

that

question

can

only

be

found

via

the

path

of

supra-epochal

historiography.24

Demonic

features had

been

associated

with

Jews

since

the

earliest

period

of

Christianity.

That diabolical

element

was

intensified

throughout

the

long

centuries of strained relations between the dominant Christian

majority

and the

tolerated Jewish

minority during

the Middle

Ages.

The

modern

period

granted

that

minority,

now

endowed

with

equal

civil

rights,

an

opportunity

to

join

the

majority,

and

during

that

period

the

negative

image

of

the

Jew

appeared

to

be

fading

away.

But the

outbreak of anti-Semitism

in the

1870s

and

1880s

demonstrated

that

the old

image

had

not

been

obliterated

but

only

obscured.

To track

and sketch

this

process

in

detail

is to write

the

history

of

anti-Semitism

in

the

true sense

of

the

term.

By

contrast,

a

historian who

concentrates

solely

on

the

circumstances of the last

shift,

namely,

the transition from

latent

anti-Jewish

hostility to active anti-Semitism, could make a significant contribution to the

social

history

of

the

period

but

still

provide

no

explanation

to account

for

the

phenomenon

of

anti-Semitism.

The

history

of

anti-Semitism

is

thus

one

example

illustrating

my

thesis that

the

social-historical

approach

cannot

do

justice

to

the

entire

array

of

questions

raised

in

historiographical

research.

Alongside

this

perspective,

there

is

ample

justification

for

tracing

events

and

processes

within

a

longer

time

frame.

NOTES

Author's note:

This

paper

is

a

revised

version

of

a

paper

that

originally

appeared

in

the

Festschrift

for

Jacob

Toury:

Zur

j?dischen

Sozialgeschichte:

epochale

und

?berepochale

Geschichtsschreibung,

Tel

Aviver

Jahrbuch

fur

Deutsche

Geschichte

20

(1991):

429-36.

The

paper

has been

translated

from

the German

by

William

Templer.

1.

Jacob

Katz,

Die

Entstehung

der

Judenassimilation

in

Deutschland und deren

Ideologie

(Frankfurt/M,

1934), reprinted

in

idem,

Zur

Assimilation

und

Emanzipation

der Juden

(Darmstadt,

1982),

2-79.

2.

Jacob

Katz,

The

Concept

of

Social

History

and Its

Possible

Use

in

Jewish Historical

Research,

Scripta

Hierosolymitana

III

(Jerusalem,

1955):

292-312.

3.

G.M.

Trevelyan, English

Social

History

(London,

1946);

Baron's

work

was

the

three-volume edition

published

in

New

York

in

1937.






On Jewish

Social

History

97

4.

A

good

survey

of

the

theory

and

practice

of social

history

is

contained

in

J?rgen

Kocka,

Sozialgeschichte

-

Begriff,

Entwicklung,

Probleme

(G?ttingen,

1977).

However,

there

is

no

universally

recognized terminology,

and I

will

attempt

below

to

elucidate

the

terms

employed

through

their

context.

5.

Trevelyan,

vii.

6. Jacob

Katz,

Marriage

and

Sexual Behavior

at

the

End

of

the Middle

Ages,

(Hebrew),

Zion 10

(1945):

21-54.

It

appeared

in

French translation

in

Shmuel

Trigano,

ed.,

La

Soci?t?

juive

?

travers

l'histoire

II

(Paris,

1992),

385-411. This

article

remained

without

an

echo

at the

time

of its

appearance,

suffering

the

fate of

many

publications

limited

to

a

Hebrew-reading scholarly public, although

it

anticipates

the

interest in

family-focused

research

of this

type

that

later

flourished,

esp.

in

France.

7. The Hebrew original was published in Jerusalem in 1958 and was later translated into

English

(without

the

footnotes)

as

Tradition and

Crisis

(New

York:

Free

Press, 1961),

reprinted

as

a

paperback

(New

York:

Schocken,

1971).

Schocken

is

about

to

publish

a

new

complete

translation.

8.

Katz,

The

Concept

of

Social

History

(n.

2

above),

294.

9.

Friedrich M.

Kircheisen,

Napoleon

der Denker

(Dresden,

n.d.),

32.

10. Dieter

Groh,

Strukturgeschichte

als

'totale'

Geschichte,

Vierteljahresschrift

fur

die

Sozial-

und

Wirtschaftsgeschichte

58

(

1971

):

319.

11.

This French

terminology

has been

frequently

criticized,

see

J.

H.

Hexter,

Fernand

Braudel and

the

Monde

Braudallien,

Journal

of

Modern

History

44

(1972):

506-507.

12.

Katz,

Tradition

and

Crisis

(n.

7

above),

chap.

5.

13. Jacob

Katz,

Exclusiveness

and Tolerance.

Studies

in

Jewish-Gentile

Relations

in

Medieval

and

Modern

Times

(Oxford,

1961;

paperback:

New

York,

1961).

14.

Jacob

Katz,

Out

of

the

Ghetto:

The

Social

Background

of

Jewish

Emancipation

?770-1870

(Cambridge,

Mass.,

1973).

15.

Ibid.,

chap.

6.

16.

Jacob

Katz,

From

Prejudice

to

Destruction:

Antisemitism

1700-1933

(Cambridge,

Mass.,

1980).

17.

Jacob

Katz,

The

Hep-Hep

Riots

in

Germany

of 1819:

The

Historical

Background,

Zion

38

(1973):

62-115

(Hebrew).

A

German translation is

soon

to

be

published.

18. Eleonore

Sterling's

essay

appeared

in

Historia

Judaica

XII

(1950):

105-145.

Her

book:

Er ist

wie

du:

Aus

der

Fr?hgeschichte

des

Antisemitismus in

Deutschland,

1815-1890

(Munich, 1956).

19. The literature

on

this

topic

is

voluminous,

see

the

notes

to

chaps.

20 and

21 in

Katz,

From

Prejudice

to

Destruction

(n.

16

above).

20.

An

excellent

example

of

such

an

approach

is

the

comprehensive

article

by

Werner

Jochmann,

Struktur

und

Funktion

des

deutschen

Antisemitismus,

in

Werner E.

Mosse,

ed.,

Juden

im Wilhelminischen

Deutschland 1890-1914

(T?bingen,

1976),

389-477.

21. Cf. Shulamit

Volkov,

Antisemitism

as

a

Cultural Code. Reflection

on

the

History

and

Historiography

of Antisemitism

in

Imperial

Germany,

Leo

Baeck

Institute

Year Book 23

(1978):25-46.

22.

The Jews

are

our

misfortune.

See Jacob

Katz,

'Die

Juden

sind

unser

Ungl?ck'.

Reflexionen

?ber

ein

antisemitisches

Schlagwort,

Tribune

22

(1984):

58-66.

23.

Katz,

From

Prejudice

to

Destruction

(n.

16

above),

chap.

22.

24. Leon

Poliakov

has utilized

this

method

in

his monumental

study

Die

Geschichte

des

Antisemitismus, 6 vols. (Worms, 197If.).

The Hebrew

University

of

Jerusalem

Thi t t d l d d f 132 64 55 31 W d 18 N 2015 08 57 45 UTC

Katz Jewish Social History

Documents

Transcript of Katz Jewish Social History