Chapter Sixteen

499Louis Miller put together a stock company with the aim of putting out a private Jewish newspaper. He had money from his practice as a lawyer and from real estate; this he invested in the enterprise. He scraped together several partners, and together — by the standards of those times — a sizeable capital was raised.

He founded a newspaper by the name of "Di Vorhayt" (The Truth). Its first issue appeared in November 1905.

He openly declared that one of his chief aims was "to strangle" the "Forverts," and in his newspaper he attacked the "Forverts" and me personally with the most sensational accusations and with unheard-of abuse. He used to fall upon me with a torrent of dirty words, beside which Jacob Gordin's attacks were mild. His revilings, too, I seldom answered; and when I did answer, it was with measured words and in a decent form.

500meetings to this end. In his own newspaper, however, he introduced a strong Jewish element right from the start. He made it the organ of pronounced Jewish nationalists (radical Zionists). Still, in its first days "Di Vorhayt" was a socialist newspaper, and it served as the unofficial representative organ of the Russian party of Socialist-Revolutionaries.

Toward the "Bund" Miller was at first friendly as well. Afterward he became the bitterest enemy of that organization. It began when Maxim came.

Maxim's presence was a secret the first day. He was staying with A. Liesin, and at the "Vorhayt" office nothing was let known about it. There, at Liesin's apartment, the guest was photographed, and the picture appeared the next morning only in the "Forverts." A few days later, after the entire press — "Di Vorhayt" included — had already had interviews with Maxim, and the first gathering for him had been arranged, a fuss arose over the tickets to the gathering. The "Bund's" committee announced that the tickets would be sold at the "Forverts" office. "Di Vorhayt" demanded that it too be given tickets to sell. But the committee did not grant this.

Then Miller came out in his newspaper with a declaration that Maxim was not Maxim at all; that the guest was nothing but a "samozvanets" (impostor) — a swindler who called himself by the name of the great revolutionary.

Maxim answered him sharply in the "Forverts."

In New York there were masses of Bundists and other immigrants who had known Maxim from the501old country, and the "Vorhayt's" accusations aroused among them indignation and amusement.

From then on "Di Vorhayt" fought the "Bund" as bitterly as it did the "Forverts."

As for our own newspaper, "Di Vorhayt" waged a whole crusade against it. The following cases will serve as enough of an example:

Our Kraków correspondent, Yosher, had sent us an article about a certain sort of schnorrers (beggars) who run swindling "businesses" in Galicia; whereupon there appeared in "Di Vorhayt" a letter, supposedly from a Galician, with an outcry that the "Forverts" was accusing the Jews of Galicia of schnorring and swindling.

After the first letter, a second was printed, a third, and so on. Several appeared at once — all from Galicians protesting against the "Forverts" for slandering all of Galicia.

Soon someone began to incite Galician societies, hometown associations, synagogue brotherhoods, to adopt resolutions against the "Forverts" for "calling the Jews of Galicia schnorrers." The resolutions were printed in "Di Vorhayt." They demanded that the "Forverts" be boycotted.

At first we ignored the whole affair. Finally I wrote up an article about it. That, however, was superfluous. In the Galician quarter, an indignation against the fabricated agitation had in any case begun to make itself felt. Letters began coming in to us from Galicians with protests against the anti-"Forverts"

502crudest notions and feelings, can one have success with them?

The crusade reached an opposite goal, and "Di Vorhayt" accomplished it.

When the "Forverts" was collecting money for great victims of disaster, Miller came out with an accusation, printed in the largest type, that we were using the money for our own purposes.

When a report appeared in the "Forverts" about an indecent woman who had been convicted of swindling in the Jewish quarter, "Di Vorhayt" printed in big letters a piece of "news": "The 'Forverts' is sending an innocent woman to prison."

Miller began to fight sharply against the Socialist party and its candidates, and finally he openly went over to Tammany Hall. "Di Vorhayt" became Tammany's most energetic defender and champion among the Yiddish-speaking population; and influential Tammany men became warm friends of "Di Vorhayt."

———

Louis Miller had a strong, restless nature. In the life of the Jewish immigrants he was one of those figures who catch the eye. He was a very capable man and an exceptionally bold one. He was clever too, but too large a part of his intellect consisted of cunning. A crooked line was always dearer to him than a straight one. People, too, and the world in general, he tended to look at only from one side — from a standpoint bound up with his aim and wish at a given503moment. That another might also understand something — or that the public has at least a memory to recall that yesterday he, Miller, had said exactly the opposite — this he could not imagine.

To play a trick he loved more than anything. But for the most part the trick was so pointed that some people would marvel at his ruse and guard themselves against it. The result was that his cleverness would defeat its own purpose. In such a case Miller would in any case take pleasure in the conceit itself — like an artist in his art.

He used to believe that he could "out-cunning" the world, and very often he had "out-cunninged" only himself.

He was driven to volcanic exaggerations, to bombastic words, to theatrical echo-effects. And more than anything he loved to attack someone, to tear him down, to accuse his opponents of the most violent crimes. On a battlefield of this sort he felt like a fish in water.

Here is a characteristic example of his methods of combat: — It concerns a well-known and generally respected personage, whom we shall call "X." As the head of an important communal institution, "X" had considered it his duty to make an accusation against "Di Vorhayt." Then Miller printed about this man — one of the purest, most honest, and most honorable among us — the following:

"Until now we have known 'X' the drunkard, 'X' the scoundrel, 'X' the idiot. Yesterday 'X' showed that he is also a forger."

In personal relations Miller had many sym-504pathetic qualities in himself, even magnetism. Through comradeship he could become inspired for a cause. And when he was in the movement, he was true to it and worked for it with all his boisterous resources.

He was an excellent friend, and as a comrade he was lovable and interesting. To spend an evening with him was very pleasant. As an enemy, however, as has already been said, he absolutely knew of no measure and of no "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not." He literally stopped at nothing in the world.

In the course of fifteen years a true friendship existed between Miller and me. We were bound together by the best comradely relations in private life, as well as by our joint activity in the socialist movement. When our paths parted, and he moved far from the direction in which we used to walk together, I regretted it with all my heart.^*

It has already been mentioned above that a minority of the "Forward Association" was outspokenly against my policy; also that this opposition consisted of two kinds of comrades — "kangaroos" — older immigrants with convictions that were a remnant505of their former De Leonism — and newly arrived socialists, mostly Bundists, from the old country. The second class of malcontents grew ever larger, for the Jewish immigration from Russia had grown greatly in those years (because of the Russo-Japanese war, the revolution, and the pogroms), and it brought more and more socialists. Some of them had come simply to look for a livelihood in America. But the number of those who had fled from prisons, from Siberia, or merely from gendarme persecutions, was also much greater than before.

Some of the Bundist immigrants entered our "Forward Association." Almost every time new candidates were recommended, part of the slate consisted of homeland Bundists. Since the "Bund" is a Social-Democratic organization, they could join our party. Thus they could also become members of the "Forward Association."

I am speaking here throughout of the malcontents within the "Forward Association." The same sort of discontent made itself felt in the other socialist unions of the Jewish quarters. I mean discontent with my editing of the "Forverts," as I edited it. Such unions were of various kinds: some were Jewish district organizations of the Socialist party; others — branches of the "Workmen's Circle"; still others — societies to support the "Bund." The number of such groups grew ever larger, and many of them grew larger in their membership.

In all these socialist groups, the discontent with the "Forverts" was felt more and more as time went on. At the same time the readers of the "Forverts" were growing ever larger in number. The "Forverts" had506become ever more popular and influential. But the more beloved it became among the broad public, the more the number of its opponents grew within our own socialist ranks.

The opposition was, by and large, a friendly one. It was a question of opinions; and the malcontents, with certain exceptions, always behaved toward me with comradely feelings and with respect.

These people had come from the Russian movement, where it was a matter of real revolutionaries facing soldiers. They had been through clashes with police and soldiers. They had endured barricades and prisons. A Russian socialist meeting smelled of danger, of conspiracy, and sometimes of a battlefield. The Bundist organ, "Di Arbeiter Shtime" (The Workers' Voice), was an underground newspaper.

When people had learned socialism under such conditions, it was quite natural that our "Forverts," as a socialist newspaper, should make a decisive impression on them too. They demanded "more socialism" and that the "light articles" be entirely done away with.

The American character of the "Forverts," with its general human interests, surprised and astonished them. They read it with the deepest interest. But they did so the way a pious Jew eats a good non-kosher meal. It is tasty, but treyf (non-kosher)! Or perhaps the reverse: it's treyf, but tasty!

Their discontent, however, was not only with the "Forverts." Our whole socialist movement was not to their liking. What kind of movement was this? We had felt exactly the same way when we came over to America from Russia at the beginning of the 1880s. Many of the protesters had, within a short time,507come to feel that America is not Russia, that conditions here are quite different, and that the movement must therefore also be quite different. Practical life taught them more than all the meetings and pamphlets. But with some it went slowly.

In the "Forward Association" I used to debate with my opponents. I would explain to them why their Russian notions were out of place here; why the "Forverts" had to be the way it was.

There were some homeland comrades whom I could not convince. But for the most part the debates were conducted in a friendly tone.

There were also those who took up an entirely hostile stance. There was even an "underground" movement set on foot, to seize the "Forward Association" and install a "true revolutionary" as editor.

Had a majority of the Association been in agreement with the opposition, carrying out such a plan would have been the easiest thing in the world; for it was merely a matter of votes. But the opposition could muster only a very small minority of votes against me.

If among the others there were also a few members who demanded "more socialism," they nevertheless always voted for me and gave me their warmest support.

The oppositionists^* would, over the course of a certain time, become ex-oppositionists. As I said, the real508life in America would open their eyes. They would come to understand better not only America, but Russia too.

The "Forverts" had enough serious, substantial articles. Besides the daily editorial, we used to give every day articles of a popular-scientific character, or about a political or social question, not to mention articles about literature. If that was too little, then one needs a separate weekly journal, I used to explain. I believed that a daily newspaper must be for the broad masses, and that detailed scientific articles can be given only in a journal, a monthly or weekly. Many members of the "Forward Association" also held this opinion, and in September 1905 we founded a weekly paper, by the name of "Der Tsayt-Gayst" (The Spirit of the Times), under my editorship.

There was work up to the neck. The "Tsayt-Gayst" was full of interesting, instructive articles and of literature. In editing this weekly, I also held to my principle that in Yiddish, too, everything must be written in a popular way. In the editorial of the first issue of "Tsayt-Gayst" there is set forth, among other things, my striving to draw in "the largest number of Jewish popularizers, writers, who have the ability to make scientific matters well understood for the simple Jewish reader." And although many of my internal opponents

———509had respect only for articles written in a heavy, lofty language, the satisfaction with the Tsayt-Gayst was general. Everywhere it was sung praises, and in several radical unions resolutions of praise were even adopted.

The first issue of "Tsayt-Gayst" came out on the 1st of September, 1905. It consisted of twenty-four pages, half of the "Forverts" format. Here is the table of contents of that issue:

1) The "Tsayt-Gayst" — a statement from the editorial board.

2) Capitalist Workers' Friendship — Yitskhok Ayzik ben Aryeh Tsvi Halevi.

3) Dina — a story — Sholem Asch.

4) The Socialist Movement in the United States — Morris Hillquit.

5) Vegnum and Shulamis — a poem — Yehoash.

6) When One Has a Baby — a story — Z. Lesh (Z. Levin).

7) The Beginning of Hasidism and the Haskalah (Enlightenment) in Poland — B. Feigenbaum.

8) A Tombstone — a sketch — B. Gorin.

9) An Inquisition in Japan in the 17th Century — without a name.

10) Jean Jacques Rousseau (with his portrait) — Dr. S. Bodanes.

11) Life in the Death House of Sing-Sing — described by a condemned man.

12) I. L. Peretz the Artist, the Freethinker, the Jew (with his portrait) — Dr. Chaim Zhitlovsky.

13) "Capital" — by Karl Marx — (freely translated and explained for the people, by Ab. Cahan).

14) The New Question — a humoresque — Avrom Reisen.

15) How the Stomach Cooks — Dr. Chaim Spivak.

16) Mrs. Simon's Confinement — Jules Lippman.

51017) Trade Unionism and Prosperity in the Jewish Quarter — Ab. Cahan.

18) From the Dark Corners of the Quarter (Various Types in the Cadet World) — A. Gonikman.

19) Their Declaration of Love — a story by Anton Chekhov (translated by Leon Gotlib).

20) "Short Chapters" — notes on various interesting matters.

The following issues had a similar content. The writers varied, but the character of the weekly was of the same sort.

My translation of Karl Marx's "Capital" was not merely a popularization of the main ideas, but a "rendering" with explanations of almost every word. I took pains to convey the deep content precisely, but in such a way that even the little-educated reader, who has an interest in such things, would be able to understand the subject.

The translation ran in installments over the course of thirty-one weeks — up to the end of the first chapter. Then, as we shall see, I gave up the work.

For the "Tsayt-Gayst" I also wrote various other essays. For example: articles under the title "Realism in Literature and Realism in Marble," in which the art of the great sculptors of ancient Greece is considered. There also ran a series of articles in which I popularized the Darwinian theory. This series, however, was reprinted from the first issues of "Tsukunft" (Future).

Sholem Asch and Reisen had in the "Tsayt-Gayst"

511printed many of their stories (and Reisen some of his poems as well).

Asch's story "The Tale of the Beautiful Mary," which later served as the foundation for his famous drama "God of Vengeance," first saw the light in the "Tsayt-Gayst," when it began to be printed in the second issue.

In the first months there also ran Joel Entin's translation of Kuprin's novel "The Duel" (Poyedinok) — one of the best works in the newest literature.

A. Liesin wrote a great deal for the weekly. Among other things he contributed a series, "Famous Women in Jewish History." He also wrote poems for the "Tsayt-Gayst."

One also encountered quite often a poem by Yehoash.

Isaac Aaron Hourwich worked regularly for a good while.

The circulation of "Tsayt-Gayst" grew quickly.

In a short time it reached 28 thousand — an enormous figure for a Jewish weekly, especially in those days.

"The success of this organ" ("Tsayt-Gayst") — relates Hillel Rogoff (who by then was already a contributor of ours), in his short history of the "Forverts" — "was tremendous as soon as it appeared. In it collaborated all the best Jewish writers from all over the world. No one had anything to object to in it. Those who did not believe in Cahan's journalistic policy at the "Forverts" spoke with the greatest enthusiasm about how he edited the "Tsayt-Gayst." But Cahan's theory was that for512a publication like the "Tsayt-Gayst" an entirely different journalistic program is required."

As we shall see, the "Tsayt-Gayst" was not within the financial means of the "Forverts." It was hard to pay for the special articles that I used to commission for it. After eight or ten months, it became impossible for me to put out the kind of weekly publication I had been putting out until then. So I handed over the editorship to Dr. Feskin, with H. Burgin as his assistant.

In this way the "Tsayt-Gayst" lived until July 1908.

Soon after the "Tsayt-Gayst" was founded, people began to speak about a "Morgen Zeitung." Anfang relates the following about it:

"The need for such a newspaper was felt especially at that time, because the Russo-Japanese war and the revolutionary uprisings in Russia had brought here a stream of new immigrants. The only morning paper was the "Morgen Zhurnal," a reactionary paper, and so that the morning readers should not fall under its influence, it was decided in the "Forward Association" to make the effort and put out a socialist morning paper."

On Sunday afternoon, the 14th of January, there took place in Adler's Grand Theater a large concert with speeches, in honor of the "Morgen Zeitung" (the proceeds went to the "Bund's" self-defense in Russia), and the next morning in the513morning its first issue appeared, with B. Feigenbaum as editor.

Three days later, January 18th, the "Forverts" had an editorial with the heading: "How the 'Morgen Zeitung' Came About." There it is explained that the "Morgen Zhurnal" had "twisted and distorted the revolutionary events of Russia, slandered and besmirched our freedom-fighters" ^*; and that it was therefore necessary that in the morning, when the worker goes to the shop, he should have a socialist account of the news.

It was hoped that the "Morgen Zeitung" would pay for itself. In a morning paper one can have "wants" (small advertisements from people seeking workers or work, job openings, etc.). And that is a good source of income.

There was, however, another motive of mine as well.

B. Feigenbaum, the editor, was more radical than I. And as one of his most important collaborators, M. Zametkin was appointed, who was still more radical than he. Thus some of our comrades reckoned that the new newspaper would satisfy that public which demanded more socialism and fewer secular reading-materials.

I, for my part, was also pleased with the plan. I hoped that the "Morgen Zeitung" would act as a "lightning rod" and that the opposition would occupy itself less with the "Forverts."

But could the "Morgen Zeitung" — if it were to be a dry paper of "more socialism" — exist? We all believed that yes, for a morning514newspaper one buys almost entirely for the sake of the news. Articles play a far smaller role in it than in an afternoon newspaper, which one takes home after work.

The new newspaper turned out to be a greater financial burden than had been assumed. It had readers not few enough, and the "Forverts" lost through it several thousand in circulation (instead of buying two newspapers of the same tendency, several thousand readers bought our "Morgen Zeitung" and took another as their second newspaper). Chiefly the "Forverts" suffered in the country.

The newspaper dealers there at once began to cut their orders — to divide them between the "Morgen Zeitung" and the "Forverts." "The publishers are, after all, the same people," they said.

And with the advertisers (the larger ones) it was likewise: instead of letting themselves spend a new sum on advertisements in the "Morgen Zeitung," many businessmen took away from the sum they used to spend on the "Forverts," and advertised that amount now in our second paper.

"Wants" the "Morgen Zeitung" got few of. Because of the strikes of our unions, and because at a firm where there was a strike we accepted no "wants," the "want"-givers came to regard our newspaper with hostility.

Still, had the "Forward Association" been able to maintain the new newspaper, it would in time have established itself on a firm foundation, and it would have existed to this day. As it was, however, it was only a great financial drain on the "Forverts." It lived no more than ten weeks, until the 25th of March, and515in going under it nearly dragged the "Forverts" down with it.

The "lightning rod" did not draw it off. The discontent with the "Forverts" among the newly arrived socialists became not smaller, but greater. This is how it looked. In some organizations there were members who put on the agenda a point about the "Forverts"; speeches were held, and committees were chosen to go to the editor and demand that he run the newspaper "in a more socialist manner."

The committees came. I debated with them, tried to show them how unjust and impractical their claim was. In some cases the emissaries went away in an entirely different mood than they had come. They had convinced themselves, or half-convinced themselves, that their standpoint was not a correct one. In a few other cases I got heated and it came to angry words.

In February 1906, there was announced in the "Forverts" an upcoming "Conference of Jewish Socialists." The official aim of this conference was to discuss various sides of the movement, with "our press" as one of the points on the program. In truth, however, the whole purpose of the meeting consisted in this point. And by "our press" was meant the "Forverts." The undertaking was in the hands of the oppositionists.

On the 20th of February I had an editorial516with a "headline": "The Coming Conference of Jewish Socialists." The main thing consisted in the idea that one must not forget the difference between Russia and America — that the Russian forms of the socialist movement do not fit our new home.

The conference took place at 64 East 4th Street. It began on Saturday evening, the 3rd of March, and ended on Sunday evening.

On Sunday, after the midday meal, I told my wife that I had to go to a conference, and I gave her to understand with what circumstances it was bound up. I explained to her the character of the meeting.

— I will probably fall out with them, and afterward I will leave the "Forverts" — I said. — The "Forward Association" stands with me; but today's conference represents the newest element of the Jewish socialist movement, and the conference will probably be against me. To edit the newspaper under such conditions makes no sense.

At the meeting, which took place in a basement, we arrived in the middle of the afternoon session. There were about three hundred people present, forty of them — delegates.

We arrived at the "real courses": fiery speeches against my policy. They bombarded the "light articles" in the "Forverts" and the "wateriness" of the serious ones; they demanded "more socialism" and articles "from which one could learn something."

Every sharp expression against my policy was greeted with thunderous applause.

517When everyone had finished speaking, someone made a proposal that I be invited to take the floor.

— Let him b e g for the floor, if he wants to! — shouted a young delegate in a voice full of hostility toward me.

I understood that this would not end that way. Quite apart from a sense of fair play, that one must hear out the other side, those present were simply curious to hear what I would say here. — I reflected to myself. — People love a fight (a quarrel), and without an "other side" there is no fight. So I looked on and kept silent.

I was not mistaken: one of the delegates made a proposal "to invite comrade Cahan to take the floor." And the proposal was at once adopted.

In my speech I got heated. But I did not descend from parliamentary decency. With bitter but not impolite words I mocked all those "pious critics," as I put it, and explained my standpoint.

One speaker, who had worked himself up especially with "revolutionary fear of Heaven," I compared to a zealot of the Salvation Army (the "Army" of Christian "soul-savers" who preach and sing prayers in the streets). I knew that this was merely pious talk about revolution, talk that had no more sense than the hallelujah-singing of the "Jesus Army."

When I uttered the words "Salvation Army," there burst out laughter, mixed with a storm of applause. Then the applause grew thicker and thicker until it became a stormy ovation. In the clapping a majority of the delegates took part.

518A word or an example sometimes has more effect than the best speech. The words "Salvation Army" turned the mood of the assembled completely around. Some of those who, a few minutes earlier, had responded with enthusiasm to the attacks made on my editorship now accepted my explanations with enthusiasm.

Some were of those who jump up in reverence for everyone who stands on the platform. But only some. As I learned later, many of those present really did see how ridiculous the standpoint of my critics was. A certain number of these afterward confessed to me that the words "Salvation Army" had opened their eyes.

The expected resolution against my policy was not put forward at all. And as for the opposition as an organized force, that Sunday evening it ended as a thing of the past. To such a socialist newspaper as the "Forverts" people in Europe were not accustomed; therefore among the new immigrants there were of course critics of my policy. But this no longer had any substance.^*

Gordin wrote from time to time in Louis Miller's newspaper "Vorhayt." Me he, from time to time,519attacked with personal insults, and I used not to answer his attacks. Since I was the drama and literary critic of the "Forverts," I used to write reviews of his new plays. I used to point out their faults as politely as possible. I confined myself to his new plays. About him personally I never spoke. Curse-words, abusive words, or insulting innuendos absolutely never entered my reviews. About him as a writer in general I also used to write. But almost every play of his contained both his most important virtues and his most glaring faults. So it would naturally turn out that, in appraising one of his plays ("The True Power," for instance, in the "Forverts" of November 1904), I would in fact be appraising his entire literary figure.

It was just this sort of critique that I wrote of his play "Without a Home," which was staged in November 1907. But this drama is far weaker than "The True Power." My critique was very far from being a favorable one. It was, however, written without the slightest hint at a personal attack.

To this Gordin replied with a long article (in "Vorhayt" of the 30th of November, 1907). The article was written "in the language of irony" (sagi nehor). Everything is ostensibly said exactly the reverse: Cahan is an honest man, Cahan is a good-hearted man, Cahan can write, and so on.

In this manner he goes from point to point, until he dismembers and besmirches every side of my person, penetrating into the corners of my private life as well as into my communal activity.

The last lines are:

"Now go and make ruin of such a man! No, I have520decided not to answer Mr. Ab. Cahan's critique."

Quite openly, then: — instead of dealing with the points of the critique — an attack on the critic's person!

The article aroused indignation, not only among our comrades, but among bystanders as well.

When I read it over, the blood in me literally caught fire. I resolved, once and for all, to answer him — not with abuse, nor with sarcasm, but with an explanation of his habit of terrorizing critics, and then with a thorough consideration of his manner of writing.

I used then to run in the "Forverts," every Sunday, the aforementioned department of literary criticism under the title "Literature and Life." Usually this took the form of notes. The next time was Sunday (the 1st of March), and the department was already ready. But I added as the first note a few dozen lines, in which I announced a detailed series of articles about Gordin's conduct and about his works.

"This note — I begin — concerns the undersigned personally. With the reader's forgiveness, he will write here the first few lines about that matter in his own name.

"Jacob Gordin gives me this week a sea of compliments. Several people demand that I answer with compliments to Jacob Gordin, and that I shall do, for there is much to compliment him on, and in various respects. It is high time."

I resolved to give a thorough treatment of Jacob Gordin's writing, and prepared myself for it. But I suddenly fell seriously ill in the stomach —521an illness that dragged on for over three years. In the "Forverts" of Saturday, the 14th of December, 1907, on the first page, there is an announcement:

"'Literature and Life.' This department will not appear tomorrow, and perhaps not for the next few weeks either, because our editor, Mr. Ab. Cahan, the writer of the department, is unwell and is under the care of doctors."

I lay bedridden for over a month (my house doctor was a Russian socialist, W. Aronson, and the consultation-doctors were — Dr. Jacob Kaufman and Dr. Jinwiw). When I got out of bed, I was still far from well. I could eat almost no food other than milk, and I visited the doctor very often. But I went to the editorial office every day and fulfilled my duties. Then I set about my promised Gordin articles.

The series began on the first of February, 1908. The heading above the first article was: "Gordin's Place as a Jewish Playwright," and beneath it a line in smaller type: "A Few Personal Words."

As a preface I mention how Gordin always attacks me with personal insults and I do not answer, and I say that at last I feel compelled to put an end to my silence. I declare that I will consider his works and his methods thoroughly, but without being influenced by our personal relations.

I acknowledge his services to the Jewish stage522and the high place that he occupies in its history. As for the true literary value of his dramas, however, I remark, that is an entirely different question.

Above in this volume I noted that, all in all, I had always held the same opinion as the one I expressed in 1891 about Gordin's "Siberia," his first drama (see the third volume, page 190). This can also be repeated here. (It goes without saying that now, in 1908, my notions about literature were far more developed than in 1891.)

The series was a long one. It ran two or three times a week, and it stretched over several weeks.

After the introduction come articles about "critique-fever" and Gordin's habit of terrorizing critics. In an article "Free Love and Free Criticism" I mention the struggle that was waged on Gordin's behalf against those who attacked the free-love ideas that run through some of his plays. And I ask: in what way is free criticism less important than free love?

Then come treatments of his works. One article bears the title "Phrase and Prose." Its content is as follows:

The word "prose" our Jewish actors use for what an actor has to say on the stage. When a role contains beautiful words, our theater people say that the author gave the actor "good prose." Now, Jacob Gordin has among the actors a reputation for his "dear prose." This dear prose, however, consists of resounding phrases that do not suit those who speak them. It consists of winged expressions, radical sayings, "philosophical wisdoms," which523the characters of Gordin's stage play could not in reality have spoken.

In further articles I demonstrate this with examples from Gordin's plays. I consider his "radical" drama "Sappho," and show that the characters in it are not characters and their conversations not conversations — that the whole drama is a cheap fabrication, without a trace of reality; that it is not art, but pretentious trash.

I gave him credit for every virtue that one can find in his writing. And as for the faults, I brought them out as clearly as I was able, but always as mildly and politely as possible.

In the whole series I held to the principle "better let mine pass over."

In "Mirele Efros," which is certainly Gordin's best drama, I brought out almost only virtues. It has many of the false notes with the melodramatic effects that run through all of Gordin's works. But despite its factory-made quality and cheapness, it is nonetheless a powerful dramatic thing.

In considering this drama, I actually exaggerated the principle of letting "mine pass over." When I afterward read the article over in the "Forverts," I felt that in my wish to show the reader that I was being fair to Gordin, I had sinned against my convictions.

My article on "Sappho," which ran in three issues of the "Forverts" (the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd of March), three columns an issue, contains a far more thorough critique.

By "Sappho" and by "The Kreutzer Sonata," Gordin's admirers were inspired even more than by "Mirele524Efros." A large part of our radical intelligentsia — socialists, anarchists, plain freethinkers — admired these plays as literary pearls that sparkle with the rays of progressive thought. To hear that these dramas "belong among the best works of world literature" was quite an ordinary thing. Most often they used to compare him to Ibsen. As for Louis Miller, he tore "Sappho" down mercilessly (it was staged at the time when he and Gordin had fallen out); but about "The Kreutzer Sonata," however, which was written later, he declared that such a masterpiece only Tolstoy could once have created.

I, for my part, held "Sappho" and "The Kreutzer Sonata" to be typical examples of Gordin's false-toned "prose" and of Gordin's clay-figure characters. According to my notion of literature, they are beneath criticism. (Examples of this sort, "radical art," are to be found in fact in all his works.)

So I decided to analyze these two plays; to explain thoroughly and clearly why such a sort of "creation" is no literature at all.

I began with "Sappho." My critique of "Sappho" and my article "Phrase and Prose" contain the whole essence of his literary work. They are written from the same standpoint as my critique of Gordin's "Purity of the Family" and of others of his "idea" works, such as, for example, of his "True Power," of "On the Mountains," or "Without a Home."

A special critique of "The Kreutzer Sonata" was no longer necessary. But I took up other works of Gordin's, articles which he had written in Jewish journals.

525Gordin's replies at first took the form of sarcastic jokes, full of contempt. But he did not sustain the tone. There escaped from him signs of agitation. There was no lack of abuse. Then he lost all self-control and used some indecent words of abuse, and finally his attacks reached the worst forms.

I, however, kept up the same tone of parliamentary decency.

The result was that this very thing, the difference in our manners, worked in favor of my side.

The main thing, however, was of course the content of the articles.

The interest in the series was enormous. People talked about it everywhere, and many organizations arranged discussion-evenings with these articles as a theme.

Literally from all sides — from various regions, parties, and groups — opinions were conveyed which afforded me the highest satisfaction. Some of these opinions, written and oral, came from people who were opponents of the "Forverts" or of me personally.

It just so happened that at the time when my articles about Jacob Gordin's works were running in the "Forverts," people also began to write about him often in Russia — at first only in Yiddish, and afterward in Russian as well.

The gifted Jewish actress Rachel Kaminska of Warsaw and her troupe began to perform Gordin's plays.

526In Russia itself there was no fuss made over Jewish stage plays. The talented writers of the new Yiddish literature had shown no capacity for creating dramatic works for the stage. Peretz had written a couple of one-acters. But dramatic they were not, and Sholem Asch's "God of Vengeance" had not yet been born. In Russia they played Jewish trash-plays (mostly imported from America), which stood far lower than Gordin's works.

The Russian and Polish stages, however, were higher than the American. Intelligent people from our old homes were therefore accustomed to seeing stage plays beside which Gordin's creations had no countenance. Thus, when critical surveys of Gordin's dramas appeared in the Jewish periodicals there, they contained very unfavorable opinions.

A little later Madame Kaminska with her troupe visited Petersburg and there performed Gordin's works. The Petersburg newspapers (Russian ones) gave reviews.

In New York I saw a review of "Mirele Efros" in the Petersburg liberal "Rech," which was the organ of the most educated and progressive classes.

The reviewer mocked the play, made a heap of ashes of it.

I reprinted these critiques in the "Forverts," under such headlines as — "What They Think in Russia About Gordin."

For me this was very important: should anyone believe that my critique was founded on personal feelings, then let him see that there in Russia, where the critics are not acquainted with Gordin and where there can be no talk of personal feelings against him — let him see that there they say exactly the same thing as I.

527The "Forverts" was not allowed in by the censor in Russia. There they had no notion of my articles. The critics there and I said the same thing, without having conferred together.

Bal-Makhshoves had written about Gordin a year earlier still (in the New York Poalei-Zion weekly "Der Yidisher Kemfer" of the 28th of December, 1906, and of the 4th and 11th of January, 1907). He tore Gordin's plays down, ridiculed them. He characterized him as a writer of melodrama, not of literature (instead of the word "melodrama," Bal-Makhshoves in these articles used the German word "Volksstück." In an earlier article, however — in "Der Yidisher Kemfer" of the 4th of May, 1906, he had greeted him as the "Jew with a melodramatic talent*").

A similar opinion about Gordin was expressed around the same time by Peretz. "He finds himself on the middle road between literature and trash," Peretz wrote.

Bal-Makhshoves and Peretz were then acquainted only with Gordin's "God, Man, and Devil," which was at that time his only printed play. But this play they considered a masterwork of the highest order. And Bal-Makhshoves indeed mentions it. He says, namely: "His American colleagues hold 'God,528Man, and Devil' to be his best drama." And so he sets out to prove that this, his best drama, has no literary worth whatsoever.

Everything that Bal-Makhshoves and Peretz said about Gordin — their critiques were written in 1904, 1905. I merely expressed my opinion more outspokenly (and Bal-Makhshoves came to America some time later, and was one of the contributors to the "Forverts").

About the Jewish theater-world of America very little was known in our old home. Only in the year 1908 did people in Warsaw begin to stage Gordin's plays, and people began to write about them more often and at greater length. The opinions all agreed with my appraisal. And so I reprinted some of these critiques, Yiddish and Russian ones. They made an impression among us, chiefly upon our Russian-speaking intelligentsia, who had held the highest opinion of the critic of the Russian newspapers.^*529Gordin's plays continued to be performed in Russia, not only in Yiddish but in Russian as well. As literature, however, they were never regarded there. They were always characterized as melodramas or as "trash-plays."

"The play," says Nathan, "is a wretched, foolish melodrama. It contains characters who give the impression of a cheap caricature-group, and the situations are such machine-work that the seams stick out all over the whole play. A more ridiculous enterprise cannot be imagined."

And this play a part of our New York intelligentsia used to regard as a masterwork of world literature!