1878-1892 Aruch Completum 9 Volumes in Hebrew Dr. Alexander Kohut

Description: 1878-1892 Aruch Completum 9 Volumes in Hebrew (8 Volumes & 1 special index Volume) Hardcovers with leather corners and margins painted goldTitle pages in Latin, some Hebrew, some English. The set weighs about 21.5 lbs without packaging. Please message me if you need more photos, or have questions or comments. Enjoy! I might add a short video soon. By Dr. Alexander KohutBuchdrukerie von Gerog in Wien, IX(unter der leintung von P. Smolensky) The author dedicated these volumes to two men. One introduced him to the other:Jacob H. Schiff, Esquire &Rabbi Gustav Gottheil. My rough notes are below. They can start you on research on the author and the two other men.All three men have Wiki pages. 8 volumes VG to VG+, 1 Volume G to G+ : No marks, no tears, no bumps, no foxing, no sunning. Strong pages, bright as shown. 7 of the first 8 volumes have no issues. The 9th volume, which is the index volume has no issues. Volume One has a chip on the spine that is repaired. Volume VI had problems so I did my best to repair it. As shown, there is new faux leather partiel binding and as shown, the IC area seam is shored up with a hinge strip as a reult of the spine repair. The spine has been reinforced as well, so its solid. All the spines are solid. On p. 455 of Volume VI the seam has been reinforced and therefore has a strip cpvering the seam repair (This particular repair not shown in photos.) All the volumes have had the cover margins, corner edges and corners painted gold. The IC area corner margins are painted gold. If it weren't for the gold paint (I would have graded 8 of the 9 volumes Fine.Volume IV I graded as G to G+ but it might pass for VG Minus or even VG in some circles. I think the paint improved the volumes so I would have graded them Almost Fine or Fine, but left them as VG to VG+ (And Vol IV as G to G+ instead of VG minus to VG) in order to be conservative for the market. Please message me if you need more photos, or have questions or comments. Enjoy! Brtshm Our congregation, Brothers of Joseph, have upgraded their Machzors and Siddurs to The Artscroll , and are in the process of upgrading and/or replacing other Sefarim (Holy Books). So, the older ones, like this one, are being repaired if needed, and distributed to congregants and the world at large. Please enjoy this book, a piece of Norwich, Connecticut Jewish history, which was originally given as tzedakah (donation) to the Shul in Honor of those who came before us. Packed nicely for you as always. Note about shipping / local pickup: If you would like to do local pickup, here in Norwich, CT., please message me and I will change the shipping options for you. The package will go out insured and you will sign for it at your end. Enjoy! ___________________________________________________ My rough notes:Borrowed from Wikipedia and othe sources. : "Arukh ha-Shalem (ערוך השלם) is a dictionary of rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic. It is based upon the medieval dictionary Arukh (ערוך), originally compiled by Nathan ben Jehiel of Rome (c. 1035-1110), which was greatly expanded in modern times by Alexander Kohut (1842-1894) as Arukh ha-Shalem ("The Complete Arukh"). Vienna, 1878-1892" "Dr. Alexander Kohut From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Alexander Kohut Personal life Born April 22, 1842 Irsa, Hungary Died May 25, 1894 (aged 52) New York City, United States Parent " " Israel Kohut (father) Religious life Religion Judaism Alexander (Chanoch Yehuda) Kohut (Hebrew: חנוך יהודה קוהוט; April 22, 1842 – May 25, 1894) was a rabbi and orientalist. He belonged to a family of rabbis, the most noted among them being Rabbi Israel Palota, his great-grandfather, Rabbi Amram (called "The Gaon," who died in Safed, Palestine, where he had spent the last years of his life), and his great-granduncle Rabbi Chayyim Kitssee, rabbi in Erza. The last-named was the author of several rabbinic works. Early training This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Kohut's father, Israel Kohut, was a great linguist and well versed in rabbinic literature. He was so poor that he could not afford to send his son to the village school. There being no Hebrew school (cheder) in his native town, Alexander reached his eighth year without having learned even the rudiments of Hebrew or Hungarian. At a very tender age, while selling his mother's tarts in the marketplace, he was kidnapped by Gipsies, because of his extraordinary beauty. His family soon relocated to Kecskemét, where Kohut received his first instruction. He attended the gymnasium and at the same time studied Talmud with an old scholar, Reb Gershom Lövinger. In his fifteenth year, while trying to decipher some foreign words in the Talmud with the aid of Landau's Dictionary, he conceived the plan of writing a complete lexicon of the Talmud, not having found the etymology of many words in Landau. After finishing the gymnasium course in Kecskemét, he removed to Budapest. Anxious to continue his rabbinical studies, he went to Breslau. In 1865, he received a call to the rabbinate of Tarnowitz, Upper Silesia. He then spent another year in Breslau, devoting his time to Oriental philology and Semitics. During the previous year he received his Ph.D. degree from the University of Leipzig, his dissertation being "Ueber die Jüdische Angelogie und Daemonologie in Ihrer Abhängigkeit vom Parsismus." The essay was published by the Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft in 1866, it being the first Jewish work issued under the auspices of that society. He obtained his rabbinical diploma in 1867. It was in 1864 that he began to collect materials for a critical edition of the 'Aruk of Nathan ben Jehiel. In 1867 he was called to the rabbinate of Székesfehérvár, Hungary. Baron József Eötvös, the famous Hungarian poet and novelist, and afterward "Cultusminister," appointed him superintendent of all the schools in the county, this being the first time that such a position had been tendered to a Jew. The Congress of Jewish notables held in Budapest in 1868 appointed Kohut its secretary. Notable among his literary labors falling in this period is his study entitled "Etwas über die Moral und Abfassungszeit des Buches Tobias," originally published in Abraham Geiger's Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben vol. x., several monographs in the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft which developed his original thesis concerning Persian influence on Judaism, and his "Kritische Beleuchtung der Persischen Pentateuch-Uebersetzung des Jakob ben Joseph Tavus" (Leipzig, 1871). Among his literary remains are to be found materials for a critical edition of the Persian text of this version. In 1872 he was elected chief rabbi of Pécs, Hungary, remaining there eight years. By this time his reputation as a Hungarian orator had spread so far that many noted statesmen and church dignitaries came to hear him from distant towns. Dictionary of the Talmud This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) Around 1873, Kohut began to compile his Dictionary of the Talmud, entirely in German, encouraged by the promise of a Christian nobleman to bear all costs of publication. He had proceeded as far as the third letter of the alphabet when he found that the work was assuming such gigantic proportions as to preclude the possibility of its being confined within the projected limits. Arduous as the merely mechanical labor of copying the manuscript was, he rewrote what he had written, intending to publish the original text of the old 'Aruk, with a German commentary. On the advice of Leopold Zunz and Salomon Buber, however, who argued that the 'Aruk, being a national classic, ought to be compiled in Hebrew throughout, he again rewrote the work in that language, the labor of copying occupying two more years. It is this trait of untiring patience, which scorned all obstacles, that made the publication of vol. I, in 1878, possible. His Maecenas, in the meantime, had died, and Kohut was left to bear the burden of expense alone, save for the subvention of the Academy of Sciences in Vienna and of the Cultusministerium in Berlin. He called his work Aruch Completum or 'Aruk ha-Shalem, and its production occupied twenty-five years of his life. The first four volumes were printed during his residence in Hungary, and the last four during his sojourn in America, covering a period of fourteen years (Vienna, 1878–92); the supplement appearing from a New York press; and the whole work aggregating more than 4,000 double-column pages. Seven manuscripts of the 'Aruk were used by the editor in determining the etymology of the words, and countless doubtful and corrupted passages in the Talmud were thus corrected and restored. Kohut identified in an elaborate special study (printed in the supplement) the often unacknowledged sources of Nathan ben Jehiel's information, though everywhere defending him against the charge of plagiarism. The 'Aruk has been justly characterized as one of the monuments of Hebrew literature. In 1880, Kohut was called to Oradea, Hungary, where he remained until 1884. While there he published (1881) A Zsidók Története. A Biblia Befejezésétől a Jelenkorig (introduced into many schools in Hungary as a text-book), and translated the entire Bible into Hungarian. Part of the manuscript was, however, lost, and the work never appeared in print. At Oradea he became acquainted with Kálmán Tisza, prime minister of Hungary, who, hearing him speak at a national gathering of notables, was so carried away by his eloquence that he caused him to be called to the Hungarian parliament as representative of the Jews. In 1885, Kohut was elected rabbi of Congregation Ahavath Chesed in New York. His arrival in the U.S. was the signal for rallying the conservative forces of American Jewry; and it was not long before he was bitterly assailed by the radical wing. A series of lectures on Ethics of the Fathers, only the first part of which was printed in book form (New York, 1885), clearly set forth his Conservatism; and so marked was this attitude and the influence it had upon the public mind that the leaders of Reform felt called upon to institute the memorable Pittsburg Conference, to accentuate their own advanced views and their independence of the historic traditions of the past. New York Rabbi Kohut, c. 1893 Kohut was associated with the Rev. Sabato Morais in founding the Jewish Theological Seminary of New York, becoming one of its advisory board, and being active as professor of Talmudic methodology up to the time of his death. In 1889, on the occasion of his finishing the Aruch Completum, he was the recipient of many honors, notably at the hands of various learned bodies in Europe. In 1891 he was appointed examiner in rabbinics at Columbia College. In March, 1894, while delivering a stirring eulogy on Lajos Kossuth, he was stricken in his pulpit, and, after lingering a few weeks, expired on the eve of the Sabbath (25 May 1894). His widow was his second wife, Jewish women's leader Rebekah Bettelheim Kohut.[1] A volume containing memorial addresses and tributes was published by Congregation Ahavath Chesed in 1894 in New York; and another, containing learned essays by forty-four noted scholars in Europe and America, entitled Semitic Studies in Memory of Rev. Dr. Alexander Kohut, was published in Berlin in 1897 by his son, G. A. Kohut. The latter work contains a memoir of Kohut's life written by his brother, Dr. Adolph Kohut. A complete list of Kohut's published writings has been compiled by G. A. Kohut, in the appendix to the Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Convention of the Jewish Theological Seminary Association (New York, 1894) and in Tributes to the Memory of Rev. Dr. Alexander Kohut, pp. 49–64 (ib. 1894). His son, George Alexander Kohut, often known as "G. A. Kohut," was an American writer and bibliographer, who donated his father's important library of Judaica to Yale University in 1915. This established the "Alexander Kohut Memorial Collection". The son also created the "Kohut Endowment" to maintain and improve the Yale collection.[2] " Bronze doors for The Ark, Temple Emanuel, New York: Gift of Jacob H. Schiff, Esq. Executed by the Tiffany Studios, New York The Way to Peace AN INTERVIEW WITH JACOB H. SCHIFF. One of the leading American financiers and noted philanthropist; founder of Jewish Theological Seminary and of Semitic Museum at Harvard University; a native of Germany and member of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., bankers. By Edward Marshall. American as I am in every fibre, and in accord as I feel with every interest of the country of my adoption, I cannot find myself in agreement with what appears to be, to a considerable extent, American opinion as to the origin and responsibility for the deplorable conflict in which almost all of Europe has become involved. For many reasons my personal sympathies are with Germany. I cannot feel convinced that she has been the real aggressor; I believe that war was forced upon her, almost as if by prearrangement among the nations with whom she now contends; I cannot but believe that they had become jealous and envious of her rapid and unprecedented peaceful development and had concluded that the moment had arrived when all was favorable for a union against her. Although I left Germany half a century ago, I would think as little of arraying myself against her, the country of my birth, in this the moment of her struggle for existence, as of arraying myself against my parents. But while I steadfastly believe this war to have been forced upon Germany against her will, I also believe that circumstances which were stronger than the Governments of England and France, her present enemies, were necessary to overcome an equally definite reluctance upon their part. In other words, I cannot wholly blame the English Government, or the French Government, any more than I can wholly blame the German Government. Let us see how the great tragedy came about. It is safe to pass rapidly over the Servian-Bosnian-Herzegovinian-Austro-Hungarian complication which served as the immediate precipitant of hostilities. It has been detailed repeatedly in THE TIMES and other American publications. It had reached a point at which the Austro-Hungarian Government felt compelled to take extreme measures by means of which to safeguard the integrity of the empire. The firm but fatal ultimatum to Servia followed, the reply to which, suffice it to say, was unsatisfactory to Austria, who could not accept the suggestion of an investigation into the circumstances attending the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand through a commission or court on which she was not represented. Prof. Mather on Mr. Schiff Professor of Art at Princeton University; editorial writer for The New York Evening Post and Assistant Editor of The Nation, 1901-06. To the Editor of The New York Times: It seems to me that the Belgian previous question ought to be moved with all candid pro-Germans. Mr. Schiff is plainly candid, so I have framed an open letter to elicit his opinion: [An Open Letter to Jacob H. Schiff.] Mr. Jacob H. Schiff, New York. My Dear Sir: The universal esteem which you enjoy in the country of your adoption lends great weight to any utterance of yours on public matters. Your interview on the war in THE TIMES of Nov. 22 will everywhere have influence for its gravity and fineness of feeling. It is with compunction that I call your attention to the fact that your statement is ambiguous on precisely those issues of the conflict which your fellow-citizens have nearest at heart. Your general position may be described as a desire for prompt peace and restoration of the former balance of power. More specifically you wish "Germany to be victorious, but not too victorious." If this be merely an instinctive expression of the residual German in you, an expression made with no practical implications of any sort, no American will do otherwise than respect such a sentiment. But if you deliberately desire a moderate victory for Germany, with all that such moderate victory practically implies, it behooves your fellow-citizens to judge your views in the light of what these really call for. An ever so slightly victorious Germany would presumably retain Belgium, in whole or in part. Does such a conquest have your moral assent? Or suppose the rather improbable event of a Germany driven out of Belgium, but otherwise slightly victorious. In such case not a pfennig of indemnity would come to Belgium. Do you believe that no indemnity is morally due Belgium? Knowing your reputation as a man and philanthropist, I can hardly believe that your desire for a "not too victorious" Germany includes its logical implication of a subjugated or uncompensated Belgium. But if this be so, candor expects an avowal. Until you have made yourself clear on the issue that most concerns your fellow-citizens they will remain in doubt as to your whole moral attitude on the war. Does your pacificism contemplate a German Belgium? I feel sure you will admit that no fairer question could be set to any one who comments on the sequels of the war. I am, most respectfully yours, FRANK JEWETT MATHER, Jr. Princeton University, Oct. 23, 1914. The Eliot-Schiff Letters On Nov. 22 THE NEW YORK TIMES printed this interview with Jacob H. Schiff on the European war reproduced above. Two days later Dr. Charles W. Eliot, President Emeritus of Harvard, who is an old friend of Mr. Schiff, wrote him a letter of comment on THE TIMES interview. This letter resulted in considerable correspondence between the two. At the time this correspondence was penned there was not the least thought in the mind of either of the writers of giving the letters to the public. It was simply an interchange of ideas between men who had long known each other. When they were convinced, however, that publication might serve a useful purpose in shaping public opinion, both Mr. Schiff and Dr. Eliot cordially assented to their being printed. Dr. Eliot to Mr. Schiff. CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Nov. 24, 1914. Dear Mr. Schiff: It was a great relief to me to read just now your interview in THE NEW YORK TIMES of Nov. 22, for I have been afraid that your judgment and mine, concerning the desirable outcome of this horrible war, were very different. I now find that at many points they coincide. One of my strongest hopes is that one result of the war may be the acceptance by the leading nations of the world of the precept or law—there shall be no world empire for any single nation. If I understand you correctly, you hold the same opinion. You wish neither Germany nor England to possess world empire. You also look forward, as I do, to some contract or agreement among the leading nations which shall prevent competitive armaments. I entirely agree with you that it is in the highest degree undesirable that this war should be prolonged to the exhaustion of either side. When, however, I come to your discussion of the means by which a good result toward European order and peace may be brought out of the present convulsion I do not find clear guidance to present action on your part or mine, or on the part of our Government and people. Was it your thought that a congress of the peoples of North and South America should now be convened to bring to bear American opinion on the actual combatants while the war is going on? Or is it your thought that the American nations wait until there is a lull or pause in the indecisive fighting? So far as I can judge from the very imperfect information which reaches us from Germany, the confidence of the German Emperor and people in their "invincible" army is not much abated, although it clearly ought to be. It is obvious that American opinion has some weight in Germany; but has it not enough weight to induce Germany to abandon her intense desire for Belgium and Holland and extensive colonial possessions? To my thinking, without the abandonment of that desire and ambition on the part of Germany, there can be no lasting peace in Europe and no reduction of armaments. Sincerely yours, CHARLES W. ELIOT. Jacob H. Schiff, Esq. Mr. Schiff to Dr. Eliot. NEW YORK, Nov. 25, 1914. My Dear Dr. Eliot: I am just in receipt of your thoughtful letter of yesterday, which it has given me genuine pleasure to receive. While it is true that I have not found myself in accord with many of the views to which you have given public expression concerning the responsibility for this deplorable conflict and the unfortunate conditions it has created, I never doubted that as to its desirable outcome we would find ourselves in accord, and I am very glad to have this confirmed by you, though as to this our views could not have diverged. As to the means by which a desirable result toward European order and peace may be brought about out of the chaos which has become created, it is, I confess, difficult to give guidance at present. What needs first, in my opinion, to be done is to bring forth a healthy and insistent public opinion here for an early peace without either side becoming first exhausted, and it was my purpose in the interview I have given to set the American people thinking concerning this. I have no idea that I shall have immediate success; but if men like you and others follow in the same line, I am sure American public opinion can before long be made to express itself emphatically and insistently in favor of an early peace. Without this it is not unlikely that this horrible slaughter and destruction may continue for a very, very long time. Yours most faithfully, JACOB H. SCHIFF. President Emeritus Charles W. Eliot, Cambridge, Mass. Dr. Eliot to Mr. Schiff. CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Nov. 28, 1914. Dear Mr. Schiff: I think, just as you do, that the thing which most needs to be done is to induce Germany to modify its present opinion that the nation must fight for its very life to its last mark and the last drop of its blood. Now, every private letter that I have received from Germany, and every printed circular, pamphlet, or book on the war which has come to me from German sources insists on the view that, for Germany, it is a question between world empire or utter downfall. There is no sense or reason in this view, but the German philosophers, historians, and statesmen are all maintaining it at this moment. England, France, and Russia have no such expectations or desires as regards the fate of Germany. What they propose to do is to put a stop to Germany's plan of attaining world empire by militarism. Have you any means of getting into the minds of some of the present rulers of Germany the idea that no such alternative as life or death is presented to Germany in this war, and that the people need only abandon their world-empire ambitions while securing safety in the heart of Europe and a chance to develop all that is good in German civilization? Sincerely yours, CHARLES W. ELIOT. Jacob H. Schiff, Esq. Mr. Schiff to Dr. Eliot. The Greenbrier, WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, W. Va., Dec. 1, 1914. Dear Dr. Eliot: I have received today your letter of the 28th ult., and I hasten to reply to it, for I know of nought that is of more importance than the discussion between earnest men of what might be done to bring to cessation this horrible and senseless war. I believe you are mistaken—though in this I am stating nothing, absolutely, but my personal opinion—that Germany would not listen to the suggestion for a restoration of peace until it has either come into a position to dictate the terms or until it is utterly crushed. Indeed, I rather feel, and I have indications that such is the case, that England is unwilling to stop short of crushing Germany, and it is now using all the influence it can bring to bear in this country to prevent public opinion being aroused in favor of the stoppage of hostilities and re-establishment of peace. The same mail which brought your letter this morning brought me also a letter from a leading semi-military man, whom I know by name, but not personally. It is so fine and timely that I venture to inclose a copy for your perusal. Why would not you, and perhaps Dr. Andrew D. White, who—is it not a coincidence—has likewise written me today on the subject of my recent TIMES interview, be the very men to carry out the suggestion made by my correspondent? Perhaps no other two men in the entire country are so greatly looked up to by its people for guidance as you—in the first instance—and Dr. White. You could surely bestow no greater gift upon the entire civilized world than if now, in the evening of a life which has been of such great value to mankind, you would call around you a number of leading, earnest Americans with the view of discussing and framing plans through which American public opinion could be crystallized and aroused to the point where it will insistently demand that these warring nations come together and, with the experience they have made to their great cost, make at least an attempt to find a way out. I cannot but believe that the Governments of England, France, and Germany—if not Russia—will have to listen, if the American people speak with no uncertain voice. Do it, and you will deserve and receive the blessing of this and of coming generations! Yours most faithfully, JACOB H. SCHIFF. Dr. Eliot to Mr. Schiff. CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Dec. 8, 1914. Dear Mr. Schiff: I thank you for your letter of Dec. 1 and its interesting inclosure. Although every thoughtful person must earnestly desire that the waste and destruction of this greatest of wars should be stopped as soon as possible, there is an overpowering feeling that the war should go on until all the combatants, including Germany, have been brought to see that the Governmental régime and the state of the public mind in Germany which have made this war possible are not consistent with the security and well-being of Europe in the future. Personally, I feel strongly that the war ought to go on so long as Germany persists in its policies of world empire, dynastic rule, autocratic bureaucracy, and the use of force in international dealings. If the war stops before Germany sees that those policies cannot prevail in twentieth-century Europe, the horrible wrongs and evils which we are now witnessing will recur; and all the nations will have to continue the destructive process of competitive armaments. If peace should be made now, before the Allies have arrived at attacking Germany on her own soil, there would result only a truce of moderate length, and then a renewal of the present horrors. I cannot but think that Europe now has a chance to make a choice between the German ideal of the State and the Anglo-American ideal. These two ideals are very different; and the present conflict shows that they cannot coexist longer in modern Europe. In regard to the suggestion which your correspondent made to you that a conference of private persons should now be called in the hope of arriving at an agreed-upon appeal to the combatants to desist from fighting and consider terms of settlement, I cannot but feel (1) that such a conference would have no assured status; (2) that the combatants would not listen; and (3) that the effort would, therefore, be untimely now, though perhaps useful later. One idea might possibly bring about peace, if it fructified in the mind of the German Emperor—the idea, namely, that the chance of Germany's obtaining dominating power in either Europe or the world having already gone, the wise thing for him to do is to save United Germany within her natural boundaries for secure development as a highly civilized strong nation in the heart of Europe. Surplus population can always emigrate happily in the future as in the past. The security of Germany would rest, however, on an international agreement to be maintained by an international force; whereas, the example which Germany has just given of the reckless violation of international agreements is extremely discouraging in regard to the possibility of securing the peace of Europe in the future. Although this war has already made quite impossible the domination of Germany in Europe or in the world, the leaders of Germany do not yet see or apprehend that impossibility. Hence, many earnest peace-seekers have to confess that they do not see any means whatever available for promoting peace in Europe now, or even procuring a short truce. I wish I could believe with you that the Governments of England, France, Germany, and Russia would listen to the voice of the American people. They all seem to desire the good opinion and moral support of America; but I see no signs that they would take American advice or imitate American example. President Wilson seems to think that this country will be accepted as a kind of umpire in this formidable contest; but surely we have no right to any such position. Our example in avoiding aggression on other nations, and in declining to enter the contest for world power, ought to have some effect in abating European ambitions in that direction; but our exhortations to peace and good-will will, I fear, have little influence. There is still a real contest on between democracy and oligarchical methods. You see, my dear Mr. Schiff, that I regard this war as the result of long-continuing causes which have been gathering force for more than fifty years. In Germany all the forces of education, finance, commercial development, a pagan philosophy, and Government have been preparing this war since 1860. To stop it now, before these forces have been overwhelmingly defeated, and before the whole German people is convinced that they are defeated, would be to leave humanity exposed to the certain recurrence of the fearful convulsions we are now witnessing. If anybody can show me any signs that the leaders of Germany are convinced that there is to be no world empire for Germany or any other nation, and no despotic Government in Europe, I shall be ready to take part in any effectual advocacy of peace. Sincerely yours. CHARLES W. ELIOT. Jacob H. Schiff, Esq. Mr. Schiff to Dr. Eliot. NEW YORK, Dec. 5, 1914. President Emeritus Charles W. Eliot, Cambridge, Mass. Dear Dr. Eliot: Your letter of Dec. 3 reached me this morning, and has given me much food for thought. I wish I could follow you in the position you have taken, for I like nothing better than to sit at the feet of a master like you and be instructed. But, much as I have tried, even before our recent correspondence was begun, to get at your viewpoint as from time to time published, I have not been able to convince myself that you occupy a correct position. Please accept this as expressed in all modesty, for I know were you not thoroughly convinced of the justice of the position you have taken from the start you would not be so determined in holding to it. I am perfectly frank to say that I am amazed and chagrined when you say that you feel strongly that the war ought to go on until the Allies have arrived at attacking Germany on her own soil, which, if this is at all likely to come, may take many months yet, and will mean sacrifice of human life on both sides more appalling than anything we have seen yet since the war began. So you are willing that, with all the human life that has already perished, practically the entire flower of the warring nations shall become exterminated before even an effort be made to see whether these nations cannot be brought to reason, cannot be made to stop and to consider whether, with the experience of the past four months before them, it would not be better to even now make an effort to find a way in which the causes that have led to this deplorable conflict can be once and forever eradicated? That it will be possible to find at this time any method or basis through the adoption of which the world would become entirely immune against war I do not believe, even by the establishment of the international police force such as you and others appear to have in mind. The perpetual cessation of all war between the civilized nations of the world can, as I see it, only be brought about in two ways, both Utopian and likely impracticable, for many years to come. War could be made only to cease entirely if all the nations of Europe could be organized into a United States of Europe and if free trade were established throughout the world. In the first instance, the extreme nationalism, which has become so rampant during the past fifty years and which has been more or less at the bottom of every war, would then cease to exist and prevail, and in the second event, namely, if free trade became established throughout the world the necessity for territorial expansion and aggression would no longer be needed, for, with the entire world open on equal terms to the commerce and industry of every nation, territorial possession would not be much of a consideration to any peoples. You continually lay stress upon the danger of the domination of Germany in Europe and in the world. I believe I have already made myself quite clear in my recent NEW YORK TIMES interview, which has called forth this correspondence between us, that neither would I wish to have Germany come into a position where it might dominate Europe, and more or less the world, nor do I believe that the German Nation, except perhaps a handful of extremists, has any such desires. I believe I have also made myself quite clear in the interview to which I have referred that my feelings are not anti-English, for I shall never forget that liberal government and all forms of liberalism have had their origin, ever since the Magna Charta, in that great nation whom we so often love to call our cousins. But, with all of this, can you ignore the fact that England even today, without the further power and prestige victory in the present conflict would give her, practically dominates the high seas, that she treats the ocean as her own and enforces her dictates upon the waters even to our very shores? That this is true the past four months have amply proved. I am not one of those who fear that the United States, as far as can now be foreseen, will get into any armed conflict with Great Britain or with Japan, her permanent ally, but I can well understand that many in our country are of a different opinion, and it takes no prophet to foresee that, with England coming out of this war victorious and her and Japan's power on the high seas increased, the demand from a large section of our people for the acquisition and possession of the United States of an increased powerful navy and for the erection of vast coast defenses, both on the Atlantic and Pacific shores, will become so insistent that it cannot be withstood. What this will mean to the American people in lavish expenditures and in increased taxation I need not here further go into. Yes, my dear and revered friend, I can see nought but darkness if a way cannot be soon found out of the present deplorable situation as it exists in Europe. But even if the Allies are victorious it will mean, as I am convinced, the beginning of the descent of England as the world's leader and the hastened ascendency of Russia, who, not today or tomorrow, but in times to come, is sure to crowd out England from the world's leadership. A Russia that will have become democratic in its government, be it as a republic or under a truly constitutional monarchy; a Russia in which education will be as free as it is in our own country; a Russia in which the people can move about and make homes in the vast territory she possesses wherever they can find most happiness and prosperity; a Russia with its vast natural resources of every kind fully developed, is bound to be the greatest and most powerful nation on the earth. But I am going too far into the future and I must return to the sad and deplorable present. I only wanted to show how England's alliance with this present-day Russia and its despotic, autocratic, and inhuman Government may, if the Allies shall be victorious, prove possibly in the nearer future, but certainly in the long run, England's Nemesis. Before closing I want to correct the impression you appear to have received that I have meant to suggest a conference of private persons for the purpose of agreeing upon an appeal by them to the nations of Europe to desist from fighting and consider terms of settlement. I know this would be entirely impracticable and useless, but what I meant to convey to you was my conviction that if you and men like you, of whom I confess there are but too few, were to make the endeavor to rouse public opinion in the United States to a point where it should insistently demand that this terrific carnage of blood and destruction cease, it would not be long before these warring Governments would take notice of such sentiments on the part of the American people; and what should be done at once is the stoppage of the furnishing of munitions of war to any of the belligerents, as is unfortunately done to so great an extent at present from this country. We freely and abundantly give to the Red Cross and the many other relief societies, but we do this, even if indirectly, out of the very profits we derive from the war material we sell to the belligerents, and with which the wounds the Red Cross and other relief societies endeavor to assuage are inflicted. Yours most faithfully, JACOB H. SCHIFF. Dr. Eliot to Mr. Schiff. CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Dec. 8, 1914. Dear Mr. Schiff: Your letter of Dec. 5 tells me what the difference is between you and me in respect to the outcome of the war—I am much more hopeful or sanguine of the world's getting good out of it than you are. Since you do not hope to get any good to speak of out of it, you want to stop it as soon as possible. You look forward to future war from time to time between the nations of Europe and to the maintenance of competitive armaments. You think that the lust of dominion must continue to be felt and gratified, now by one nation and now by another; that Great Britain can gratify it now, but that she will be overpowered by Russia by and by. I am unwilling to accept these conditions for Europe, or for the world, without urging the freer nations to make extraordinary efforts to reach a better solution of the European international problem which, unsolved, has led down to this horrible pit of general war. I have just finished another letter to THE NEW YORK TIMES, which will probably be in print by the time you get back to New York, so I will not trouble you with any exposition of the grounds of my hopefulness. It is because I am hopeful that I want to see this war fought out until Germany is persuaded that she cannot dominate Europe, or, indeed, make her will prevail anywhere by force of arms. When that change of mind has been effected I hope that Germany will become a member of a federation firm enough and powerful enough to prevent any single nation from aiming at world empire, or even pouncing on a smaller neighbor. There is another point on which I seem to differ from you: I do not believe that any single nation has now, or can ever hereafter have, the leadership of the world, whereas you look forward to the existence of such leadership or domination in the hands of a single great power. Are there not many signs already, both in the East and in the West, that the time has past for world empire? Very sincerely and cordially yours, CHARLES W. ELIOT. Jacob H. Schiff, Esq. Mr. Schiff to Dr. Eliot. NEW YORK, Dec. 14, 1914. Dear Dr. Eliot: I have delayed replying to your valued letter of the 8th inst. until after the appearance of your further letter to THE NEW YORK TIMES, to which you had made reference, and, like everything emanating from you, the contents of your last TIMES letter have evoked my deepest interest. Had our recent correspondence not already become more extended than you likely had intended it to become when you first wrote me on the subject of my TIMES interview of some weeks ago, I should go into your latest arguments at greater length. As it is, I shall only reiterate that I find myself unable to follow you in your belief and hope, that world empire and world leadership, as this now exists, is likely to cease as a consequence of the present war, much as we all may desire this. England has taken up arms to retain her world dominion and leadership; and to gain it, Germany is fighting. How can you, then, expect that England, if victorious, would be willing to surrender her control of the oceans and the dominion over the trade of the world she possesses in consequence, and where is there, then, room for the hope you express that world leadership may become a thing of the past with the termination of the present conflict? I repeat, with all my attachment for my native land and its people, I have no inimical feeling toward England, have warm sentiments for France, and the greatest compassion for brave, stricken Belgium. Thus, "with malice toward none," and with the highest respect for your expressed views, I am still of the opinion that there can be no greater service rendered to mankind than to make the effort, either through the force of public opinion of the two Americas, or otherwise, to bring these warring Governments together at an early moment, even if this can only be done without stopping their conflict, so that they may make the endeavor, whether—with their costly experience of the last five months, with the probability that they now know better what need be done to make the extreme armaments on land and sea as unnecessary as they are undesirable in the future—a basis cannot be found upon which disarmament can be effectively and permanently brought about. This, at some time, they will have come to, in any event, and must there first more human lives be sacrificed into the hundreds and hundreds of thousands, and still greater havoc be wrought, before passions can be made to cease and reason be made to return? If, as you seem to think, the war need go on until one country is beaten into a condition where it must accept the terms the victor chooses to impose, because it can no longer help itself to do else, the peace thus obtained will only be the harbinger of another war in the near or distant future, bloodier probably than the present sanguinary conflict, and through no compact which might be entered into will it be possible to actually prevent this. Twenty centuries ago Christianity came into the world with its lofty message of "peace on earth and good-will to men," and now, after two thousand years, and at the near approach of the season when Christianity celebrates the birth of its founder, it is insisted that the merciless slaughter of man by man we have been witnessing these last months must be permitted to be continued into the infinite. Most faithfully yours, JACOB H. SCHIFF. President Emeritus Charles W. Eliot, Cambridge, Mass. ________________________________________________________ NY Times 1898: DR. GOTTHEIL'S 25 YEARS; Temple Emanu-El Celebrates Its Pastor's Silver Jubilee. HIS PART IN REFORM MOVEMENT The Rev. Dr. Silverman's High Tribute -- Dr. Robert Collyer Praises His Friend. DR. GOTTHEIL ON LINCOLN; His Career, the Rabbi Says, Illustrates the Greatness of a Heroic Life. CONSTANT DEVOTION TO DUTY He Was Always the Same from His Days of Rail-Splitting to the Presidency -- A Reference to Dreyfus. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Rabbi G. Gottheil Gustav Gottheil (May 28, 1827, Pinne/Pniewy, Grand Duchy of Posen, Prussia – April 15, 1903, New York City) was a Prussian-born American rabbi. Gottheil eventually became one of the most influential, well-known and controversial Reform Jewish leaders of his time. He was the father of Richard Gottheil. ...etc...

Price: 9770.7 USD

Location: Norwich, Connecticut

End Time: 2025-01-29T02:13:26.000Z

Shipping Cost: N/A USD