Métodos estadísticos

Di naye biblyotek, Vilna, 1904. 40 pages. (Yiddish)

Attributed to Esther by Zalmen Reisen.130

Copy from NYPL.

This is a translation from Russian of Korolenko’s Skazanie o Flore, Agrippe i Menakheme, Syne Yegudy [The Legend of Flor…].131

The original story, which dates to 1886, is ‘not just a historic account of the Judean war, but also an answer to Tolstoy’s motto of “non-resistance to evil”.132

According to Korolenko, force cannot be judged as good or bad without knowing the purpose for which it has been used’.133

This work may have been Esther’s first book-length publication. !

‘And in Jerusalem too there arose a great commotion among the peoples. No unity was there among the men, so they made noise and argued. Some said:

Will we have to suffer this slander and blasphemy for long? Do none of you see where Flor is heading, with his bad heart and his lust for gold? He will not stop until he has plundered our temple and, if he does plunder it, this will spur him on to new outrages. The way troops stand around the flag, so stand our people around the temple. And just as the flag soon falls into the hands of the enemy, the troops flee and the enemy very easily murders the fleeing troops, so Flor will also think to himself: “If the people could not defend their temple, then what will they stand up for?” Is this what we want? Do we want the Roman soldiers returning home laden with bounteous plunder and saying to their friends: “Go to the land of Judea, the people there have a lowly soul, a soldier is in no risk of encountering any danger in battle there, only pure pleasures…”’ (11; par. 3 - 12; par. 1).

1906

3. M. Alef-R. Di yidishe vahl komiteten un zeyer klal-yisroel politik [The Jewish

Electoral Committees and Their Klal Yisroel Policy]. No. 66, Di velt, Vilna, Sept. 1906. 16 pages. (Yiddish)

the Society for the Dissemination of Enlightenment among the Jews in Russia (Mefitsey haskole), which espoused these principles.

130 _{Z. Reisen 144.}

131 _{Vladimir Galaktionovich Korolenko, Russian humanitarian, journalist and author (1853-1921). Korolenko’s other}

connections with the Jewish world include his several essays decrying the persecution of Jews, and his active support for Mendel Beilis during his famous ritual murder trial of 1913.

132 _{Count Lev (Leo) Nikolaevich Tolstoy, great Russian writer and moralist (1828-1910).}

133 _{Radha Balasubramanian, ‘Vladimir Galaktionovich Korolenko,’ Reference Guide to Russian Literature, edited by}

Attributed by J. S. Hertz.134 _{Copy from NLI.}

This is a small book. Its context, like that of the following item, is the Bund’s electoral

campaign for the Second Duma.135

Its message is that the concept of klal yisroel is a falsity because there are class divisions among Jews which ensure that wealthy Jews only look after their own interests and neglect those of the poor Jewish working masses, and therefore, election committees made up of Jews from parties other than the Bund will not support workers’ interests. The tone of the booklet is scathing – Naomi Shepherd calls it ‘a blistering article’ – and ultimately revolutionary.136

A ‘meeting of Jewish urban voters’ is portrayed as typical and tiresome.137

Arguments for the klal yisroel approach are countered in what Naomi Shepherd calls ‘imaginary dialogues’.138

The Zionists and Kadets, both political opponents to the Bund, are ridiculous and wrong since, for example, they scorn the revolution.139

Representatives of classes, not nations, will sit in the Duma. The Bund maintains that the interests of the Jewish working masses are more closely connected with the interests of the working masses of other nations than with those of other classes within Jewry. A new democratic order will be needed if Jews are to achieve rights, and will lead to freedom for all oppressed nations. Only those who fight for the freedom of the whole country are fighting for the freedom of their own people. Ultimately, workers are the true defenders and supporters of Jewish rights. !

‘Raising high the banner of struggle, we call all the poor and oppressed to follow us. In the struggle for freedom the masses must follow the organised proletariat.

In this struggle the Jewish masses must follow the organised Jewish proletariat, the Bund. And in this struggle, civil, political and national rights will be obtained by all oppressed nations and among them too the Jewish people.’ (concluding paragraphs)

4. M. Alef-R. Ver fertheydigt ambesten di interesen fun folk? [Who Is the Best

Defender of Jewish Interests?]. No. 70, Di velt, Vilna, 1906. 16 pages. (Yiddish) Attributed by J. S. Hertz.140

Copy from NLI.

134 _{Hertz, ‘Di ershte ruslender revolutsye,’ Di geshikhte fun bund, vol. 2, 478n246. NLI catalogue concurs.}

135 _{Vladimir Levin relates that Esther wrote several pro-Bund election-related booklets for distribution among Jewish}

voters (322n120).

136 _{Shepherd 154.}

137 _{The first part of this scene, par. 1-4, is reproduced in Hebrew by Vladimir Levin (321n109).}

138 _{Shepherd 155. The use of dialogue here recalls Benjamin Harshav’s argument that this device in the Jewish}

political journalism of this period originated from the sermons and commentaries in Hebrew exegetical texts (The Meaning of Yiddish, Berkeley, 1990, 18-19, qtd. in Marten-Finnis 79-80). This device is also used in the next item.

139 _{On the Zionists’ political party, see Simon Rabinovitch, Jewish Rights, National Rites: Nationalism and Autonomy}

in Late Imperial and Revolutionary Russia, Stanford UP, 2014. The Kadets – the centrist political party of the Constitutional Democrats.

This small book argues that the Bund is the best defender of Jewish interests. It contains six sections. In the first section, Rabi Mordkhay with His Questions (3-4), the

prominent narrator, a committed Bundist revolutionary, dialogues with a shopkeeper of the Pale, who has trouble understanding how Bundists can even call themselves Jews since they are not interested in religion and do not believe in klal yisroel, let alone the Messiah. He does not see how the Bund will eradicate the Jews’ troubles. He asks for all the explanations to be put into a book. The present book claims to respond to that request. The second section, WhatDoes the Proletariat Want? (4-8), clarifies some of the theoretical bases of the Bund’s position. The Bund is the party of the working class, and also of the wider Jewish masses. It strives for socialism, under which there will be no unjust socioeconomic divisions. To fight for this equality, the proletariat needs a truly democratic order in a democratic republic, to ensure that ‘the wider masses have the necessary effect on all ideas in the country’ and that those who currently

occupy the upper strata will not seize control. Lack of democracy leads to internal hatred such as antisemitism, and inequality. The proletariat, which stands on the lowest rung of society, is the best defender of political rights. Within a large country like Russia there are areas of idiosyncratic economic development, lifestyle, and traditions which each need their own fairly elected governments. The proletariat demands full freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of unions and of strikes, all of which, except the last, pertain not just to workers but to the whole nation [folk]. Similarly, arguments for a proportional system of taxation, removal of excise taxes on essential items, and transfer of land to the peasants pertain to the entire Jewish masses.

Eradication of the class system will be part of a chain of events which could lead to the end of antisemitism. The proletariat demands a people’s militia as in Switzerland, rather than a standing army. Living conditions will improve when the masses control the administration of cities and regions. The proletariat strives for enlightenment, for school education, for the same schools for rich and poor where all children can obtain a free, broad elementary education, ‘a broad development’, and food and clothing at school. Artisans and shopkeepers must support these demands of the proletariat. The third section, Our NationalDemands (8-11), locates antisemitism in the context of a general ‘national hatred’ which serves the ruling classes and the forces of reaction. For

example, the Black Hundred agitates against both Jews and non-Jewish workers.141

Because Jews have limited access to employment in factories and other industries, and

because they are not allowed to speak Yiddish at meetings, they have the highest number of unemployed and are the most oppressed group. The proletariat of all nations fights for national equality. The Social-Democracy demands for every nation the right to self-determination and to develop its cultural skills freely. Workers want education for themselves and their children, and public services, in their mother tongue. Even in a democratic order there will still be inequality. Only national-cultural autonomy, as envisaged by the Bund, will ensure the existence of Jewish schools and opportunity for national development. Under national-cultural autonomy, each nation will govern its own education and culture, with funding provided by the government or directly by ‘its members’, with legislative power.142

Jewish workers defend the interests of the wider Jewish masses, ‘better than all the klal-yisroel-minded benefactors of the Jewish people’. Section 4, Our Economic Struggle (11-12), reiterates that many of the demands of the proletariat in Russia which are based on its most urgent class interests are also demands of the wider, non-proletarian Jewish masses. Yet, the economic struggle can take forms that are detrimental to workers and bosses, due to the current unusual situation which would not occur in a liberated Russia. Essentially, ‘we cannot unite under a klal-yisroel banner’. Though we are ‘opponents of economic life’, we are concerned that the struggle not be waged in conditions of rightslessness and slavery. The fifthsection, Who Is Fighting and How (12-14), differentiates the Bund from its competitors, such as the Zionists, and argues, in response to the claim that the Bund’s actions cause pogroms, that attacks on Jews had been instigated by Plehve before the Bund existed.143

Groups like the Zionists, who ‘are dragging the people backwards’ and will not ‘stand with courage against the enemy’, only give the people ‘empty fantasies’ and ‘castles in the air’, talk about their home as a temporary residence ‘in goles’ and will not defend the interests of the masses.144

The final section, What Has the Bund Done for the Jewish Masses? (14-16), spells out the Bund’s success in building Jewish pride, self-worth, and revolutionary courage, and in organising self-defence which saved lives in Odessa, deterred attackers in Bia%ystok, and which creates an awareness of Jewish revolutionary strength which makes the government unwilling to upset Jews and willing to give them concessions. Ultimately, Jews must vote for a Bund member in

the upcoming Duma elections. !

‘The government hopes to turn the Duma into a blind tool in its hands. With every effort, it is striving to fashion a Black Hundred-dominated popular representation.

142 _{The same term is used to denote the proposed governing body, ‘the national-cultural autonomy’.}

The people must send to the Duma representatives who will persistently, courageously and boldly uphold the demands of the people.

To stand boldly to the end and fight with determination and courage – this can best be done only by they who must do it, who have no other option.

Such are the representatives of the revolutionary proletariat.

And the wider masses of the people must elect to the Duma the representatives of the fighting proletariat.

And the wider Jewish masses must send to the Duma the representatives of the

proletariat, [namely] social-democrats, members of the Bund.’ (concluding paragraphs)

5. Esther. ‘Naye direktiven [New Directives].’ Folks-tsaytung [Vilna], 1, no. 165,

24 Sept. (7 Oct.) 1906, p. 1 (Yiddish) Copy from NYPL.

This short newspaper article announces that municipal governors have been ordered to increase their already extensive efforts to quell the current unrest.145_!

‘The governors and governors-general may feel deeply insulted. For already three quarters of a year they have strained every nerve to arrest and exile people. They have already swapped all suspicious individuals amongst themselves; they have broadly colonised the Narym area and other blessed parts of Siberia.146 _{They arrest 1000 people}

at once for travelling without a ticket, they arrest people for using the words “hooligan” and “Black Hundred-nik”; they compete amongst themselves over the highest number of hanged and shot; they put their utmost energy into supporting the “Russian people”, and organise pogroms large and small…’ (par. 2).

6. Esther. ‘Di feldgerikhten arbayten [Military Field Courts Are in Operation].’

Folks-tsaytung [Vilna], 1, no. 169, 2 Oct. (15) 1906, p. 1 (Yiddish) Copy from epaveldas.lt.

This short newspaper article uses stirring revolutionary language to decry the

installation of a military field court in <ód= and to encourage the strike action protesting the installation of this court.147_!

144 _{Goles [Heb. galut] – Jewish Diaspora, outside the Holy Land.}

145 _{In this bibliography, newspaper articles are described as short (up to around 200 words), fairly short (around 500}

words), medium-length (around 1000 words), fairly long (around 2000 words), and long (around 2500 words and above).

146 _{Narym – one of the main places of internal exile for political prisoners in Russia.}

147 _{The military field courts imposed a harsh justice independently of the regular judicial system. <ód= – city in}

‘A military field court is sitting in <ód=! The news has swept through the proletariat of <ód= like an electrical storm. People seem to be asking who will be tried, a

revolutionary or not, someone guilty or someone innocent?

The terrible, hellish machine has begun its work in <ód=. Death hovers above the heads of the people…’ (par. 3-5).

7. Esther. ‘Tsvey dokumenten [Two Documents].’ Folks-tsaytung [Vilna], 1, no.

171, 4 Oct. (17) 1906, p. 2 (Yiddish) Copy from NYPL.

This short newspaper article discusses two documents which relate to the visit to Russia planned by members of the British parliament but ultimately cancelled. The article considers the differences and similarities of the two documents, which were

communications from separate Russian sources to separate English destinations, and ultimately implies that these separate official communications make it unclear who is

the actual government of Russia. !

‘Two documents have been printed in the newspapers concerning the English deputation, may it rest in peace.

One, according to Strana, is a communication from the Russian government via the Russian legation in London to the deputation committee.

The other is a telegram from the Moscow monarchists to the English king.

Their content is the same. They make insinuations that, in Russia, the delegation will be honoured “in the true Russian style”.

But between the two documents there is a difference.’ (par. 1-5)

8. Esther. untitled. Folks-tsaytung [Vilna], 1, no. 173, 6 Oct. (19) 1906, p. 2