In light of the monumental events that took place in Europe during the end of the 19th and the
be... more In light of the monumental events that took place in Europe during the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, events that bore fateful consequence for the Jewish people and touched millions of individuals on a personal level, the hypothesis that drove this paper is that there existstrong parallels between the historic writing and personal memoirs of Jewish national historians of the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, and that understanding the relationship between these two genres that lie within the oeuvre of the same national historian is necessary in order to truly understand their legacy.
Specifically, my MA thesis validates this claim for the instances of Simon Dubnow and Ben- Zion Dinur. Both these individuals share a similar life story: they were born during the second
half of the 19th century in the same region of the Pale of Settlement, they sought a secular education with the Russian government-sponsored school system, ultimately failed in permeating that system, and finally settled on an autodidactic method which brought them to focus on the study of history from Western and Russian sources. Alongside these similarities, certain unrelenting differences led both individuals on different paths: Dubnow’s early traumatic experiences with the Jewish orthodox school system led him on a heretical path along which he adopted the rationalistic tenets of Russian Positivism, and only during his third decade did he begin to reconcile this philosophical mode with his inescapable Jewish identity, essentially creating a Jewish national ideology which was the synthesis of his historicism and rationalism; Dinur, on the other hand, was an avid learner and a stout pupil in the bet midrash, which meant that he never abandoned his Jewish identity as Dubnow did, and therefore his national identity was a linear progression of his traditional Jewish identity. As it happened, Dinur had no deep personal relationship with Russian culture; he adopted Zionism early in his life and immigrated to Palestine when he was 30 years old,
while Dubnow’s personal relationship with European culture meant that he refused to leave the continent, even in facing the rise of fascism. In comparing these two similar-but-unique cases, this paper shows that understanding the personal experiences of Dubnow and Dinur, as they are constructed in their memoirs, creates a different reading of their historiography. Specifically, this is the case with their attitude towards Russian culture, and it is most prevalent when it comes to the portrayal of antisemitism in their historical writing. Dubnow, as a Russian sympathetic living in Berlin at the time, portrays a nuanced picture of historical antisemitism, clearly defining the boundaries of its German origin and its phenomenological idiosyncrasies in comparison to earlier forms of Judeophobia. Dinur, on the other hand, writing from the newly independent State of Israel, throws a uniform blanket of antisemitism over the history of Europe, claiming that certain aspects of Judeophobia that were historically specific to Russia are nevertheless inherent to the Jewish experience throughout the entire continent. Reading these two unique narratives of antisemitism in relation to the memoirs constructed by both individuals at the end of their literary career shows the inseparable nature of historiography and autobiography in the works of Jewish national historians at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.
In light of the monumental events that took place in Europe during the end of the 19th and the
be... more In light of the monumental events that took place in Europe during the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, events that bore fateful consequence for the Jewish people and touched millions of individuals on a personal level, the hypothesis that drove this paper is that there existstrong parallels between the historic writing and personal memoirs of Jewish national historians of the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, and that understanding the relationship between these two genres that lie within the oeuvre of the same national historian is necessary in order to truly understand their legacy.
Specifically, my MA thesis validates this claim for the instances of Simon Dubnow and Ben- Zion Dinur. Both these individuals share a similar life story: they were born during the second
half of the 19th century in the same region of the Pale of Settlement, they sought a secular education with the Russian government-sponsored school system, ultimately failed in permeating that system, and finally settled on an autodidactic method which brought them to focus on the study of history from Western and Russian sources. Alongside these similarities, certain unrelenting differences led both individuals on different paths: Dubnow’s early traumatic experiences with the Jewish orthodox school system led him on a heretical path along which he adopted the rationalistic tenets of Russian Positivism, and only during his third decade did he begin to reconcile this philosophical mode with his inescapable Jewish identity, essentially creating a Jewish national ideology which was the synthesis of his historicism and rationalism; Dinur, on the other hand, was an avid learner and a stout pupil in the bet midrash, which meant that he never abandoned his Jewish identity as Dubnow did, and therefore his national identity was a linear progression of his traditional Jewish identity. As it happened, Dinur had no deep personal relationship with Russian culture; he adopted Zionism early in his life and immigrated to Palestine when he was 30 years old,
while Dubnow’s personal relationship with European culture meant that he refused to leave the continent, even in facing the rise of fascism. In comparing these two similar-but-unique cases, this paper shows that understanding the personal experiences of Dubnow and Dinur, as they are constructed in their memoirs, creates a different reading of their historiography. Specifically, this is the case with their attitude towards Russian culture, and it is most prevalent when it comes to the portrayal of antisemitism in their historical writing. Dubnow, as a Russian sympathetic living in Berlin at the time, portrays a nuanced picture of historical antisemitism, clearly defining the boundaries of its German origin and its phenomenological idiosyncrasies in comparison to earlier forms of Judeophobia. Dinur, on the other hand, writing from the newly independent State of Israel, throws a uniform blanket of antisemitism over the history of Europe, claiming that certain aspects of Judeophobia that were historically specific to Russia are nevertheless inherent to the Jewish experience throughout the entire continent. Reading these two unique narratives of antisemitism in relation to the memoirs constructed by both individuals at the end of their literary career shows the inseparable nature of historiography and autobiography in the works of Jewish national historians at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Uploads
Thesis Chapters by Yarden Amir
beginning of the 20th centuries, events that bore fateful consequence for the Jewish people
and touched millions of individuals on a personal level, the hypothesis that drove this paper
is that there existstrong parallels between the historic writing and personal memoirs of Jewish
national historians of the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, and that understanding the
relationship between these two genres that lie within the oeuvre of the same national
historian is necessary in order to truly understand their legacy.
Specifically, my MA thesis validates this claim for the instances of Simon Dubnow and Ben-
Zion Dinur. Both these individuals share a similar life story: they were born during the second
half of the 19th century in the same region of the Pale of Settlement, they sought a secular
education with the Russian government-sponsored school system, ultimately failed in
permeating that system, and finally settled on an autodidactic method which brought them
to focus on the study of history from Western and Russian sources.
Alongside these similarities, certain unrelenting differences led both individuals on different
paths: Dubnow’s early traumatic experiences with the Jewish orthodox school system led him
on a heretical path along which he adopted the rationalistic tenets of Russian Positivism, and
only during his third decade did he begin to reconcile this philosophical mode with his
inescapable Jewish identity, essentially creating a Jewish national ideology which was the
synthesis of his historicism and rationalism; Dinur, on the other hand, was an avid learner and
a stout pupil in the bet midrash, which meant that he never abandoned his Jewish identity as
Dubnow did, and therefore his national identity was a linear progression of his traditional
Jewish identity. As it happened, Dinur had no deep personal relationship with Russian culture;
he adopted Zionism early in his life and immigrated to Palestine when he was 30 years old,
while Dubnow’s personal relationship with European culture meant that he refused to leave
the continent, even in facing the rise of fascism.
In comparing these two similar-but-unique cases, this paper shows that understanding the
personal experiences of Dubnow and Dinur, as they are constructed in their memoirs, creates
a different reading of their historiography. Specifically, this is the case with their attitude
towards Russian culture, and it is most prevalent when it comes to the portrayal of
antisemitism in their historical writing. Dubnow, as a Russian sympathetic living in Berlin at
the time, portrays a nuanced picture of historical antisemitism, clearly defining the boundaries
of its German origin and its phenomenological idiosyncrasies in comparison to earlier forms
of Judeophobia. Dinur, on the other hand, writing from the newly independent State of Israel,
throws a uniform blanket of antisemitism over the history of Europe, claiming that certain
aspects of Judeophobia that were historically specific to Russia are nevertheless inherent to
the Jewish experience throughout the entire continent.
Reading these two unique narratives of antisemitism in relation to the memoirs constructed
by both individuals at the end of their literary career shows the inseparable nature of
historiography and autobiography in the works of Jewish national historians at the turn of the
19th and 20th centuries.
beginning of the 20th centuries, events that bore fateful consequence for the Jewish people
and touched millions of individuals on a personal level, the hypothesis that drove this paper
is that there existstrong parallels between the historic writing and personal memoirs of Jewish
national historians of the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, and that understanding the
relationship between these two genres that lie within the oeuvre of the same national
historian is necessary in order to truly understand their legacy.
Specifically, my MA thesis validates this claim for the instances of Simon Dubnow and Ben-
Zion Dinur. Both these individuals share a similar life story: they were born during the second
half of the 19th century in the same region of the Pale of Settlement, they sought a secular
education with the Russian government-sponsored school system, ultimately failed in
permeating that system, and finally settled on an autodidactic method which brought them
to focus on the study of history from Western and Russian sources.
Alongside these similarities, certain unrelenting differences led both individuals on different
paths: Dubnow’s early traumatic experiences with the Jewish orthodox school system led him
on a heretical path along which he adopted the rationalistic tenets of Russian Positivism, and
only during his third decade did he begin to reconcile this philosophical mode with his
inescapable Jewish identity, essentially creating a Jewish national ideology which was the
synthesis of his historicism and rationalism; Dinur, on the other hand, was an avid learner and
a stout pupil in the bet midrash, which meant that he never abandoned his Jewish identity as
Dubnow did, and therefore his national identity was a linear progression of his traditional
Jewish identity. As it happened, Dinur had no deep personal relationship with Russian culture;
he adopted Zionism early in his life and immigrated to Palestine when he was 30 years old,
while Dubnow’s personal relationship with European culture meant that he refused to leave
the continent, even in facing the rise of fascism.
In comparing these two similar-but-unique cases, this paper shows that understanding the
personal experiences of Dubnow and Dinur, as they are constructed in their memoirs, creates
a different reading of their historiography. Specifically, this is the case with their attitude
towards Russian culture, and it is most prevalent when it comes to the portrayal of
antisemitism in their historical writing. Dubnow, as a Russian sympathetic living in Berlin at
the time, portrays a nuanced picture of historical antisemitism, clearly defining the boundaries
of its German origin and its phenomenological idiosyncrasies in comparison to earlier forms
of Judeophobia. Dinur, on the other hand, writing from the newly independent State of Israel,
throws a uniform blanket of antisemitism over the history of Europe, claiming that certain
aspects of Judeophobia that were historically specific to Russia are nevertheless inherent to
the Jewish experience throughout the entire continent.
Reading these two unique narratives of antisemitism in relation to the memoirs constructed
by both individuals at the end of their literary career shows the inseparable nature of
historiography and autobiography in the works of Jewish national historians at the turn of the
19th and 20th centuries.