Читать книгу Prophet in a Time of Priests - Janice Rothschild Blumberg - Страница 9

III - EVANSVILLE

Browne came to Evansville well prepared for the diverse duties of an American rabbi. Already an acclaimed public speaker, he fulfilled the highest hopes of his congregants as their representative to the gentile world. He led them in intellectual activities by organizing the Evansville Literary Society and encouraging study among young adults. He pursued scholarly projects on his own, writing, translating, teaching and publishing. Most significant of all insofar as pleasing his congregation was concerned, he married Sophie. She was intelligent, personable, and one of their own. From all appearances the two were securely set to live “happily ever after.”

For his inaugural sermon at B’nai Israel, on the eve of the Jewish New Year, 1871, Browne chose the text of Jeremiah 1:47, wherein the prophet seeks God’s help with the words, “Behold, I cannot speak, for I am a boy.” Humbly acknowledging his own youth and inexperience, the rabbi reminded his listeners that the injunction to teach was meant not only for Jews but “unto the nations” and that he would welcome their guidance in this endeavor, clearly indicating outreach to the gentile community. He then spoke of a rabbi’s duties to his congregation and those of the congregation to its rabbi. Citing the instructions given to Moses in Exodus 27:20 and Leviticus 24:2,3 for the Israelites to bring to Aaron, the high priest, pure oil of olives for the eternal light, Browne drew the parallel to himself and his Evansville congregants. It was his duty to tend the lamp of enlightenment, but theirs to supply the oil.1

The subject was not unusual for rabbis of that era, but its message is worth noting for its relation to the times and the man. Addressing women especially, Browne invoked the Jewish view of motherhood. By asking them to help him educate their children, he drew upon the biblical injunction for mothers to introduce their children to the Torah. Also, with the intense patriotism typical of new Americans, he conjured the image popularized by novelist Harriet Beecher Stowe of mothers as primary purveyors of moral authority, charging them to “enlist as soldiers in the great army of the republic which shall free the mind from the sway of old despotic views.”

To illustrate his role as principal teacher, he drew from his medical studies a tongue-twisting ophthalmological metaphor about people “afflicted with photophobia... myopia and presbiophia,” (meaning that they either hated light or were farsighted or nearsighted) and concluded that they “contracted those morbid tendencies by bad habits, by looking either too much at the sun and becoming dazzled, or by closing their eyes altogether.” Such patients, he said, “must have an artificial light overseen and regulated by a good oculist. The priest has to be the optician here. He must shape lenses... which will gather the eye beams in the right focus, and thus assist their vision to behold things in the true light.” The imagery, reflecting his continued fascination with science, also suggested the presence of the eye disease that soon manifested itself and plagued him throughout most of his life.2

No sooner was Browne installed as Evansville’s rabbi than he announced a series of public lectures. He opened with “The Genesis of Christianity,” which the city newspapers asked him to repeat. Entering community affairs, he headed the Charitable Burial Association, served by his father-in-law, Moses Weil, as treasurer. He also began publishing an English periodical, the Jewish Independent, headquartered in Chicago. Within a few months the Evansville Medical College offered him faculty chairs in medical jurisprudence and diseases of the mind, and dispatched him as its delegate to the United States Medical Convention in Philadelphia.3

Rabbis were often called upon by Jewish communities other than their own to officiate at weddings, dedicate new synagogues, and deliver lectures for charitable purposes. In Petersburg, Indiana, Browne conducted its county’s first Jewish wedding. Celebrated in the Presbyterian Church, church bells summoned all residents to the ceremony and the church choir provided music. At the luncheon that followed, guests asked the rabbi to lecture that evening at the courthouse, and he agreed on condition that they contribute the admission fee to victims of the recent Chicago fire. The townspeople printed posters for the lecture, entitled “Social Features, Ancient and Modern,” and recruited boys to go through the streets as town criers clanging large bells to announce it. The event enabled Petersburg to send more than $100 to Chicago for victims of the devastating fire.4

In Vincennes, Indiana, Browne addressed the Moral and Social Union on “Science and the Bible,” described in the local newspaper as “the principal features of the Hebrew laws and traditions.” It was well received by most, but not all listeners. According to the report, some clergymen “did not like the idea of being lectured to by Jews and see them carry off the palm of public applause....” One Catholic priest became so agitated that he provoked Browne into challenging him to debate the subject.5

While we cannot know if the priest objected to the message or the messenger, the lecture’s title suggests that his reaction reflected that of many religious leaders, both Christian and Jewish, to the scientific view of religion. Biblical criticism and Darwinism posed a threat to those unable to come to terms with modernism. Clergymen of all faiths feared them and believed that those who advocated them were largely responsible for the disturbing decline in attendance then apparent at worship services in their churches and synagogues alike.

Reform rabbis had good reason for alarm. They recognized that most of their rapidly acculturating, German-born constituents, however rational their thinking on other issues, still clung to the traditional beliefs in creation by design, man’s creation in God’s image, and God’s revelation of the complete Torah at Sinai. The rabbis posited that if such devotees of logic were influenced by academic biblical scholarship or Darwinism to the extent that they abandoned those underlying tenets of their religious background, they would be left with no intellectual basis to sustain their Judaism. Indeed, some had already found expression of their socio-religious views in Unitarianism and Ethical Culture. As historian Naomi W. Cohen explained, when inquiring minds began to question their inherited beliefs, “... those [denominations] that boasted of their rational nature or their adaptability and relevance to modern society were hard-pressed to reinterpret essential articles of their faith....”6

Although Browne and the highly respected Rabbi Bernhard Felsenthal, of Chicago, maintained that rational inquiry did not threaten Judaism, the vast majority of their colleagues condemned it. Wise gave space in his newspapers to advocates of Darwinism and biblical criticism, but he accepted neither, charging that they were based on unverified hypotheses. For once in agreement with Einhorn, who called Darwinism the “brutalization of our species,” Wise called it “Homo-Brutalism” and “the gorilla theory,” and held that it robbed humans of their “preeminence” making all of nature a battleground.7

Browne, trained in both medicine and theology as was Darwin, viewed evolution from a vantage point similar to that of the evolutionist himself. Backed by his knowledge of biblical criticism and influenced perhaps by having read the works of the American philosopher-historian John Fiske and British philosopher-biologist Herbert Spencer, Browne emulated them in seeking a means of reconciling religion and science rather than undermining the science. Few philosophers, theologians or scientists in the Victorian era shared that view.

Philosophical disagreement did not diminish Wise’s support for Browne’s work, however. Wise continued to promote it, praising Browne’s Jewish Independent for its “rich variety of original reading matter,” and applauding the young rabbi’s start on a new book, “The Encyclopedia of Talmudic Beauties.”8

Browne also began translating The Book Jashar, one of the lost books of the Bible (literally, “The Correct Book”), mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and II Samuel I:18, which contained stories from creation to the time of the judges. Late twentieth century scholars believed that The Book Jashar was a collection of war songs already known at the time of the Bible’s canonization, some of which, including Miriam’s Song at the Sea (Exodus 15:1), were preserved in other sections of Scripture without attribution to earlier sources.

According to Browne, the book had been “in the hands of our people” since time immemorial, although not translated into English until the nineteenth century. Scholars disputed the authenticity of the version most recently discovered, which included dates, genealogies, and full explanations of many obscure passages, and which Emanuel Deutsch, foremost Jewish exponent of biblical criticism, endorsed. Despite the fact that Julius Wellhausen, most famous of the critics, called it a fraud, Browne chose that newest version for his translation.9

Browne completed the work in 1875, with advance orders including one from the Savannah Lodge of B’nai B’rith. Wise praised its “correct and fluent Hebrew.” He also noted that “The Book Jashar” had been first published in Venice in1625, and that the American politician and playwright Mordechai Noah had reportedly translated it into English earlier in the nineteenth century. Apparently lost, the knowledge of Noah’s work may have inspired Browne to undertake his own translation.10

Much as he enjoyed these intellectual pursuits, as a congregational rabbi Browne did not have the luxury of hiding in an ivory tower. He soon became involved in one of the petty conflicts that Victorian codes of conduct frequently ignited within status-conscious, middle class society. Ostensibly it began shortly after the Brownes returned from their honeymoon. At that time David Heiman, an influential member of the Evansville congregation, complained that he and his wife had been insulted by the rabbi at the latter’s wedding dinner: when the Heimans attempted to sit at the table reserved for the bridal party, someone—presumably Browne—referred them to seats at the head of a different table. A local newspaper learned of the perceived affront and asked Browne about it. The rabbi remained silent until a persistent but seemingly friendly reporter from a rival paper persuaded him that he should tell his side of the story in order to defend himself.11

Acknowledging that the incident had occurred, Browne noted that Heiman did not appear to be offended until months later after returning from a business trip to Metropolis, Indiana. There Heiman claimed to have heard that Browne invoked the name of Jesus Christ in a lecture. While this apparently constituted a crime in Heiman’s view, several people who had attended the lecture testified that it was untrue, which put the rumor to rest. Then Heiman tried again, charging that Browne, after lecturing in Paducah, Kentucky, embezzled proceeds that were designated for charities, one of which was the B’nai B’rith Hebrew Orphan’s Home in Cleveland.

Again exonerated and supported by numerous congregants, Browne offered to forgive Heiman in return for an apology and a large contribution to the Hebrew Orphan’s Home. He received the apology and a small contribution for the home, but only after an unduly long wait. This incensed him to the point of returning the wedding gift that he and Sophie had received from the Heimans.12

The incident evidently struck a deep chord within Browne, for despite continued support from the congregation, in a subsequent interview he unleashed growing grievance over a related situation. The reporter first asked if he would sue for damages, to which Browne replied that he probably would not. If he did, he said, he would represent himself, assisted by Captain W. Frederick Smith, one of the “genial Southern gentlemen and scholars” who had recently come to practice law in Evansville. Then he noted that he thought it would help the clergy if the issue went to court because ministers—rabbis, especially—were being mistreated. They were “disfranchised in every way,” he said, and required to work around the clock for an average salary less than that of a street laborer. Browne noted that it was less onerous with Christians because their ministers could appeal to a conference or synod, whereas rabbis, left to the mercy of their congregants, suffered “all sorts of abuse patiently” because complaints were of no use. In his case, he claimed, if his accuser had succeeded in getting thirty votes against him he would “now be left homeless and under the bans of proscription without relief.”13

Browne did not stop there. In what he may have intended as an innocent plug for Wise’s projected Hebrew Union College, he told the reporter, “You know, sir, that we have no seminaries in this country, and every Tom and Dick who can read a little Hebrew may be accepted at the pleasure of the congregation as a minister. Those parasites spoil the ministry. They have no independence because [they have] no substance.”14

However true this may have been, it was not likely to have pleased members of Congregation B’nai Israel to see it in the city newspaper because it revealed an unseemly aspect of Jewish communal behavior. Nevertheless, no repercussions arose. Shortly after it appeared, a reconciliation took place between Browne and Heiman, who then hosted an elaborate “peace banquet” to celebrate. The Israelite’s Evansville correspondent, reluctant to blame either contender for the unseemly brouhaha, reported, “By some inexplicable way, one of our most respected members allowed himself to be influenced by a malignant party to avenge an imaginary insult....” Presumably the “malignant party” did not live in Evansville.15

Such was the temper of the times. It was not unusual, especially in small communities such as Evansville, for rabbis to be treated as mere employees. In many cases they were not allowed to sermonize without their president’s permission, and one minister was fired because he preached against playing poker.16

Meanwhile, Browne tendered his resignation. The congregation refused to accept it, notifying the Israelite, “we could not afford to part with the man, whom, all artifices of two or three parties notwithstanding, we reelected almost unanimously.” The report also mentioned that the New York-based, Jewish Times, edited by Moritz Ellinger about whom more will be seen subsequently, had published the story “in an aggravated form by a unanimous [sic.] correspondent,” but that it would probably be the last such libel “for our rabbi is not to be trifled with, being a lawyer himself, it is easy for him to file a complaint.... ”17

Nonetheless, the slander continued, although it is unclear whether the next attack–part of the continuing battle between rabbinic factions of the East and West—was intended as a personal thrust against Browne or a statement opposing Darwinism and biblical criticism. Wise’s Evansville correspondent had previously reported seeing Wise cited in the Jewish Times as author of a pamphlet entitled “Attila” that argued against the traditional view of creation as revealed in Genesis. More recently the paper carried a half-page statement identifying the author of the pamphlet as “a western rabbi, not residing in Cincinnati.” Then Browne read in the Jewish Times that “a Hungarian western rabbi whose initials are E.B.M.B.” had written “a scurrilous pamphlet” of the same description.18

Wise debunked the accusation, saying that he had seen the pamphlet three years before, read a favorable review of it in the esteemed London Saturday Review, and found nothing wrong with it. He believed that the letter was an attempt to keep Browne from getting the recently vacated post of English preacher at New York’s prestigious Temple Emanu-El. There was no indication that Browne was seeking any new position. He was still in Evansville and despite the incident with Heiman, ostensibly very happy there. Referencing the ongoing struggle between East and West, Wise observed, “There seems to be a secret purpose hidden in that attack on Dr. Browne.... ” Citing the vacancy at Temple Emanu-El, he argued that, since the press had praised Browne as an extemporaneous and successful English preacher, “somebody might have the idea this young orator could be engaged in the Emanuel Temple... and must therefore be abused in advance so that the hierarchical fraternity of the metropolis be not disturbed by an independent link in the chain forged on the New York reform congregations.”19

The strength of that chain would affect Browne in the not-so-distant future. At this time, however, Wise was actually addressing his own agenda, as he continued,

We know to a certainty that the Jewish Times has abused us beyond measure, by order of the New York hierarchs, because it was rumored one day [that] we might be a candidate for some New York pulpit and, we are told, it is abusing us now, and we suppose also Browne, because it fears, by order of course, he or we might have such an idea now. We can assure those terrified gentlemen that we are no candidate for any office, ecclesiastical or political, and in regard to Dr. Browne we can add that he is well situated in Evansville. It is not necessary on this ground that the Times should continue in unprincipled meanness to attack, especially as we never condescend to make a reply to a sheet enslaved by its taskmasters and conducted by a man without honor or integrity.20

The man was Wise’s rival, Rabbi David Einhorn, and it was not the last time that his newspaper libeled Browne. Within a few months Browne informed Wise of further abuse, but indicated that he would not sue because “the Times is not worth one cent, hence a suit would only incur to my loss.” 2211

Wise responded:

“while it is acceded that slander is contemptible, no matter who the parties concerned are, we believe the crime is greatly increased when it aims at the honor of a young man. We old ones can stand a great deal without being hurt, but as regards a young man some people will believe something, let it come from any source.”22

Still the attacks continued. Someone launched a rumor about Browne in Quincy, Illinois, apparently in an attempt to limit attendance at a lecture that he was scheduled to give there. Officers and trustees of the Evansville congregation rose to his defense, responding with a signed declaration in the Israelite:

“Having heard that slanderous reports and letters have been sent to Quincy, Illinois, aiming at the character of Rev. Dr. Browne, member of the B’nai Israel Congregation, we, the undersigned, therefore declare that as a minister and as a gentleman Dr. Browne has always met with the fullest approval of the congregation, and the outsiders thereof. Several parties, though, on account of petty personal affairs, started up trouble in said congregation, still no one can or dare question that as a preacher, as a teacher in his Sunday-school, which was a model of order and decorum, and in all his duties, Dr. Browne stands as pure as any minister in this or in any other country. The slanderer who attempts to blacken the fair reputation of an honest and upright public man like Dr. Browne, deserves his unqualified contempt of every one.”23

Even after moving to another city Browne could not relinquish anger over his treatment by Heiman. Almost a year later he revived the unseemly controversy in his journal, the Jewish Independent. The article, entitled “Why I Left Evansville,” drew vitriolic response from Evansvillians who reversed their previous opinion and sent resolutions to the Israelite calling him “Meanest liar in creation,” “Most contemptible, self conceited fool,” and “Most abominable hypocrite.” Wise published them, but “with the utmost regret... not only because the words used... are unbecoming this journal and any religious community, but also we admire the talent and ability of Dr. Browne as an eminent pulpit orator, and know that he is no hypocrite, and there is no wickedness in him.” That said, Wise conceded that he did “sincerely mourn over the follies of our young friend, who possesses all the gifts to make his mark in the pulpit, and yet mistakes notoriety for reputation, and transient sensation for fame.”24

The incident, in addition to revealing Browne’s impetuous nature and unbending pride, reflects both the naïveté and the mercurial temper of the average congregation. While Browne unquestionably invited reproof, considering his previous strong support by the congregation, the vindictive tone of the Evansville resolution suggests that it was written by members not formerly in control. Such behavior, traceable to changes in the congregation’s lay leadership, was also often affected by financial problems. A sidelight worth noting is the fact that although the Evansville congregation engaged Browne at a generous $3000 a year, it offered only $1000 for his successor and was required to double that figure when no one acceptable applied. This suggests economic concerns as well as contention within the ranks of leadership.25

Although Wise defended Browne publicly, he was not blind to behavioral flaws in his young friend that might have added to his problems. In a personal letter written while Browne was still in Evansville, his mentor began with a sad report on Mrs. Wise’s health and then admonished in these words:

“Allow me to tell, if I had had four places in five years or so, and gone away quarreling from either, beyond a doubt, I would have come to the conclusion that the fault is in me. In this case I would have shelved myself for a year or two in a quiet retreat, to overcome my own follies, evidently in my way to success, and I would have given my attention exclusively to scientific pursuits and not let hear of me one word, until the old Adam be out of me. Can you not see the failure you have made? Starting out as you did, after five years, you have landed in Peoria. Are you blind to all that? Publish no cards, rather seek quietly to reconstruct your wrecked fortune, by good sermons without sensation or humbug, by diligent study especially of Jewish sources which you have forgotten, and by careful attention to conduct in society, where prudence, forbearance and moderation are as necessary as a good moral character. I am your friend who tell you what I have to say, others may persecute you. The world is cold. Now you may do as you please; I have done my duty as a friend. If you want to remain in the ministry you must build up a reputation not only as a scholar and orator but also as a quiet, earnest and peaceable man who manages well. This will take time, resolution and self-government.”26

Browne did not take Wise’s advice. His reason is unclear but it invites speculation. Although Wise’s reference to Peoria implies that Browne’s move there was a step downward in his career, some aspects of the city and the history of its congregation suggest otherwise. The feud with Heiman had taken its toll on Browne’s popularity, and despite the strength of his remaining support, he was left with a residue of ill will that clouded his outlook for a future in Evansville. Sophie was very young—barely nineteen—and presumably loathe to leave her parents; however, she and the rabbi retained a close relationship with them and visited often. He had established his reputation throughout the mid-west as an eloquent orator and progressive thinker, an advocate of biblical criticism and Darwinian evolution, and the offer of a position in the larger city with its proximity to Chicago beckoned enticingly. All known facts considered, it seems that Browne simply decided that it was a good time to go.