534
PARTISAN REVIEW
monides' relation to scholasticism? Alas, he does not as much as mention
any of them. He might of course plead that he is mainly concerned
with "The Modern West and the Jews," though in view of his implausible
theses he ought to say something about events which seem to refute
them so clearly. What, then, does he have to say about Spinoza? Again,
not a single reference in 334 pages of indices. Perhaps Spinoza is not
modem enough. What happens when we come to the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries? What will Toynbee say about the remarkable be–
havior of this fossil after the emancipation, about the scores of Jewish
scientists and thinkers, about the way in which the Jews suddenly
entered into Western Civilization and made major contributions? Noth–
ing, absolutely nothing.
If
medieval Spain does not fit his scheme, he
ignores it; and if the Jews are a living refutation of his theories, attack
is the best defense.
Toynbee tries to establish the word "Judaical," mainly by using it
in this fashion, as a synonym of "fanatical" (by way of contrast with
"the gentle and unaggressive ethos of Christianity")' as when he speaks,
for example, of "a series of anti-Jewish enactments of a Judaically
fanatical ferocity"-enacted by Christians, of course. Toynbee likes to
use the epithet "Judaical" for elements of Christianity of which he does
not approve.
If
this prejudice, however unworthy of a historian among
all people, is at least common, Toynbee also suggests again and again
that "Jew" and "businessman"-not to use a less polite term-are
synonymous. This, coupled with his failure to mention in this context
a single Jewish scholar, scientist, poet, philosopher, or artist, amounts to
a grotesque falsification of history and a complete perversion of the
relations between "The Modem West and the Jews."
When he finally comes to "The Fate of the European Jews and the
Palestinian Arabs, A.D. 1933-48" and his thesis that "On the Day of
Judgment the gravest crime standing to the German National Socialists'
account might be, not that they had exterminated the majority of the
Western Jews, but that they had caused the surviving remnant of Jewry
to stumble," he shows as much contempt for history as any Hollywood
director ever did. It is not the merits of Zionism that are at issue here.
An intelligent and honest indictment always deserves a hearing, though
what one has the right to expect from a historian is first of all an honest
account of what happened. Such an account should make us understand
what we previously failed to understand; it should enlarge our horizon
and affect our prejudices and valuations.
Does Toynbee explain the origin of Zionism with which he deals
at great length? Decidedly not. But it is one of the great oddities of his
