The Sacred and the Profane

Critic Lazare Saminsky Wrote of Two Divergent Sorts of Jewish Music

By Jenna Weissman Joselit

Published September 01, 2012, issue of September 07, 2012.

(page 2 of 2)

Shuttling between the bimah and the concert hall, Saminsky was guided by an unshakeable belief in the “stubborn tenacity of the national spirit.” He found that aural spirit, that “life-bearing ore,” in the chanting of the Torah and in traditional Hebrew prayer. Everything else, from Hasidic nigunim, or wordless tunes, to klezmer, let alone the jazz-inflected stylings of Gershwin and Copland, he placed beyond the pale. “The froth and dregs of the so-called Jewish folk-music, picked up in the bazaar of the Orient and the street-gutter of the Occident, have darkened and disfigured the noble countenance of Hebrew musical art,” Saminsky wrote in “Music of the Ghetto and the Bible,” distinguishing between what he took to be authentic musical forms on the one hand and inorganic grafts — or worse still, sources of contamination — on the other. Under the circumstances, “Hava Nagila,” which Saminsky fleetingly mentioned, barely passed muster. He described it as a “nomadic tune,” popular in Austrian Hasidic circles of the 19th century, that had migrated to Palestine, where it became a “favorite folk-song.”

Elsewhere throughout his book, Saminsky referred freely, and even proudly, to the “manly” Hebraic heritage, to a “racial melodic predilection, stable and obstinate as any other inbred feature of a distinct people”; to the existence of a “Jewish racial psyche,” and, most floridly, to a belief in the “seminal might and in the cultural fertility that flow from blood.”

Although well intentioned, Saminsky’s essentialist views are hard to swallow. References to “manly” this and “racial” that don’t go down easily these days. (You have to wonder how they ever did.) I, for one, squirmed my way through the pages of his 1934 book. From time to time, I even made grunting noises at some of its more outré pronouncements, startling my husband, who was happily, and quietly, engaged in reading the latest Alan Furst mystery.

Offering an unequivocally racialist reading of culture, Saminsky, it turns out, was strongly influenced by Wagner, who insisted on the racial underpinnings of music and art, on the indissoluble bonds between a culture and its people. As musicologist James Loeffler pointed out in a fascinating article in the journal Jewish Social Studies, the Russian Jew from Odessa shared the German composer’s views. But — and it’s a big one — he drew a different, and far more heartening, set of conclusions from them.

Where Wagner sought to banish the Jews from the cultural arena, claiming they simply didn’t belong, Saminsky sought to make room for them, to demonstrate through and through that the Jews had a musical culture, a “tonal heritage,” all their very own, one that transcended time and space, history and geography. What’s more, the music of the Jews, he tirelessly argued, was on a par with that of other nations and deserved a place at the table.

The Old World, for the most part, turned a deaf ear to Saminsky’s claims regarding an enduring, transnational Jewish sound, finding it too alien a concept, especially when set against the narrow frame of nationalism. The New World was something else again. Thanks to its stunning variety of immigrant groups, which some observers actually likened to a symphony, America proved to be more receptive. But only for a little while. By the time of Saminsky’s death, in 1959, the nation had changed its tune, drowning out his voice amid the clarion call of Americanization.



Would you like to receive updates about new stories?






















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.