Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T00:13:42.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revisiting the language factor in Zionism: The Hebrew Language Council from 1904 to 1914*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2010

İlker Aytürk
İlker Aytürk*
Affiliation:
Bilkent University, Turkey
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The role of language and linguistic-philological studies in the nationalist movements of the nineteenth century received much attention. The aim of this article is to focus on the language factor in Zionism and the revival of Hebrew as a spoken language in the Yishuv between 1904 and 1914. Founded in 1904, the Hebrew Language Council was expected to enhance the process of revival and, from the very beginning, an unmistakably nationalist attitude to its subject matter marked the Council's agenda. However, the authority of the Council to make binding decisions on linguistic matters was contested by a number of other Zionist institutions, a development which ruined the prestige and effectiveness of the Council. The controversy resulted less from a turf war or quarrels over scarce resources than a deeper question of which institution represented the “true” Hebraic spirit. The World Zionist Organization's decision to de-align from cultural matters, including the revival of Hebrew, worsened the conditions under which the Council operated. From a comparative perspective, thus, the Hebrew case provides an unusual case of linguistic nationalism, which should be of interest to students of both nationalism and sociolinguistics.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 45 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am indebted to Smadar Barak, former director of the Dr Aharon Mazie Institute in Jerusalem, for making their collection of documents available to me. This article grew out of a conference paper, which I prepared for “imagiNATION: The Cultural Praxis of Zionism” Conference, Tempe, Arizona State University, 5–7 February 2006. I would like to thank Arieh Saposnik and Shai Ginsburg, the organizers of that meeting, as well as Avigdor Levy, Gideon Shimoni and an anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions on earlier versions. All remaining errors are mine.

References

1 Kohn, Hans, The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in Its Origins and Background (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1944)Google Scholar; Deutsch, Karl W., Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Nationality (New York: The MIT Press and John Wiley & Sons, 1953)Google Scholar; Kedourie, Elie, Nationalism, 4th ed. (Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1993)Google Scholar; Kedourie, Elie, Nationalism in Asia and Africa (New York and Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1970)Google Scholar; Gellner, Ernest, Nations and Nationalism (Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1983)Google Scholar; Hobsbawm, Eric J., Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, rev. ed. (London and New York: Verso, 1996)Google Scholar. Anthony Smith, who also accepts the modernity of nations, does not, however, consider them pure inventions. He argued that ethnic baggage, whose elements would be forged into a new political reality for the construction of the nation, is invariably necessary. See Smith, Anthony D., The Ethnic Revival (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; and The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1986).

2 Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism, 6–7.

3 Greenfeld, Liah, “Nationalism and language”, The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 1994 ed., 2709–10Google Scholar.

4 Sociolinguists refer to these processes as corpus-planning and status-planning.

5 Professor Marc Zvi Brettler brought this excerpt to my attention. Theodor Nöldeke, “Semitic languages”, The Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, 11th ed., 622. Events proved Nöldeke wrong on both accounts.

6 Parfitt, Tudor V., “The use of Hebrew in Palestine, 1800–1882”, Journal of Semitic Studies 17, 1972, 237–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ornan, Uzzi, “Hebrew in Palestine before and after 1882”, Journal of Semitic Studies 29, 1984, 225–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parfitt, Tudor, “The contribution of the Old Yishuv to the revival of Hebrew”, Journal of Semitic Studies 29, 1984, 255–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Barzilay, Isaac E., “National and anti-national trends in the Berlin Haskalah”, Jewish Social Studies 21, 1959, 165–92Google Scholar; Yitzhaki, Yosef, “De‘oteihem shel sofrei ha-haskalah al ha-lashon ha-ivrit u-darkeihem be-harhavatah ve-hidushah”, Leshonenu 35, 1971, 287–305Google Scholar; Pelli, Moshe, The Age of Haskalah: Studies in Hebrew Literature of the Enlightenment in Germany (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979), 73–90Google Scholar; Shavit, Yaacov, “A duty too heavy to bear: Hebrew in the Berlin Haskalah, 1783–1819, between classic, modern, and romantic”, in Glinert, Lewis (ed.), Hebrew in Ashkenaz: A Language in Exile (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 111–28Google Scholar; Israel Bartal, “From traditional bilingualism to national monolingualism”, in Hebrew in Ashkenaz, 141–50.

8 For a thorough discussion of the language factor in nationalism, see Haugen, Einar, “Dialect, language, nation”, American Anthropologist 68, 1966, 922–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Buck, Carl Darling, “Language and the sentiment of nationality”, The American Political Science Review 10, 1910, 44–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fishman, Joshua A., Language and Nationalism: Two Integrative Essays (Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, 1973)Google Scholar; Olender, Maurice, The Languages of Paradise: Race, Religion, and Philology in the Nineteenth Century, trans. Goldhammer, Arthur (Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Perkins, Mary Anne, Nation and Word, 1770–1850: Religious and Metaphysical Language in European National Consciousness (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999)Google Scholar; Barbour, Stephen and Carmichael, Cathie (eds), Language and Nationalism in Europe (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000)Google Scholar.

9 Those societies were founded in Jerusalem, but the initial impetus for the revival of languages originated from the hotbed of nineteenth-century nationalism that was East and Central Europe. For similar cases, see Auty, Robert, “The linguistic revival among the Slavs of the Austrian Empire, 1780–1850: the role of individuals in the codification and acceptance of new literary languages”, The Modern Language Review 53, 1958, 392–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Auty, Robert, “Language and nationality in East-Central Europe, 1750–1950”, Oxford Slavonic Papers, New Series 12, 1979, 52–83Google Scholar; Kamusella, Tomasz D. I., “Language as an instrument of nationalism in Central Europe”, Nations and Nationalism 7, 2001, 235–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Document No. 11: “Sefer berit shel tehiyat yisra'el”, in Ketavim le-toldot hibat tziyon ve-yishuv eretz-yisra'el, vol. 1, ed. A. Druyanov (Odessa: Omanut, 1919), 24–5; or see “Tehiyat yisra'el”, in Kol kitvei Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, vol. 1 (Jerusalem-Talpiyot: Ben Yehuda hotza'ah le-or, 1943), 189–90.

11 Lang, Yosef, “Safah berurah – le-verur yisudah ve-hitpathutah”, Katedrah 68, 1993, 67–79Google Scholar; Document No. 960, “Mikhtav ha-takanot hevrat safah berurah”, in Ketavim le-toldot hibat tziyon ve-yishuv eretz-yisra'el, vol. 2, ed. A. Druyanov (Tel Aviv: Defus ko'operativi ha-po‘el ha-tza‘ir, 1925), 784–7; “Va‘ad ha-sifrut be-fe‘ulato”, in Leket te‘udot le-toldot va‘ad ha-lashon ve-ha-akademiyah la-lashon ha-ivrit (tara”n – tasha”l) u-le-hidush ha-dibur ha-ivri (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1970), 24.

12 For a case study, see Lang, Yosef, “Tehiyat ha-lashon ha-ivrit be-Rishon Le-Tziyon, 1882–1914”, Katedrah 103, 2002, 85–130Google Scholar.

13 The dor ha-pelagah referred to the generation of the Tower of Babel, whose speech God confounded; see, Gen. 11: 1–9.

14 Two teachers in the Galilee, for instance, taught Hebrew with a different pronunciation, close to Arabic. A generation or two in that region continued to speak with that particular accent and Israeli linguists have studied it as a dialect. See Bar-Adon, Aaron, The Rise and Decline of a Dialect: A Study in the Revival of Modern Hebrew (The Hague: Mouton, 1975)Google Scholar. On the fear of dor ha-pelagah, see Ahad Haam's words in “Pratei-kol mi-yeshivat ha-merkaz [agudat ha-morim] be-16 heshvan tar‘a”v”, Dr Aharon Mazie Institute, The Collection of the Papers of the Hebrew Language Council, Document No: 28א, Jerusalem. The collection housed at the Dr. Aharon Mazie Institute (hereafter Mazie Archive) is the principal source for writing the history of the Hebrew Language Council. All Hebrew dates are converted to the Gregorian calendar.

15 On the history and influence of the Teachers’ Union, see Elboim-Dror, Rahel, Ha-hinukh ha-ivri be-eretz yisra'el, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Tzvi, 1986), 206–39Google Scholar; Elboim-Dror, Rahel, Ha-hinukh ha-ivri be-eretz yisra'el, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Tzvi, 1990), 180–96Google Scholar. Hebrew teachers in Ottoman Palestine started to hold meetings as early as 1891 and these continued until 1896. For the minutes of the debates, see Document No. 1351, “Sefer zikhron devarim la-asefat ha-morim be-eretz yisra'el”, in Druyanov, A. (ed.), Ketavim le-toldot hibat tziyon ve-yishuv eretz-yisra'el, vol. 3 (Tel Aviv: Defus ko'operativi ’ahdut, 1932), 963–1012Google Scholar.

16 “Le-toldot va‘ad ha-lashon”, Zikhronot va‘ad ha-lashon, 1, 1912, 4. This short introduction to the first issue of the HLC's proceedings is an invaluable source in tracing the early history of the revival in the Yishuv. It is not entirely reliable, though, since the authors of this text, probably Eliezer Ben-Yehuda and David Yellin, tried to portray the revival as a continuous, unbroken process. That is why they identify the Safah Berurah with the Language Council and push the date of the foundation of the HLC back to 1889, although the two were different institutions both nominally and in terms of their structure.

17 Zikhronot ha-devarim la-asefah ha-kelalit ha-shenit la-agudat ha-morim be-eretz yisra'el (be-yemei 22-25 elul tarsa”d, be-moshavat gedera be-yehudah) (Jerusalem: Defus Rav Avraham Moshe Luncz, 1905), 6–7 and 36–51; Takanot agudat ha-morim be-eretz yisra'el hutz‘u me'et merkaz ha-morim ve-tuknu ve-ushru ba-asefat ha-morim ha-kelalit ha-shenit be-elul tarsa”d (Jerusalem: Defus Avraham Moshe Luncz, 1905).

18 “Le-toldot va‘ad ha-lashon”, 10–11.

19 Brainin, Reuven (ed.), Sefer zikaron le-Eliezer Ben-Yehuda (New York: Ha-histadrut ha-ivrit be-amerikah, 1918)Google Scholar; Klausner, Yosef (ed.), Eliezer Ben-Yehuda: Kovetz le-zikhro (Jerusalem: Ha-solel, 1924)Google Scholar; Ben-Yehuda, Hemda, Ben-Yehuda: Hayav u-mif‘alo (Jerusalem: Ben-Yehuda – Hotza'ah la-or, 1940)Google Scholar; St. John, Robert, Tongue of the Prophets: The Life Story of Eliezer Ben Yehuda (Garden City, NY: Country Life Press, 1952)Google Scholar; Fellman, Jack, The Revival of a Classical Tongue: Eliezer Ben Yehuda and the Modern Hebrew Language (The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Silberschlag, Eisig (ed.), Eliezer Ben-Yehuda: A Symposium in Oxford (Oxford: Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, 1981)Google Scholar; Yosef Lang, Itonut E. Ben-Yehuda ve-amadoteiha be-inyanei ha-yishuv ha-yehudi ve-ha-tenu‘ah ha-le'umit ba-shanim 5745–5775 [1884–1914], PhD Dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 1992; Lang, Yosef, Daber ivrit: Hayei Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Tzvi, 2008)Google Scholar.

20 “Le-toldot va‘ad ha-lashon”, 11. Members of the Va‘ad at that initial stage were Eliezer Ben Yehuda, Hayim Zuta, David Yellin, Dr Aharon Mazie, Yosef Meyuhas and E. Sapir. Israel Halevi Teller and Avraham Moshe Luncz joined in in 1907. By 1914 there were about twelve members.

21 Ibid., 11–12.

22 See Shivtiel, Avihai, “Languages in contact: the contribution of the Arabic language to the revival of Hebrew”, Journal of Semitic Languages 30, 1985, 95–113Google Scholar; and Blau, Joshua, The Renaissance of Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Arabic: Parallels and Differences in the Revival of Two Semitic Languages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

23 Document No. 46 in Ketavim, ed. Druyanov, vol. 1, 94–6.

24 The translation is by Scott Bradley Saulson. See his Eliezer Ben-Yehudah's Hamavo Hagadol: Introduction, Translation, Annotation, D. Litt. et Phil., University of South Africa, 1985, 70–1. Italics are in the original.

25 “And here dear colleagues, I am proud to announce before you: I have found, I have found! I have found tens, hundreds of Hebrew roots! And I will not conceal from you the place where I found those treasures. Indeed I found them – in Arabic dictionaries.” Quoted in Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer, “Le-male ha-hoser be-leshonenu”, in Zikhronot va‘ad ha-lashon ha-ivrit 4, 1913–14, 8Google Scholar.

26 Ibid., 16–29.

27 Ibid., 29–36.

28 Ibid., 10.

29 “Le-toldot va‘ad ha-lashon”, 12–14.

30 Ibid.

31 Rinot, Moshe, “Ha-morim ve histadrutam”, in Toldot ha-yishuv ha-yehudi be-eretz yisra'el me-’az ha-aliyah ha-rishonah: Ha-tekufah ha-otmanit, vol. 1, ed. Kolatt, Israel (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1989), 681–92Google Scholar; Harshav, Benjamin, “Masah al tehiyat ha-lashon”, Alpayim 2, 1990, 8–54Google Scholar; Harshav, Benjamin, Language in Time of Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morag, Shlomo, “Ha-ivrit ha-hadashah be-hitgabshutah: Lashon be-aspeklariyah shel hevrah”, Katedrah 56, 1990, 70–92Google Scholar; Shur, Shimon, “Modern Hebrew in the light of language planning terminology, history and periodization”, Hebrew Studies 37, 1996, 39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Karmi, Shlomo, Am ehad ve-safah ahat: Tehiyat ha-lashon be-re'iyah bein-tehumit (n.p.: Misrad ha-bitahon, 1997)Google Scholar; Haramati, Shlomo, Sheloshah she-kadmu le-Ben-Yehuda (Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi, 1978)Google Scholar; Haramati, Shlomo, “Yisrael Halevi Teller: Medakdek-reformator mi-anshei ha-aliyah ha-rishonah”, Katedrah 31, 1984, 91–124Google Scholar.

32 See Hroch, Miroslav, Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of the Social Composition of Patriotic Groups among the Smaller European Nations, trans. Fowkes, Ben (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000)Google Scholar; and the collected essays in Teich, Mikuláš and Porter, Roy (eds), The National Question in Europe in Historical Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Sussex, Roland and Eade, J. C. (eds), Culture and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Eastern Europe (Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, 1985)Google Scholar.

33 On the role of the Second Aliyah in the revival of Hebrew in Palestine, see Bar-Adon, Aaron, “Al terumatah shel ha-aliyah ha-sheniyah le-tehiyat ha-lashon ha-ivrit”, Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies (4–12 August 1985, Jerusalem), Division D, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986), 63–70Google Scholar.

34 When, in 1903, the British government contacted the chairman of the World Zionist Organization, Theodor Herzl, and offered Uganda as a destination for immigration and a future homeland, a rift developed within the Zionist movement, dividing it into two camps: the Territorialists and Zionists of Zion. While the former agreed to accept the British plan, the latter opposed it bitterly, eliminating the possibility of settling for anything less than Ottoman Palestine. Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism (New York: MJF Books, n.d.), 120–30; Halpern, Ben and Reinharz, Jehuda, Zionism and the Creation of a New Society (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 141–2Google Scholar. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda emerged as one of the most prominent Territorialists, shocking many of his friends and supporters in the Yishuv. A synopsis of his views on the Uganda Affair, as the problem came to be known, can be found in Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer, Ha-medinah ha-yehudit: Ma'amarim shonim al devar hatza‘at mizrah-afrikah (Warsaw: I. Edelstein & Co., 1904)Google Scholar.

35 Harshav, Language in Time of Revolution, 106.

36 Y. H. Brenner, “Va‘ad ha-lashon mefabrek milim”, in Leket te‘udot, 40–1. Also see Ben-Yehuda's reply, “Keitzad bohrim le-va‘ad ha-lashon”, in Leket te‘udot, 43–5. Both articles originally appeared in 1914.

37 The language committee of the Ivriyah consisted of Dr Bograshov, Dr Mossinsohn, Dr Sheinkin, a certain Mr H. Harari, and Mordekhai Ben Hillel Hakohen. Central Committee of the Teachers’ Union, Jaffa, to the HLC, Jerusalem, 17 February 1908, Mazie Archive, Document No. 8.

38 Kohelet's full name was Hevrah le-hotza'at sifrei limud u-kvi‘ah le-tzorhei batei ha-sefer be-eretz yisra'el. It was founded by the Teachers’ Union in order to collect funds specifically for the purpose of preparing and publishing textbooks for the Hebrew schools in the Yishuv. When the Union decided to utilize it as a proxy to the HLC, the Kohelet formed a sub-committee, Ve‘idah le-harhavat ha-safah, that included A. Sapir, M. Krishavsky, A. Gutman, Dr Matman, A. Z. Rabinowitz and H. Harari, mostly teachers in the Jaffa area. See A. Sapir, Jaffa, to the HLC, Jerusalem, 16 November 1910, Mazie Archive, Document No. 14.

39 The Kohelet proposed a discussion forum: teachers and other interested amateurs would send in their suggestions and questions to the Kohelet, where they would be debated and then referred to the HLC. The HLC's decisions on those issues would then be returned to all concerned via the Kohelet (ibid). See also Kohelet's circular letter, n.d., Mazie Archive, Document No. 15.

40 A. Sapir, Jaffa, to the HLC, Jerusalem, 9 December 1910, Mazie Archive, Document No. 20.

41 The HLC's reply is missing, but much of its contents were summarized in the Kohelet's following letter. See A. Sapir, Jaffa, to the HLC, 16 December 1910, Mazie Archive, Document No. 21.

42 Ahad Haam (1856–1927) was the ideologue of the Russian Zionists and father of cultural Zionism, a movement that aimed at establishing a Jewish cultural centre in Ottoman Palestine for the rejuvenation of Jewish identity in the Diaspora. For a detailed account of his huge impact on Zionist politics, which should be compared to Theodor Herzl's in effect, see Zipperstein, Steven J., Elusive Prophet: Ahad Ha'am and the Origins of Zionism (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993)Google Scholar, and Kornberg, Jacques (ed.), At the Crossroads: Essays on Ahad Ha-am (Albany: SUNY Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

43 “Pratei-kol mi-yeshivat ha-merkaz [agudat ha-morim] be-16 heshvan tar‘a”v,” Mazie Archive, Document No. 28א. Ahad Haam's intervention was in line with his project of establishing a Jewish spiritual centre in Eretz Israel, which would in turn heal and revive Jewish life in the Diaspora. The decisions and practices of the spiritual centre should have theoretically taken precedence over those of the Diaspora. Hence the HLC's authority in this field.

44 The HLC, Jerusalem, to the Teachers’ Union, Jaffa, 3 July 1912, Mazie Archive, Document No. 63.

45 Dr. Y. Luria, Jaffa, to the HLC, Jerusalem, 29 December 1913, Mazie Archive, Document No. 114.

46 The literature on the War of Languages is growing. The best introduction is in Elboim-Dror, vol. 1, 309–50. In addition, see Iloni, Yehuda, “Tziyonei germaniyah u-milhemet ha-safot”, Ha-tziyonut 10, 1985, 53–86Google Scholar; Shiloh, Margalit, “Milhemet ha-safot ke-tenu‘ah amamit”, Katedrah 74, 1994, 87–119Google Scholar; Mme [Hemda] Yehudah, Ben, “Palestine before the War”, in Jerusalem: Its Redemption and Future, The Great Drama of Deliverance Described by Eyewitnesses (New York: The Christian Herald, 1918), 3–17Google Scholar.

47 The teachers’ petition to the Hilfsverein, demanding that Hebrew be made the exclusive medium of instruction, can be found in The Struggle for the Hebrew Language in Palestine (New York: Actions Committee of the Zionist Organization, 1914), 31–5.

48 Ibid., 49–50.

49 Ibid., 36.

50 Penslar, Derek J., Zionism and Technocracy: The Engineering of Jewish Settlement in Palestine, 1870–1918 (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1991), 43 and 68Google Scholar.

51 The HLC, Jerusalem, to the manager of the Jerusalem branch of the Anglo-Palestine Bank, Jerusalem, 9 July 1912, Mazie Archive, Document No. 65.

52 Yitzhak Levi, Jerusalem, to the HLC, Jerusalem, 14 July 1912, Mazie Archive, Document No. 66א. For the HLC's quite moderate response, see its letter to Yitzhak Levi, Jerusalem, 22 July 1912, Mazie Archive, Document No. 75.

53 Kolatt, Israel, “The organization of the Jewish population of Palestine and the development of its political consciousness before World War I”, in Ma'oz, Moshe (ed.), Studies on Palestine during the Ottoman Period (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1975), 228–9Google Scholar.

54 Maccabee Gymnastic Club, Jaffa, to the HLC, Jerusalem, 2 January 1913, Mazie Archive, Document No. 93.

55 Aaron Aaronsohn, Haifa, to the HLC, Jerusalem, 5 June 1912, Mazie Archive, Document No. 61.

56 Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, Berlin, to Hayim Zuta, Jerusalem, n.d., Mazie Archive, Document No. 34א; Shai Ish Hurwitz, Berlin, to Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, Jerusalem, 5 December 1911, Mazie Archive, Document No. 32. As a result of this arrangement, Hurwitz and Hayim Zlatopolski, a Russian Zionist, agreed to transfer 1,200 francs per year to the HLC. In return the HLC agreed to send monthly activity reports to Zlatopolsky and mention the name of the Organisation für hebräische Sprache und Kultur in its publications. See the letters by Shai Ish Hurwitz, Berlin, to the HLC, Jerusalem, 24 February 1911, Mazie Archive, Document No. 23; and Shai Ish Hurwitz, Berlin, to the HLC, Jerusalem, 19 January 1912, Mazie Archive, Document No. 37. See also Histadrut la-safah u-la-tarbut ha-ivrit, Din ve-heshbon shel ha-ve‘idah la-safah u-la-tarbut ha-ivrit be-vinah (22–25 Av 1913) (Warsaw: Ha-tzefirah, 1914); Hurwicz, Elias, “Shai Ish Hurwitz and the Berlin He-Atid: when Berlin was a centre of Hebrew literature”, Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 12, 1967, 85–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Nahum Sokolow, Berlin, to the HLC, Jerusalem, 15 December 1913, Mazie Archive, Document no. 113.

58 Earlier political tractates of Jewish nationalism do not even contain a reference to the role of the Hebrew language. See Hess, Moses, Rome and Jerusalem: A Study in Jewish Nationalism, trans. Waxman, Meyer, 2nd ed. (New York, 1943 [originally 1862])Google Scholar; and Pinsker's, LeonAutoemanzipation: Mahnruf an seiner Stammegenossen von einem russischen Juden in Road to Freedom: Writings and Addresses by Leo Pinsker, ed. Netanyahu, Benzion (New York: Scopus, 1944)Google Scholar.

59 Herzl's, journal entry from 6 September 1898 in The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, vol. 2, ed. Patai, Raphael, trans. Zohn, Harry (New York and London: Herzl Press and Thomas Yoseloff, 1960), 588–9Google Scholar.

60 Journal entry from 23 February 1896, ibid., vol. 1, 305–6.

61 Journal entry from 15 June 1895, ibid., 170–1. Judaeo-German is obviously the Yiddish language.

62 Herzl, Theodor, A Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question, trans. D'Avigdor, Sylvie (London: David Nutt, 1896), 88–9Google Scholar.

63 On various brands of religious Zionism, see Ravitzky, Aviezer, Messianism, Zionism, and Jewish Religious Radicalism, trans. Swirsky, Michael and Chipman, Jonathan (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Luz, Ehud, Parallels Meet: Religion and Nationalism in the Early Zionist Movement, 1882–1904, trans. Schramm, Lenn J. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1988)Google Scholar.

64 Shimoni, Gideon, The Zionist Ideology (Hanover and London: Brandeis University Press, 1995), 111–2Google Scholar.

65 Rinott, Moshe, “Religion and education: the cultural question and the Zionist movement, 1897–1913”, Studies in Zionism 5, 1984, 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Efrati, Natan, “Tehiyat ha-lashon ha-ivrit ve-ha-tenu‘ah ha-tziyonit”, Leshonenu la-am 48, 1997, 112–9Google Scholar. See also the report prepared by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda and David Yellin for the Eleventh Zionist Congress in 1913, Mazie Archive, Document no. 102ג.

67 For the political organization of the Yishuv, see Kolatt, “The organization of the Jewish population of Palestine”, 211–45; Gorni, Yosef, “Irgun ha-yishuv”, in Toldot ha-yishuv ha-yehudi be-eretz yisra'el me'az ha-aliyah ha-rishonah: Ha-tekufah ha-otmanit, Vol. 2, ed. Kolatt, Israel (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2002), 421–4Google Scholar.

68 The situation was completely the reverse, for example, in the Turkish case, where conservatives of all stripes clung to an unreformed Ottoman Turkish, while Kemalist reformers continued to speak and write a purified Turkish.