SHMUEL
NIGER (June 15, 1883-December 24, 1955)
The pseudonym of Shmuel Tsharni
(Charney), he was born in Dukor (Dukora), Minsk district, Byelorussia. His father, Zev-Volf, a leather-goods
shopkeeper, was a Lubavitch Hassid who would go twice every year to visit his
rebbe and then repeat what he had heard in the town. He died young (1889) from tuberculosis, and
his wife, Brokhe, née Hurvits, was at age thirty-five alone with six
children—one daughter and five sons, the three youngest of whom were Shmuel,
Borekh-Nakhmen (later, Borekh Vladek), and the youngest Donye (later, Daniel Tsharni [Charney]). Their mother, a
descendant of the Shelah Hakodesh [R. Yeshaya Hurvits, 1565-1630], was
a wise, learned woman, who would lead the women’s section in synagogue in
prayer and who spoke with “parables and allusions.” “Her letters,” recounted Vladek, “were
literature.” After her husband’s death, she
continued to run the leader-goods shop and support her family. She sent them to the best schoolteachers in
town and later to yeshivas in other cities.
Until age thirteen, Niger studied in religious elementary school and
later to the Berezin (Berezino) yeshiva.
He also studied Tanya and Likute tora (Treatises on Torah) [both by
Shneur Zalman]. Chabad Hassidism had a
major impact on him and grew stronger through his uncle, the town rabbi, and
through the entire tradition of his parents’ house, which was packed with
Chabad writings. Circa 1896 Niger
departed for Minsk and studied there until age seventeen at the small synagogue
on Totersher Street as well as on his own.
He spent a term with a group of Musar followers in Komeroyke (Komarovka,
a suburb of Minsk), gained a name as the “prodigy from Dukora,” was
extraordinarily industrious, and was on the verge of ordination into the
rabbinate, but already in his years in yeshiva he was beginning to turn his
attention to secular education, and instead he became an external student. At the same time, he became intrigued by
Zionism, came under the influence of Aḥad Haam and later that of Russian
literature and the revolutionary movement, and convened with the Zionist
leaders of the day in Minsk. A little
later, he entered the circle of the first Minsk Labor-Zionists, Aba Rubentshik
and Khayke Cohen, among others, and became an active leader of
the group, campaigning (under the pen name Avreml) in Dvinsk (Daugavpils), Warsaw, and Kiev. He was part of the leftist minority in the
group. In Odessa, 1904-1905, he took
part in the founding conference of the Zionist Socialist Party and later was
one of its leaders. On several occasions
he was arrested and spent time in jails in Minsk, Warsaw, Dvinsk, and
Odessa. In early 1906, during the punitive
expedition of Baron Rennenkampf to the Baltic region, he was mercilessly tortured
in Kreutzburg (Krustpils), Latvia (he was saved at the point of
death by the self-sacrifice of friends and his mother and step-father). His first literary endeavors—in poetry and
prose—were in Hebrew and Russian. Later,
ca. 1902-1903, he became contributing to the illegal publications of Zionist
socialist groups—initially, he published anonymously an overview of various
directions in the Zionist labor movement, in the illegal Vozrozhdenie (Renaissance), organ of the
subsequent Sejmists—as well as wrote the May First proclamation of the central
committee of the Zionist socialists in 1903.
He also placed work in the Russian-language Kievskaia mysl’ (Kievan thought) in 1904. He began regular literary activities as one
of the main contributors to the party organ Der
nayer veg (The new way)—and its sequels Dos
vort (The word) and Unzer veg
(Our way)—in Vilna (1906-1907), in which, aside from politically partisan
articles, he published theoretical essays: “Vos iz azoyns der yudisher
arbayter?” (What’s up with the Jewish worker?), which appeared as a separate
pamphlet; “Klas un natsyon” (Class and nation), also as a separate pamphlet in
Russian; and “Di yidishe inteligents un di yidishe shprakh” (The Jewish
intellectual and the Yiddish language); among others. His debut in the field of literary criticism
was an article concerning Sholem Asch’s Meshiekhs
tsaytn (Messianic times) in Dos vort
in Vilna (May 1, 1907; May 3, 1907), which drew the attention of literary
figures to him. In these same
periodicals, he published a series of chats on young Yiddish writers, among
them such writers of fiction as: Hershele Danilevitsh (Unzer veg 3); A. Vayter, Sh. Gilbert, Menakhem Boreysho, and Yoyel
Mastboym. He contributed to the short
collected pamphlets Shtrahl (Beam [of
light]) and H. D. Nomberg’s Vinter abenden (Winter
evenings) in Vilna (1907). Under the pen
name Vladimirov, he also wrote for the Russian newspapers Severo-zapadnii golos (Northwestern
voice) and Severo-zapadnii krai (Northwestern rim) (Vilna,
1907-1908). In early 1908, together with
his former party opponents—the Bundist A. Vayter and the Zionist Sh. Gorelik—he
founded the periodical Literarishe
monatshriftn (Literary monthly writings), which opened a new page in the
history of modern Yiddish literature and culture. In this journal which announced the coming
Yiddish cultural renaissance, Niger published his critical articles on Y. L.
Perets, H. D. Nomberg, Avrom Reyzen, and Sholem Asch, which fortified his
reputation as a Yiddish critic and established him on the same level as
Bal-Makhshoves. From that point, Niger
wrote criticism and reviews in various Yiddish and Hebrew serials, such as: Haboker (This morning) in Warsaw (1908);
Hazman (The times) in Vilna (1908); Der tog af shabes (Sabbath daytime) in
Vilna (1908); Der fraynd (The friend)
in St. Petersburg-Warsaw (1909-1912); Zhitlovsky’s Dos naye leben (The new life) and Di tsukunft (The future) in New York (1909-1910); and Avrom
Reyzen’s Dos naye land (The new land)
in New York (1910). He left Vilna around
1909 and studied for a time in Berlin; in 1910 he settled in Berne, passed the
examinations and entered the philosophy department of the University of
Berne. He studied diligently and
intended to write a dissertation on Schopenhauer’s aesthetics. He wrote a great deal at this time, was
editor of the fiction sections of A. Litvin’s Leben un visnshaft (Life and science) in Vilna (1911); and
contributed to the Russian Jewish Evreiskii
mir (Jewish world) in St. Petersburg (1911) and to the Hebrew-language Haolam (The world) in Vilna (1911). In 1912, when B. Kletskin undertook the
publication of the monthly Di idishe velt
(The Jewish world), founded in St. Petersburg in 1912, and invited Niger to
serve as editor, Niger left his studies behind, returned to Vilna, and under
his editorship Di idishe velt was
transformed into a first-class organ of fine literature and serious journalism,
such as had not existed prior to it in Yiddish.
There Niger published a series of his longer critical treatises, as well
as numerous review of Yiddish and Hebrew books, and he also was in charge
(under the pen name A. Vilner) of a section entitled “Likht un shoten” (Light
and shadow). Epochal as well in Yiddish
literature was Der pinkes (The
record), “annual for the history of Yiddish literature and language, for
folklore, criticism, and bibliography,” which the publishing house of B.
Kletskin brought out under the editorship of Shmuel Niger, with the
collaboration of Ber Borokhov (Vilna, 1913), 412 + 72 pp. He was at this time also the editor of the
first Leksikon fun der nayer yudisher
literatur un prese (Biographical dictionary of Yiddish literature and the
press), compiled by Zalmen Reyzen (Warsaw: Tsentral, 1914). From 1914, Niger—together with Nokhum Shtif
and Z. Kalmanovitsh—was editing the periodical Di vokh (The week) in Vilna, in which, among other items, he
published a series of articles (much expurgated by the censor) entitled “Di
milkhome un mir, yuden” (The war and us, Jews); in it he defended the pro-Entente
position, counter to that of the great and united Jewish community of Eastern
Europe. After the ban on the Yiddish
press in Russia, when they also had to suspend publication of Di yudishe velt and Di vokh, Niger left Vilna and lived for a short time in Bobruisk
(with Mendl Elkin). In the late summer
of 1915, he was selected to be a plenipotentiary for YEKOPO (Yevreyskiy komitet pomoshchi zhertvam voyny—“Jewish Relief Committee for War Victims”)
in Saratov (on the Volga River). In 1916
he settled in St. Petersburg, took part in Jewish community work and in the
school movement, directed the Perets Association, and contributed to: the
Russian Jewish journal Voskhod
(Sunrise) in St. Petersburg (1916); Novy
Put’ (New path) in Moscow (1917); the Hebrew anthology Haavar (The past), in which he
published a piece on Ayzik-Meyer Dik; and he edited a series of literary,
social collections which were published in St. Petersburg, and together with Y.
Tsinberg, he edited the anthology Tsum
ondenk fun sholem aleykhem (To the memory of Sholem-Aleykhem) (Petrograd,
1918), 176 pp. After the October
Revolution (1917), he moved to Moscow and was close to the Folks-partey, but
soon pulled back from it, joined a group of Yiddish writers who did not
sabotage the Soviet authority, and edited the weekly newspaper Kultur un bildung (Culture and
education), brought out by the Jewish Commissariat in Moscow (1918), in which
he published articles of popular creations and children’s literature. In late 1918 he returned to Vilna and, with
A. Vayter, he revived the publication of Di
vokh (only four issues came out).
When the Red Army (early January 1919) took Vilna, Niger was invited to
be a literary editor in the Jewish division in the Commissariat of the People’s
Education in the Lithuanian-Byelorussian Soviet Republic, and he edited the
monthly Di naye velt. He took an active part in Jewish cultural and
community life, was the first chairman of the Kultur-lige (Culture league), gave
lectures on Yiddish literature at the People’s University, and the like. Over the years 1917-1918, he served as a
correspondent to the Forverts
(Forward) in New York on the events in Russia.
He also contributed in 1919 to Kunst-ring
(Art ring), a “literary-artistic almanac” (Kharkov: “Yidish”). When the Polish Legions occupied Vilna (April
1919), Niger, Vayter, and Leyb Yofe (they were living together in the same
house) were led into the courtyard, Vayter was shot and killed, while Niger and
Yofe were sent to Lide (Lida), and thanks to the extraordinary efforts of
Jewish community leaders who reached Józef Piłsudski, they were miraculously saved from death. When
a group of Jewish community leaders and writers established in Vilna, after the
events of April, the newspaper Der tog (The day)—beginning May 9, 1919—Niger
was invited to serve as editor. He ran
the newspaper until August and then departed Vilna, to which he felt very
tightly connected spiritually. Before
leaving he and Zalmen Reyzen edited Vayter-bukh (Volume for Vayter) (Vilna,
1920), 143 + 160 pp.
Niger
emigrated to the United States, settled in New York, and initially co-edited Forverts,
but due to a difference of opinion with the editor Ab. Cahan, several weeks
after starting he moved over to Tog (Day) where he remained a regular
contributor until his death. There he
published his weekly articles of literary criticism and commentaries which he
signed “Fun a lezers un shraybers notitsbukh” (From a reader’s and writer’s
notebook). He also wrote weekly
journalistic pieces, responding to all the important phenomena in Jewish
life. At the same time, he regularly
placed work in Di tsukunft (The future), where nearly every month he published
literary critical articles and literary historical studies (later, from 1941 to
1947, he was co-editor with Hillel Rogof and Dovid Pinski, and from 1947 to the
end of 1949, literary editor of the journal).
Niger also took an active role in Jewish cultural life in New York,
appearing in public as a speaker on literature in various American cities; he
was a teacher of Yiddish literature at the Jewish teachers’ seminary and
People’s University (run by the Jewish National Labor Alliance) and in the
teachers’ course of study of Workmen’s Circle.
He was also president of the Sholem Aleichem Folk Institute and editor
(1921-1947) of Kinder-zhurnal (Children’s magazine), published by the Folk
Institute. In October 1922 he began with
Dr. Chaim Zhitlovsky to publish the revived monthly for cultural and community
issues, Dos naye leben, but the periodical did not enjoy a long life and with
issue 11 it folded. Niger was also the
editor of the literature division of the monthly Tealit (Theater and
literature), published by the Jewish Theatrical Society in New York from November 1923 until March 1924; the theater division was
edited by Dr. A. Mukdoni and Mendl Elkin, and after their resignations, by
Menakhem Boreysho. Using the name Sh.
Tsharni, he wrote for the journal short notices of literary events under the
title “On rayes” (No proof). When Dr.
Zhitlovsky’s sixtieth birthday (1925-1926) was being celebrated, there was
assembled under Niger’s editorship and overview the Zhitlovski-zamlbukh
(Zhitlovsky collection) (Warsaw: Bzhoza, 1929), 480 pp.; Niger’s own work in
the collection may be found on pp. 196-244.
In the second half of the 1920s, Niger’s literary activity reached
twenty years. Over the course of this
time, He had already written a large number of his literary critical and
literary historical studies, treatments, and articles. He had published the monograph Di yidishe
literatur un di lezerin (Yiddish literature and the female reader) (Vilna,
1919), 79 pp., as well as: works included in his second book, Vegn yudishe shrayer,
kritishe artiklen (On Yiddish writers, critical articles) (Vilna, 1912), 2
vols., including a series on
writers of the Jewish Enlightenment which had been published in Tsukunft; all
the works included in his books on the classic writers of Yiddish literature
(Mendele, Sholem-Aleykhem, and Y. L. Perets); the writings on Yiddish
literature in America, and on modern Yiddish poetry; Shmuesn vegn bikher (Chats
about literature) (New York, 1922), 317 pp.; Lezer, dikhter, kritiker (Reader,
poet, critic) (New York, 1928), 3 vols.; and more. Zalmen Reyzen, who in his Leksikon
(Biographical dictionary) of Yiddish literature brought Niger’s biography as
far as 1927, offered the following assessment of his creative work:
Over the course of twenty
years as a Yiddish critic, Niger literally did not leave untreated a single
phenomenon in our literature…. Inspired
by the idea of a great national Yiddish literature, Niger sought in the works
of the classical writers to bring forth the Yiddish manner of expression; he
sought to get at the roots of the motive forces which are revealed with various
Yiddish artists in various ways; he sought the synthesis of Yiddish problems,
ideals, and dreams, manifest in our verbal art…. Never loosening his attention toward Jewish
art, Jewish art as the spiritual
expression of the people, Niger was free of ethnic apologetics, and with the
power of his analysis and his aesthetic sensibility—the characteristic
representative of the critic who seeks the source of art phenomena in the
unique personality of the artist….
Furthermore, he excelled with his style, one of the greatest
accomplishments in non-fiction Yiddish, proper and academic, but at the same
time with a nice flair for the soul of words, for the Yiddish word in particular…. As a journalist as well—one of the best we
have,…he is the most important representative of Yiddishism, the indefatigable
fighter for…all manifestations of the Yiddish cultural movement. His clear mind, the all-controlling
consciousness, the persuasive logic, the objectivity and solidity of his tone
add a distinctive weight to his word and make him a leading personality both in
our literature and in the cultural movement.
From 1925 when the American division (“Amopteyl”) of
YIVO was established, Niger was a central figure in the organization. As a member of the administration and
director’s council, and from 1950 as a member of its scholarly board—from 1950 to 1952, he chaired this
board—he contributed as a co-editor and author to such YIVO publications as: Pinkes fun amopteyl fun yivo (Records of the American division of YIVO) (New York) 1.1-2 (July-Dec. 1927), “Elementn fun sholem-aleykhem-humor far
sholem-akeykhemen” (Elements of Sholem-Aleykhem’s humor for Sholem-Aleykhem),
pp. 1-12; Yorbukh fun amopteyl fun yivo (Annual
from the American branch of YIVO) (New York, 1938), “Yehoyeshs briv” (Yehoash’s
letters), with an introduction, pp. 322-38; Yivo-bleter
(Pages from YIVO) over various years, in which he published “Sh. dubnov vi a
literatur-kritiker” (Sh[imen] Dubnov as a literary critic) (1944), “Perets un
sokolov” (Perets and Sokolov) (1946), “Vegn perets in hebreish” (On Perets in
Hebrew) (1947), and the like. He was a
member of the editorial board of Algemeyne
entsiklopye (General encyclopedia) in Yiddish and published in it: “Yidish
literatur fun 1900 biz 1942” (Yiddish literature from 1900 to 1942), vol. 3 in
the series “Yidn” (Jews), cols. 141-74; and “Yidish-kultur in amerike biz der
ershte velt-milkhome” (Yiddish culture in America until WWI), vol. 5 in “Yidn,”
cols. 84-131. In late 1940 the patron of
Yiddish and Hebrew, Louis Lamed from Detroit, established with Niger’s
encouragement the “Louis Lamed Fund for Our Literature in Both Languages”
(Yiddish and Hebrew). Among the
publications sponsored by the Fund were: Niger’s monograph, Di tsveyshprakhikeyt fun undzer literatur
(Bilingualism in our literature) (Detroit, 1941), 156 pp.[1]; Aḥisefer, measef ledivre
sifrut, ḥeker haleshonot beyisrael vetirgumim min hashira haidit (Aḥisefer, collection
of literature, examination of the languages in Israel, and translations from
Yiddish poetry) (New York, 1943), 583 pp.; Kidesh
hashem, a zamlung geklibene, oft gekritste barikhtn, briv, khronikes, tsavoes,
oyfshriftn, legendes, lider, dertseylungen, dramatishe stsenes, eseyen, vos
moln oys mesires-nefesh in undzere un oykh in frierdike tsaytn
(Sanctification of the name, an anthology selected, often abridged report,
letters, chronicles, wills, inscriptions, legends, poems, stories, dramatic
scenes, essays, which depict martyrdom in our present and earlier times) (New
York: Tsiko, 1948), 1120 pp. He also
edited: Perets hirshbeyn, tsu zayn
zekhtsikstn geboyrntog (Perets Hershbeyn, on his sixtieth birthday) (Los
Angeles, 1941), 346 pp.; with Yankev Glatshteyn and Hillel Rogof, the anthology
Finf un zibetsik yor yidishe prese in
amerike (Seventy-five years of
the Yiddish press in America) (New York, 1945), 196 pp.; and Ale verk (Collected writings) of Y. L.
Perets (New York: Tsiko Publ., 1947), 11 vols.
He also actively contributed to the collection of literary works for the
“L. M. Stein People’s Library of the World Jewish Culture Congress,” and he
himself edited several of the works to which he wrote critical, biographical introductions. In the first edition of the L. M. Stein
People’s Library, he contributed to the selection of materials for “Dertseylungen
fun avrom reyzen” (Stories by Avrom Reyzen).
He himself selected the material for and penned a “biographical critical
note” (anonymously) to Moyshe Kulbak’s Geklibene
verk (Selected works) (New York: Tsiko, 1953), 311 pp. The last volume that Niger prepared for the
Stein Library at the Culture Congress was: Ayzik-Meyer Dik’s Geklibene verk (Selected writings),
“selected, abridged, and prepared for publication [by] Sh. Niger” (New York,
1954), 303 pp. In 1948 Niger was one of
the cofounders of the World Jewish Culture Congress, and later he was president
of the world council and a member of the administrative committee of the
Culture Congress and in general bore many of the responsibilities for the most
important decisions and accomplishments of the organization. In 1954 he and Dr. Yankev Shatski began to
edit Leksikon fun der nayer yidisher
literatur (Biographical dictionary of modern Yiddish literature), which the
World Jewish Culture Congress was publishing, but he did not live to see in
print even the first volume which came out after his death.[2]
In 1953
Niger’s seventieth birthday was celebrated in New York, which coincided with
the fiftieth anniversary of his literary activities. The publication of his Y. l. perets (Y. L. Perets) (Buenos Aires, 1952), 565 pp., received
the Lonye Bimko Prize from the World Jewish Culture Congress. Aside from his indefatigable writings for Tog-morgn-zhurnal (Day-Morning journal)
and numerous other publications, Niger stood at the summit of the most
important literary undertakings, cultural organizing, and scholarly conferences
of the Yiddish world, everywhere doing productive work and always accurate and
conscientious in everything he took on himself.
At 8:00 p.m. on December 24, 1955, on his way to a meeting at YIVO with
Leybush Lehrer, he collapsed from a heart attack on the subway platform and
never regained consciousness. His last
three articles appeared in Tog-morgn-zhurnal:
“Vegn dem vi vikhtik es iz tsu zayn pinktlekh” (On how important it is to be
precise) (December 24); “Kh. n. byaliks briv tsu zayn froy in yidish” (Ḥ. N.
Bialik’s letters to his wife in Yiddish) (December 25); and “Y. y. shvarts tsu
zayn drayfakhn yubiley” (Y. Y. Shvarts on his threefold jubilee) (January 1,
1956). News of Niger’s death spread
instantly throughout the entire Jewish world and everywhere aroused great
sorrow. Written expressions of sadness
arrived from writers and community leaders, individuals and groups, parties and
institutions. Over 1,000 people attended
his funeral on Wednesday, December 28, 1955.
H. Leivick, one of Niger’s closest friends, eulogized him on behalf of
writers, artists, associations, and institutions—the eulogy itself was
published in Di tsukunft in February
1958 and republished in Leivick’s Eseyen
un redes (Essays and speeches) (New York, 1963), pp. 183-87. On January 9, 1956, the Culture Congress
conducted a conference of mourning in his memory, and it published a bulletin
with eulogies “On the occasion of the thirtieth day following the passing of
Shmuel Niger, may his memory be for a blessing” and a radio broadcast dedicated
to him. The thirtieth conference of YIVO
which took place in January 1956 in New York was held with the sadness of his
passing in the air, as he had played such an important in the scholarly
administration of their institution.
YIVO published, 1957-1958, the Shmuel
niger-bukh (Volume for Shmuel Niger), with a series of treatments of
“various sides of Niger’s writings and with more works concerning the
deceased’s spiritual interests” (as the preface to the book explained). This volume in 338 pp. (edited by Dr. Shloyme
Bikl and Leybush Lehrer) was incorporated as the forty-first number of Yivo-bleter (New York, 1958). The articles on Niger in this book run as
follows: Dov Sadan, “Sh. nigers farmest un oyftu” (Sh. Niger’s challenge
and achievement), pp. 9-17; H. Leivick, “Der kitiker un der shrayber” (The
critic and the writer), pp. 17-26; Moyshe Shtarkman, “Oytobyografishe notitsn
fun sh. niger” (Autobiographical notes of Sh. Niger), pp. 26-31; Y. Yeshurin,
“Shmuel niger-biblyographye” (Shmuel Niger’s bibliography), pp. 31-43; “Nigers
briv tsu sh. rozenfeld un arn tsaylin” (Niger’s letters to Sh. Rozenfeld and
Arn Tsaytlin), pp. 43-44. The articles
following his death continued to appear for months in Yiddish newspapers and
journals throughout Yiddish communities of the world. The basic tone of all these articles and
assessments was the pain over the loss suffered by Yiddish literature and
Yiddish criticism due to Niger’s departure from the world, and the fear for the
future of Yiddish literature without Niger.
Shortly after his death, the “Shmuel Niger Book Committee” was founded,
chaired by H. Leivick, and it took as it goal to assemble from newspapers and
magazines everything that he published during his lifetime and the works that
he published in book form. By 1964 the
Committee had published four volumes and two further ones were prepared for
publication. In chronological order
Niger’s book-length works were published as follows: Vos iz azoyns der yudisher arbayter? (What’s up with the Jewish
worker?), offprint from Der nayer veg,
second edition (Vilna: Tsukunft, 1906), 25 pp.; Klass i natsia (Class and nation) (St. Petersburg, 1907), 31 pp.; Vegn yudishe shrayber, kritishe artiklen (On Yiddish writers, critical articles)
(Vilna-Warsaw: Z. Sh. Shreberk, 1912), 2 vols., 216 pp. and 148 pp.; Di yidishe
literatur un di lezerin (separate offprint from Der pinkes of 1913); Shmuesn
vegn bikher (Chats about literature), part one (New York: “Yidish,” 1922); Sholem aleykhem un zayn humor, a kapitel fun a gresere arbet
(Sholem Aleykhem and his humor, a chapter from a longer work) (New York:
Committee for the Tenth Anniversary of Sholem Aleykhem’s Death, 126), 16 pp.; Lezer,
dikhter, kritiker (Reader, poet, critic) (New York: Yidisher kultur farlag,
1928), with a preface by Dr. Chaim Zhitlovsky, 254 pp.; Tsum tsentn yortsayt
nokh mendele moykher sforim (sholem yankev abramovitsh), a kurtse bashraybung
fun mendeles lebn (To the tenth anniversary of the death of Mendele Moykher
Sforim, Sholem Yankev Abramovitsh,
a short description of Mendele’s life) (New York: Y. L. Perets Writers’
Association, 1928), 63 pp.; Mendele moykher sforim, zayn lebn, zayne
gezelshaftlekhe un literarishe oyftuungen (Mendele
Moykher-Sforim, his life, his community
and literary achievements) (Chicago: L. M. Stein, 1936), 319 pp.; In kamf far a
nayer dertsiung (In the struggle for
a new education), “the Workmen’s Circle schools, their origins, evolution,
growth, and present condition (1919-1939)” (New York: Workmen’s Circle Education Committee,
1940), 226 pp.; Sholem ash tsu zayn zekhtsikstn geboyrntog (Sholem Asch on his
sixtieth birthday) (New York: Tsiko, 1940), 15 pp.; Di tsveyshprakhikeyt fun undzer literatur
(Detroit: Louis Lamed Fund, 1941); Dertseylers
un romanistn (Storytellers and novelists), 2 parts (New York: Tsiko,
1946), 531 pp.; Undzer rekht tsu hobn
sfeykes, vegn dem kheyrem fun agodes harabonim af rabi mortkhe kaplan (Our
right to have secrets, on the excommunication by the Association of Rabbis of
Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan) (Chicago: L. M. Stein, 1946), 18 pp.; Yidish in undzer lebn (Yiddish in our
lives) (New York: Workmen’s Circle
Education Committee, 1950), 47 pp.; H. leyvik, zayn opshtam, zayne kinder- un yugnt-yorn, zayne lirishe un dramatishe
verk, zayn dikhterisher gang, tsu zayn vern a ben-shishim 1888-1948 (H.
Leivick, his origins, his childhood years and youth, his lyrical and dramatic
works, his poetic pathway, on the occasion of his turning sixty years of age,
1888-1948) (Toronto: Gershon Pomerants Esey-bibyotek, 1951), 501 pp.; Yisroel, folk un land (Israel, people
and land), three speeches (Chicago: L. M. Stein, 1952), 64 pp.; Y. l. perets, zayn lebn, zayn firndike perzenlekhkeyt,
zayne hebraishe un yidishe shriftn, zayn virkung (Y. L. Perets, his life,
his leading personality, his Hebrew and Yiddish writings, his impact) (Buenos
Aires: Argentinian division of the World Jewish Culture Congress, 1952), 565
pp., also published in Hebrew in a translation by Shimshon Meltser as Y. l. perets, ḥayav veyetsirato
(Y. L. Perets, his life and work) (Tel Aviv: Devir, 1960/1961), 2 vols., 234
pp. and 134 pp.; Yidishe shrayber in
sovet-rusland (Yiddish writers in Soviet Russia), writings [by Niger]
selected by H. Leivick who added an introduction, with bibliographic notes
about the writers, compiled by A. Pomerants (New York: Shmuel Niger Book
Committee, World Jewish Culture Congress, 1958), 479 pp.; Bleter geshikhte fun der yidisher literatur (Pages of history from
Yiddish literature), compiled by H. Leivick with an introductory word (New
York: Shmuel Niger Book Committee, World Jewish Culture Congress, 1959), 438
pp.; Kritik un kritiker (Criticism
and critic), with an introduction “from the author” (materials for the book
selected by the author himself) (Buenos Aires: Argentinian division of the
World Jewish Culture Congress, 1959), 382 pp., also published in Hebrew
translation by D. Linevski-Niv under the title Habikoret uveayoteha (Inquiry and its problems), preface by Dov
Sadan (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1957), 358 pp.; Sholem ash, zayn lebn un zayne verk (Sholem Asch, his life and his
works), “biography, assessments, polemics, letters, bibliography,” compiled by
Meylekh Ravitsh with an introduction and with Yefim Yeshurin’s “Bibliographical
notations on Niger’s articles and notes concerning Sholem Asch” (New York:
Shmuel Niger Book Committee, World Jewish Culture Congress, 1960), 429 pp.,
also in Hebrew translation (Tel Aviv: Kibuts hameuḥad, 1960), 170 pp. A
book by Niger on American Yiddish writers was prepared for publication in late
1964; it was compiled by Y. Zilberberg and Dr. Ezriel Naks (Israel Knox), with
translations into Hebrew and English, to
be published by the Shmuel Niger Book Committee with the assistance of the National
Foundation for Jewish Culture (chief secretary Yehuda Shapiro). Preparations were also underway to bring out
a volume entitled “Shmuel niger biblyografye” (Shmuel Niger bibliography). From 1929 Niger published his articles in
numerous Yiddish numerous newspapers and periodicals, among them: Moment (Moment) in Warsaw; Afn sheydveg (At the crossroads) in
Paris; the anthology Vilne (Vilna),
edited by Y. Yeshurin, Der fraynd
(The friend) from the Workmen’s Circle, Unzer
shul (Our school), Kultur un
dertsiung (Culture and education), Oyfkum
(Arise), Studyo (Studio), and Hatkufe (The epoch), among others—in New
York; Kultur (Culture) in Chicago; Shul-almanakh (School almanac) in
Philadelphia; Keneder odler (Canadian
eagle) in Montreal; Idishe tsaytung
(Jewish newspaper) and Di prese (The
press) in Buenos Aires; and various souvenir publications. He wrote under such pen names as: Sh. Nuar,
A. Vilner, A. Bakanter, and Sh. N. His
literary bequest was moved after his death to YIVO in New York. It is extremely rich and comprises
manuscripts of books and articles (published and not published), projected
anthologies, other writings, letter collections (around 30,000 letters), and
bio-bibliographic materials. The
entirety is still being classified. In
August 1964, there was founded at the Argentinian division of the World
Jewish Culture Congress a literary prize named for Shmuel Niger. The award was established by a group of
Niger’s followers, and the fund for the prize was designed for five years—$600
annually.
As Bal-Makhshoves wrote, “Shmuel
Niger superbly disseminated for us the artistic soul of Perets’s, Nomberg’s,
and Reyzen’s work. Each of these three,
whose spirit is dispersed and scattered like sparks in their writings, emerged
for him whole, full souls, each soul with a crown on its head, with its roots
from which its derives its life, and with the imperfections of its crown and
its roots.” “Niger’s personality,” noted
H. Leivick,
his immense role in our literature has stimulated many
afterthoughts about the essence of criticism and its creative significance for
our literature…. We have not had, it
seems to me, such a case even in the wider world literature such that a critic
over the course of fifty-five years ceaselessly with such uncommon diligence
over nearly three generations attends to every publication in our
literature. Working with, creating with,
and mutually influencing nearly three generations of writers. From Etinger, from Ayzik-Meyer Dik, from
Mendele to a contemporary young writer….
He traversed in his lifetime all the suffering of a contemporary Jew in
the world. Not once in his life did he
taste Jewish fatefulness, not once did he thus stand beneath the lofty, fierce
hand and axe of the murderer. He saw
it—the hand of the murderer. He
experienced the pain, and there arose in him the lucidity of a great
understanding, the lucidity of humanistic world conception, to judge the world
not according the rigor of the full severity of the law, but according to the
elevated, the highest wisdom that is in essence merciful, penetrating into the
human and Jewish tragedy. The light of
great understanding, the light of a restrained smile and of sedate love for our
people’s fate—this very light he brought into the (from the beginning) small
world of our literature and later, together with its growing troubles, its
enlightened strength, helped our literature to take root in the great Temple.
Yankev
Glatshteyn had this to say:
As a genuine critic, Shmuel Niger came with
four-fold ties to his own mission: he saw this work, the man behind the work,
the people who received the work as a gift, and the world of which the people
is a part. With four criteria, he
approached his work from the very first moment which his own name illuminated
in Jewish life. He soon…arrived at the
Yiddish book, looking to erect his distinctive artistic personality. Such was his approach, as was the approach of
each true world critic who searches in a work for the traces of
awakening…. Yiddish literature discovered
in Shmuel Niger its first great, reliable critic, because he soon was an
intimate of it and because Yiddish literature matured and created in him a
critic who similarly became an artistic part of the general, welling-up
literary current…. When Sh. Niger was
established as a distinctive and conspicuous artistic personality, not only as
a fine connoisseur and judge, he found himself surrounded in the great figure
gallery of our literary history. When he
was convinced that as a master architect he could erect buildings and that he
had the fantasy to infiltrate the fantasy world of the Yiddish artist and from
it emerge with his own findings; that he could enrich our life by placing his
finger on the living pulse of Jewish creative striving and demonstrate that he
possessed a why, a wherefrom, and a whereto,…then people included Sh. Niger
among our nationally-headed household, and his name grew with each eminent
critical work of his, which was organized into classifications in Judaism’s
creative treasury. He found a place
between writers and readers, and both came to depend on him, and in principal
sought him, because with him came not only an important but a necessary figure
in Yiddish literature…. People
remembered him well, loved and appreciated him, and held him in high esteem, as
we appreciate Yiddish literature which remains in every one of our memories as
a wonderful melody. His painstaking
community work, his often stubborn sincerity, his bonds to both of our
languages, Yiddish and Hebrew, and his stand facing the world, with tolerance for
the translated tongue and our riches; his community work which was truly
Herculean for an individual who had to be ubiquitous, many times against his
will, honorary and directorial, all these great merits enriched his person and
forged a Jewish man who was the montage likeness of three generations.
In
the words of Shloyme Bikl:
In the desire to comprehend everything,
Shmuel Niger relied on two intellectual, ethical principles in his
criticism. Principle one was that the
critic must be free and non-dogmatic.
Free criticism—wrote Niger in his essay “Dikhter un kritiker” (Poet and
critic)—has no ready-made precepts that are valid for everyone. It seeks to gauge a work of art in the work
itself. Free criticism does not ask—as
Heine put it—What should an artist do?
Rather: What does he want and what must he do, faced with this and no
other objectives and utilizing this and no other means? Free—or, as Niger dubbed it, immanent—criticism
is, of course, inherently eclectic, with a dearth of harmonious and readily
established world view, and it refuses to play the role anywhere of an
ideological guide. Therefore, however,
Niger’s “immanent criticism” possessed the great and perhaps the greatest
virtue imaginable. The virtue is, as it
admits, not only in theory but actually in practice, the freedom of the
creative person. It liberates him, the
creator, not only from external, social and national demands, but also these
and other intellectual, critical principles concerning art. All professorial claims are wiped away and
the poetic work trampled underfoot vis-à-vis the critic—no aesthetic and
ideological moralizer, but a person with intellectual and emotional curiosity
seeking to discover: What does he want and what must he do, the poet?.... His second principle for criticism: Respect
for the artist. Criticism must have the
strength to believe in the artist’s “preferences” and “needs.” It must have faith in the artist’s seriousness,
because only in this way will he have the power to overcome personal and exclusive
preference of taste and to discover the external impediments and internal
faults, which hinder the realization of a poetic work…. If we should operate with our own literary
terms according to Mendele and Perets, then Niger is the Perets of literary
criticism, the discoverer of the individual poet’s personality by virtue of biography
and psychology, which lies behind the poet’s work.
Y.
Fikhman wrote:
I have always considered Shmuel Niger to be a
great critic, such as is rarely seen, like a great poet, and he was to me
throughout his entire life as close as a friend [can be]…. Once senses in him both the magic of youth
and of maturity. He possessed form and
style, and at the same time he did not limit himself to aesthetic values—always
searching for the kernel of a great ideal of life. Literature was for him not beautiful writing,
but the great refuge of the living spirit.
However, more a profound journalist than an aesthetic brooder, he always
had a deep notion of authentic art, because only authentic art had, for him,
the significance of a living creation and was the indication of an ethical
personality. It was no wonder, then,
that his last books awakened enthusiasm for high quality, for architectonic
architecture, for rich erudition. He
embodied in himself the zealous Jew who never stopped learning, developing,
striving for perfection, more clearly and assuredly explaining their
ideas. Thus he always remained young
after fifty-five years of work. His
style became richer, more poetic, but he never strove for formal virtuosity,
never neglected the law because of a story, which only it is capable of
educating great values from art…. With
Niger’s death, Yiddish literature had lost its finest and most serious
representative—a huge heart and a clear mind.
His splendid figure gave form not only to his talent, but also to his
purity, his serious link to every creation that was authentic, not
artificial. Few have been as capable as
he in differentiating between genuine and contrived. And, this is actually the great task of a
critic.
In
the words of Mortkhe Shtrigler:
Niger was the embodiment among us of modern
Yiddish literary history with which he cohabited and which practically from the
beginning he helped to fashion. He alone
was born to plan a vital part in it. The
whole time that a historical figure lives with us and goes with us to the same
conferences and meetings, we frequently forget his place and distance. Yet, one moment after Niger’s separation from
us one could sense the entire tragedy.
This feeling of being orphaned incited torment, when one held his
freshly written lines in one’s hand….
The designation of Niger as the central figure of the Yiddish literary
critic did not arrive in haste or in the absence of choice. It is rare when one can apply to someone
Bialik’s phrase: “Lo zakhiti beor min-hahefker” (I did not merit the light left
abandoned)—as one can with Niger. He did
not take on his role lightly, but lived his life with it and strove on its
behalf with all his strength. Niger did
not come with any hastily arrived at flashes of divine inspiration, with any
merit derived from abandoned intuition, or rhetoric—but with hard work plus his
own preparedness. He came with slow
steps, every stride laborious—and even then, his chair had long awaited
him…. He by no means wished to start out
being influenced by sentiments, by a closeness that could destroy his image
drawn from written works themselves. His
was a carefulness that was explicitly tied to famed manners of our ancient
great men, who are so very rare among circles of our secular writers. Therefore, however, one would be able to
recount a great deal about Niger’s sincerity, his quiet embrace of young
writers which he concealed deeply within himself, and even his guarding against
expressions of pompous thunder and lightning.
For those who actually had the opportunity to know Niger the full man,
not only was the classical critic and educator of several generations uprooted;
not only was he a writer’s writer—who would leave a void for eternity. For those who merited to become well acquainted
with him, a fatherly and caring man was taken from us, a man who did not permit
his fatherliness to dominate that which was higher than he—the soul of Yiddish
literature.
Meylekh
Ravitsh had the following to say:
Characteristically,
Shmuel Niger’s writing would cautiously look around all sides as well as up and
down, and this is true of his entire essence, even simply his understanding of
daily life. Every thesis of his—and he
would formulate his theses with crystal clarity—was accompanied with a
perhaps…. And, this is perhaps not a
coincidence, for he would often use the word “in its breadth” and “in its
depth”—horizontally and vertically—in his analyses of literary works. This is, then—the cautious looking around on
all sides as well as up and down. Who
among us—Yiddish writers—lacks in his archive dozens, others even hundreds, of
letters from Shmuel Niger? He was the
most diligent of letter writers in Yiddish literature. And, although the writing—because of their
immensity in numbers, flowing over many years from his industrious hands—was
not terribly clear, nonetheless it is clear that after the writing down of each
letter they were faithfully delivered by the critic/self-critic. These letters were always encircled on all
sides—after a note and then another note—after a cautious perhaps and another.
In
the words of Froym Oyerbakh:
The essence of
Niger’s nearly fifty years of literary criticism and journalism is, as I see
him, to erect an entire building. In
literature the building is, first of all, the individual writer and then the
spiritual collective. In organized
society, as articulated by Niger in his journalism, the building is an
integrated Jewish life in all of its instantiations. From their distinctive radiations, Niger saw
the entirely and fullness of one Jewish sun.
He wished to bring together all the radiances into one spiritual storehouse,
for all should shine for the Jewish people.
Niger the literary critic is in essence the same as the Niger of
journalism and society. It has so
happened to us that he accorded his preference to literature. This doesn’t mean that he believed that
literature was as important as life and ideas for life; just the opposite, both
in writing and in speech he believed in a single position for a stress on life,
emphasizing a spirited life over literature.
A writer, however, has a preference that he does not want to admit his
struggle even with this, but he overcomes it.
Had Niger recognized in himself the greater love for literature, he
would, I believe, have explained it as follows: Above all, it’s a spirited life
for us, but literature is the spiritual accumulation of life, the lasting
summation of life. But that would also
be no more enlightening. The truth,
which requires no commentary, is very simple: The joy of literature was greater
for him than writers on societal matters.
Dr.
Shmuel Margoshes noted:
In his journalistic
work, he stood with both feet in the camp of reality. He only seldom moralized and less frequently
sermonized. He sought to understand and
to enable others to understand Jewish reality.
And he sought to grasp that reality not from a party platform but to see
it as it was, and if possible to draw the necessary conclusions…. More quickly than many of us, he understood
the special character of American Judaism, and after numerous American Jewish
phenomena, he gave the benefit of the doubt to the foundation of specific
conditions that were characteristic in American Jewish development. Thus, for example, he had a profound insight
into the American Jewish Reform movement as an expression of a distinctive
lifestyle of the American Jewish middle class….
In his journalistic writings, he remained the sober critic of events and
trends. I have a basis for believing
that he was not only so coldblooded and nonchalant to so many experiences which
he witnessed around him, as it may have seemed.
The truth is that he made an enormous effort to remain objective. He guarded against using a propagandistic
word, as one guards against fire. He
assumed a simple, sober style. More than
once did he say to me that flowery language is the greatest trap into which a
writer can fall. Fear of this very trap
never deserted him as long as he lived.
And,
Yitskhok Kharlash had this to say:
Niger’s attitude
toward writers was always imbued with the general perspective of literature
generally. Anyone might “write”—as Niger
used the term—if he wished and if he was able, but for a critic’s analysis only
those writers who stay rooted in literature possess value…. With this selection, Niger added weight to
literature, made it valuable, lasting.
In this way the critic made his own writing as well more creative, and
he incorporated it as a component part of literature. Thus, Niger for many years traveled his own
road in literature, with one and the same line—select the good, the general,
and the lasting, and weed out the weeds, the incidental, and the one-off; and
so he proceeded, affording recognition, which was so necessary for a leading
personality in literature. Shmuel Niger
became, thus, the critic in our
literature, the acknowledged expert, to whom writers looked up, waited upon his
word, yearned for his approval, and shuddered before his judgment. It matters not that many writers were not pleased
with him, that others despised him, that some even publicly opposed him—deep in
their hearts, some of them, when he had written something, waited: What is
Niger going to say about it? Who liked
Niger, who didn’t—they all had respect for him…. Niger penned literary criticism and literary
research, and he was highly successful in both branches. He did not write the history of Yiddish
literature, as was often asked of him, because to write such a book is impossible
for one person. We actually had three
different literatures, with different surroundings, different origins, and
different developments. One can only
“carry a brick to the building,” not build the building all by oneself. And, “carrying a brick to the building” is
something Niger did many times over the course of his entire life.
Sources:
Articles and essays about Niger’s works are extraordinarily rich in number, yet
scattered through newspapers, periodicals, books, and biographical
dictionaries. The bibliographer Yefim
Yeshurin made two attempt to collect and put in order portions of this
bibliographical material: (1) in the February 1956 issue of Kultur un dertsiung (12 pp.) which
included Niger’s articles on Jewish education and children’s literature; and
(2) Shmuel niger biblyografye (Shmuel
Niger bibliography) (New York: YIVO, 1958), 42 pp., offprint from Shmuel niger-bukh (Volume for Shmuel
Niger). This includes a portion of the
bibliographical material about Niger from 1910 to 1955, then breaks off until
1958 (this period is included in Yeshurin’s bibliography). Thereafter we have a portion of the
bibliography from 1958, etc. Zalmen
Reysen, Leksikon, vol. 2 (with a
bibliography); Reyzen, in Yivo-bleter
(Vilna) 1 (1931); Bal-Makhshoves, Geklibene
shriftn (Selected writings) (Vilna, 1910), pp. 84-94; M. Olgin, in Di tsukunft (New York) (February 1913);
B. Vladek, in Di tsukunft (August
1913); Sh. Rozenfeld, in Di tsukunft
(June 1914); B. Y. Byalostotski, in Di
tsukunft (January 1921); Sh. Rabinovitsh, in Di tsukunft (February 1923); M. Gros, in Di tsukunft (September 1923; December 1923); N. Mayzil, Noente un vayte (Near and far), vol. 2
(Vilna, 1926), pp. 146-53; Mayzil, Forgeyer un mittsaytler (Forerunner and contemporary) (New York, 1946), see index; Mayzil,
Yitskhok-leybush perets un zayn dor
shrayber (Yitskhok-Leybush Perets and his generation of writers) (New York,
1951), see index; Mayzil, Tsurikblikn un perspektivn (Retrospectives and perspectives) (Tel
Aviv: Perets Publ., 1962), see index; Y. Nusinov, in Tsaytshrift (Minsk) 2-3 (1928); Dr. A. Koralnik, Viderklangen un
vidershprukhn (Echoes and contradictions), part 1 (Warsaw, 1928), pp.
109-14; Leo Kenig, Shrayber un verk
(Writers and works) (Vilna, 1929), pp. 166-71; Avrom Reyzen, in Di tsukunft (January 1930); A. Reyzen, Epidozn fun mayn lebn (Episodes from my
life), part 3 (Vilna, 1935), pp. 307-12; A. Reyzen, in Di feder (New York, 1949), pp. 272-73; Y. Drakhler, in Di tsukunft (November 1930); Y. Y. Vohl,
in Di tsukunft (December 1930); B.
Ts. Goldberg, in Tog (New York)
(April 11, 1931; September 29, 1931; December 26, 1932); Dr. Chaim Zhitlovsky,
in Tog (December 10, 1931); H. Lang,
in Forverts (New York) (December 20,
1931); A. Litvak, in Tsukunft (March
1932; April 1932); M. Boreysho, in Tog
(August 21, 1932); Hillel Rogof, in Di
tsukunft (October 1933); Rogof, in Forverts
(June 23, 1935; May 9, 1953); Y. Glants, in Der
veg (Mexico City) (July 17, 1937; October 25, 1958); Meylekh Ravitsh, in Keneder odler (Montreal) (August 2,
1943; March 15, 1950); Ravitsh, in Tsukunft
(January 1954); S. Kahan, in Der veg
(August 17, 1943); Kahan, Literarishe un
zhurnalistishe fartseykhenungen (Literary and journalistic notes) (Mexico
City, 1961), pp. 49-52; Shloyme Bikl, Detaln un
sakhaklen, kritishe un polemishe bamerkungen (Details and sum totals, critical and polemical
observations) (New York, 1943); Bikl, Shrayber fun mayn dor (Writers of my generation) (New York, 1958),
pp. 256-93; Bikl, in Tsukunft (1960),
pp. 496-98; M. Ribalov, in Zamlbikher
(New York) 4 (1945), pp. 336-57; Ribalov, Meolam
leolam (Never) (New York, 1955), pp. 101-21; Sh. Leshtsinski, in Fraye arbeter-shtime (New York) (July
20-27, 1945); N. B. Minkov, Zeks yidishe
kritiker (Six Yiddish critics) (Buenos Aires: Yidbukh, 1954); Minkov, in Gedank un lebn (New York) (July 1946),
pp. 212-50 (also in an offprint from that year); Y. Y. Sigal, in Keneder odler (February 17, 1950);
Moyshe Shtarkman-Ḥizkuni,
in Hadoar (New York) (October 4,
1953; January 6, 1956); Shtarkman, in Bitsaron
(New York) (Tevet [= January] 1956); Shtarkman, in Algemeyne entsiklopedye (General encyclopedia) (New York, 1957),
pp. 135-36; Aba Gordin, in Di feder
(1953), pp. 272-73; Dr. Y. Shatski, in Di
idishe tsaytung (Buenos Aires) (September 21, 1953); Shatski-bukh (Shatski volume) (Buenos Aires, 1958), pp. 219-20; A.
V. Yasni, in Letste nayes (Tel Aviv)
(March 12, 1954); Yankev Pat, Shmuesn mit yidishe shrayber (Conversations with Yiddish writers) (New York, 1954);
Pat, Siḥot im sofrim yehudiyim
(Chats with Jewish writers) (Tel Aviv, 1959); L. Domankevitsh, Fun aktueln un eybikn (From the real and
eternal) (Paris, 1954), pp. 187-96; Leo Finkelshteyn, Loshn
yidish un yidisher kiem (The Yiddish language and Jewish survival) (Mexico
City, 1954), pp. 328-36; Dr. A. Mukdoni, In
varshe un in lodzh (In Warsaw and in Lodz) (Buenos Aires, 1955),
see index (this includes as a supplement the bibliography of Y. Yeshurin, Oprufn af nigers toyt [Responses to
Niger’s death], including items from December 1955 through the middle of 1957);
Sh. Slutski, Avrom
reyzen-biblyografye (Avrom Reyzen bibliography) (New York, 1956), nos.
4988, 5376; Kh. Sh. Kazdan, Fun kheyder
un shkoles biz tsisho (From religious
and secular primary schools to Tsisho) (Mexico City, 1956), see index; Kazdan,
in Unzer tsayt (New York) (September
1964); Sh. D. Zinger, in Hadoar
(February 3, 1956); Zinger, Dikhter
un prozaiker, eseyen vegn shrayber un bikher (Poets and prose writers,
essays on writers and books) (New York, 1959), pp. 263-78; Sh. Gutman, in Idisher kemfer (New York) (Passover
[=April 5-11,] 1958), pp. 79-83; ankev Glatshteyn, in Tsukunft (July-August 1958); Glatshteyn, In tokh genumen (In essence), vol. 1 (Buenos Aires, 1960), pp.
15-20, 33-35, 83-87, 320-25; Glatshteyn, in Tog-morgn-zhurnal
(New York) (August 14, 1960); Glatshteyn, Mit
mayne fartogbikher (With my journals)
(Tel Aviv: Perets Publ., 1963), pp. 466-85; D. Naymark, in Forverts (September 7, 1958); Elye (Elias) Shulman, in Der veker (New York) (January 1959);
Shulman, in Unzer tsayt (September
1959); Shulman, in Tsukunft (October
1959); Dubin (Dr. Dov Noy), in Omer
(Tel Aviv) (Sivan 27 [= July 3], 1959); P. Shteynvaks, in Keneder odler (January 31, 1959); Y. Shlosberg, in Der tog (July 18, 1959); Dov Sadan, in Molad (Tel Aviv) (1959); Avne miftan (Threshold of stones) (Tel
Aviv, 1961/1962), pp. 256-78; Sadan, in Der
idisher zhurnal (Toronto) (December 20, 1963); Gershon Pomerants, in Der idisher zhurnal (July 4, 1960;
December 25, 1961); Chone Shmeruk, comp., Pirsumim
yehudiim babrit-hamoatsot, 1917-1961 (Jewish publications in the Soviet
Union, 1917-1961) (Jerusalem, 1961), see index; A. Golomb, in Der veg (August 26, 1961); G. Moked, in Davar (Tel Aviv) (December 1, 1961); L.
Shpizman, Geshtaltn (Images) (Buenos Aires, 1962), pp. 74-77; Kh. Bez, in Tsukunft (February 1962); Bez, Undzer dor muz antsheydn (Our generation
must awaken) (Tel Aviv, 1963), pp. 74-84; Shimen Ravidovitsh, Shriftn (Writings) (Buenos Aires, 1962),
pp. 399-414; Arbeter-ring boyer un
tuer (Builders and leaders of the Workmen’s Circle) (New York, 1962);
Yoysef Gar and Philip Fridman, Biblyografye
fun yidishe bikher vegn khurbn un gvure (Bibliography of Yiddish books
concerning the Holocaust and heroism) (New York, 1962), see index; Y. Kharlash,
in Unzer tsayt (February 1962);
Kharlash, in Der veg (December 5,
1964); Z. Zilberberg, in Keneder odler
(August 10, 1962); H. Leivick, Eseyen un redes
(Essays and speeches) (New York, 1963), pp. 174-87; Y. Shpigel, in Unzer vort (Paris) (January 17, 1964);
Arn Tsaytlin, in Tog-morgn-zhurnal
(August 17, 1964); Y. Varshavski [Bashevis], in Forverts (December 26, 1964); Y. Zilberberg, in Tog-morgn-zhurnal (January 2, 1965); B.
Rivkin, in Universal Jewish Encyclopedia
(New York), vol. 8, pp. 219-21; A. A. Roback, The Story of Yiddish Literature (New York, 1940), pp. 250-53; Who’s Who in World Jewry (New York,
1955), p. 124 (under Charney [Niger], Samuel); Sol Liptzin, in In Jewish Bookland (New York) (February
1960).
Leyb Vaserman
[1] Translator’s note.
Translated into English as: Bilingualism
in the History of Jewish Literature (Lanham: University Press of America,
1990), 135 pp. (JAF)
[2] Translator’s note.
That would be the first volume, already translated and posted on this
blog, of the eight-volume series in which the present biographical entry
appears in volume 6. (JAF)
No comments:
Post a Comment