# Lachrymose conception of Jewish history

The lachrymose conception of Jewish history is a historiographical theory, paradigm, or narrative of Jewish history that emphasizes and focuses on the suffering and persecution of Jews throughout history. The term was coined by Austrian-born American scholar Salo Wittmayer Baron, who criticized the pessimistic approaches of historians Heinrich Graetz and Joseph ha-Kohen. Baron's critique has been debated within Jewish historiography, with opposition from scholars such as Yitzhak Baer. Esther Benbassa is another critic of the paradigm. The concept remains a focal point in discussions of Jewish historical narratives, particularly in relation to Zionist historiography and diaspora studies.

## History

It was anticipated by 16th century Jewish historians and revived in the 19th century as part of modern Jewish historiography. The phrase was coined by the 20th century Austrian-born American scholar Salo Wittmayer Baron, who used it to refer derisively to the pessimistic historiographical trend he criticized and associated with the 19th century German scholar Heinrich Graetz and the 16th century historian Joseph ha-Kohen.
According to Adam Teller, Baron gave his clearest formulation of his position in 1937 in vol. 2 of the first edition of Social And Religious History Of The Jews:
   It would be a mistake... to believe that hatred was the constant keynote of Judeo-Christian relations, even in Germany or Italy. It is in the nature of historical records to transmit to posterity the memory of extraordinary events, rather than of the ordinary flow of life. A community that lived in peace for decades may have given the medieval chronicler no motive to mention it, until a sudden outbreak of popular violence, lasting a few days, attracted widespread attention. Since modern historical treatment can no longer be satisfied with the enumeration of wars and diplomatic conflicts, the history of the Jewish people among the Gentiles, even in medieval Europe, must consist of more than stories of sanguinary clashes or governmental expulsions.
In 1928, Baron published "Ghetto and Emancipation: Shall We Revise the Traditional View?" in The Menorah Journal challenging the positions of 19th century Wissenschaft des Judentums scholars Leopold Zunz and Heinrich Graetz. According to Pierre Birnbaum, Baron in this article describes Graetz as having propagated in the modern period the view of the 16th century historical chronicler and physician Joseph ha-Kohen, whose work The Vale of Tears inventoried the sufferings and persecutions to which the Jews had been exposed. Birnbaum sees Baron as having accused Graetz of "neglecting the socioeconomic dimension of Jewish history in favor of the psychological interpretation 'of excessive subjectivity' manifested in a 'pulsating heart which cries out over the sufferings of his people.'"
David N. Myers also identifies the lachrymose conception with Leopold Zunz.
According to Arie Dubnov, "Baron’s mode of reading Jewish history turned out to be offering a diasporic answer to the Zionist interpretation of history, traditionally associated with the ‘Jerusalem school’ that could not distinguish diaspora from exile and identified both with suffering and destruction."
In his 1942 essay "The Jewish Factor in Medieval Civilization," Baron wrote that his "scholarly conscience (subconsciously perhaps also his pride in the Jewish heritage) made him impatient with the eternal self-pity characteristic of Jewish historiography," while acknowledging that there were "enormous Jewish sufferings during the Middle Ages which not even the staunchest opponent of the lachrymose conception of Jewish history would wish to minimize."

## Criticism

Baron's lachrymose conception of Jewish history has been criticized by scholars such as Yitzhak Baer. Esther Benbassa is another critic of the lachrymose conception.