In the opening, Lichtenbaum asks his readers: “Do you know that tale?” and, despite their answer, he retorts “So, let’s listen.” This is an allusion to Mr. Jowialski, a comedy by Aleksander Fredro that was staged in 1832.¹ Here, Lichtenbaum recalls Jowialski’s way of story-telling, which is known for repetitiveness and disregard for his listeners, so that even if they already know the story and inform Jowialski, he tells it once again anyway. In doing so, Lichtenbaum plays with the reader, asking a rhetorical question like the fictional character, but unlike him, he does not just repeat the story. Rather, Lichtenbaum requires the reader to read it again, suggesting that the reader did not properly understand the story. The reference to the well-known play by a renowned author draws the reader’s attention to the matter at hand. Lichtenbaum, thus, uses a light tone to discuss a serious issue.

Lichtenbaum proceeds by inquiring if his readers are familiar with two additional novels. Stefan Żeromski’s Ludzie bezdomni (Homeless People), published in 1900 to an enthusiastic critical reception, explores whether it is possible to be socially and ideologically engaged while maintaining a happy private life at the same time. His protagonist’s answer was that one should privilege ideology over private life. The novel became a model for social and political activists in the early twentieth century.² Another novel is Z minionych dni (From the past days) by Gustaw Daniłowski, published in 1902. A bildungsroman of a fighter for independence, the novel centers on a protagonist that was based on Józef Piłsudski (1867-1935), a statesman and leader of the Polish Socialist Party who was dubbed “the father of the Second Polish Republic.” Like Ludzie bezdomni, it questions the relationship between personal happiness and the fight for “the cause.”³

There are many other intertextual allusions throughout the feuilleton. Lichtenbaum refers to Henryk Sienkiewicz (1846-1916), a prolific Polish novelist. Sienkiewicz wrote primarily historical novels that were meant to provide encouragement and inspiration for Poles suffering from repression by the Russian and Prussian authorities. For Quo vadis, which Lichtenbaum cites, Sienkiewicz was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature in 1905.⁴ He also recites the line “worms are breeding also in lush flowers,” which is a quotation from the poetic novel Maria: Powieść ukraińska (Maria: A Ukrainian novel) by Antoni Malczewski, published in 1825.⁵ Adding to the array of Polish literati, Lichtenbaum also refers to German authors Friedrich Schiller and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

Mixing different topics, cultural references, and satire, Lichtenbaum discusses poor hygienic standards among Polish Jews. The feuilleton participates in broader discussion occurring at the beginning of the twentieth century about the relationship between the spread of diseases and lack of hygiene. Importantly, it also deals with the antisemitic stereotype of the dirty, stinky Jew. However, Lichtenbaum’s satirical writing also exhibits a paternalistic and denigrating approach towards lower Jewish classes and is critical of the ways religious observance obstructs attempts at improving hygiene. In his closing remark, Lichtenbaum’s anecdote about the synagogue being “a real artistic feat” posits the traditional space which Jews inhabit as a site of performance, a venue that is not strictly religious but also allows for socialization and even entertainment. Lichtenbaum’s milieu of integrationists saw the poor hygienic conditions of the Jewish masses as one of the obstacles towards Polish and Jewish peaceful coexistence. Characteristic of this milieu and of the time of publication, the feuilleton presents critique from a position that is seemingly external to the Jewish community, embracing the antisemitic stereotype of the dirty Jew and the moral panic about Jewish pimps. These positions were integrated into the program of Jewish intelligentsia almost without any critical reflection. Thus, Lichtenbaum’s feuilleton serves as a powerful example of integrationists’ propaganda and may account for the hostility towards that milieu expressed by Zionists and Bundists.