Jost, in its day a very remarkable production; and it has been translated into many languages. The fourth volume, beginning with the period following the destruction of Jerusalem, was published first. It appeared in 1853; but the publication was not a financial success, and the publisher refused to continue it. However, the publication society Institut zur Förderung der Israelitischen Litteratur, founded by Ludwig Philippson, had just come into existence, and it undertook the publication of the subsequent volumes, beginning with the third, which covered the period from the death of Judas Maccabeus to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. This was published in 1856 and was followed by the fifth, after which the volumes appeared in regular succession up to the eleventh, which was published in 1870 and brought the history down to 1848, with which year the author closed, not wishing to include living persons. In spite of this reserve he gravely offended the Liberal party, which inferred, from articles that Graetz contributed to the Monatsschrift, that he would show little sympathy for the Reform element, and therefore refused to publish the volume unless the manuscript was submitted for examination. This Graetz refused to do; and the volume therefore appeared without the support of the publication society. Volumes I and II were published, as stated above, after Graetz had returned from Palestine. These volumes, of which the second practically consisted of two, appeared in 1872–75, and completed the stupendous undertaking. For more popular purposes Graetz published later an abstract of his work under the title Volksthümliche Geschichte der Juden, in which he brought the history down to his own time. The fourth volume of the History of the Jews received a detailed review by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in a series of essays in Vols. II-IV (1855-8) of his monthly journal Jeschurun. In these essays, a 203-page masterpiece of objective critique, Hirsch proves beyond doubt that Graetz is guilty of the utmost sloppiness of scholarship: e.g., Graetz omitted the second halves of quotations which, if quoted in their entirety, flatly contradict his thesis. Graetz claims, on the basis of one or two quotations from certain Talmudic sages, that they "were wont to do" something - despite sources explicitly to the contrary - and goes on to develop these suppositions into theories affecting the entire Torah tradition. Graetz fabricates dates, rearranges generations, speaks of "most of these laws" when