arts

Article Synagogue Architecture of Latvia between Archeology and Eschatology

Sergey R. Kravtsov

Center for Jewish Art, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9190501, Israel; [email protected] or [email protected]



Received: 24 June 2019; Accepted: 29 July 2019; Published: 5 August 2019


Abstract: Synagogue architecture during the second half of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century was seeking novel modes of expression, and therefore the remains of ancient synagogues that were being discovered by western archeologists within the borders of the Biblical Land of Israel became a new source of inspiration. As far away as the New World, the design of contemporary synagogues was influenced by discoveries such as by the American Jewish architect, Arnold W. Brunner, who referenced the Baram Synagogue in the Galilee in his Henry S. Frank Memorial Synagogue at the Jewish Hospital in Philadelphia (1901). Less known is the fact that the archaeological discoveries in the Middle East also influenced the design of synagogues in the interwar period, in the newly-independent Baltic state of Latvia. Local architects picked up information about these archaeological finds from professional and popular editions published in German and Russian. Good examples are two synagogues along the Riga seaside, in Majori and Bulduri, and another in the inland town of Bauska. As was the case in America, the archaeological references in these Latvian examples were infused with eschatological meaning.

Keywords: architectural history; synagogue architecture; Jewish cultural studies; Jewish history; Jewish art history; urban studies

1. Introduction Synagogue architecture of the nineteenth and the early twentieth century was seeking novel means of expression. Jewish communities in Europe that had emerged in the public sphere and achieved unprecedented visibility in the urban space wished to establish the respectability of the Jewish place of worship as a public building on par with Christian churches. Constructing an elegant synagogue would also express the pride and self-confidence of an enlightened and acculturated community. The appropriate visual references were eagerly borrowed from the most recent scholarly literature to substantiate the architect’s suggestions. The Napoleonic campaign in Egypt and Syria (1798–1801) stimulated a general fashion for Egyptian style, though seldom in the Christian sacred architecture. Scholarly reconstruction drawings showed the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem as influenced by Egyptian architecture, in agreement with the architectural theory that linked the Egyptian, Babylonian, Phoenician, Jewish, and Greek legacy in a single lineage of divine origin.1 In the 1850s, open brickwork became popular among the synagogue designers and was justified as historically accurate, having been widely used in ancient Mesopotamia that was rich in clay and was still favored by the Arabs who, according to the latest linguistic and racial theories, were considered closely related to the Jews

1 On this trend see, for instance, (Krinsky 1985, pp. 73, 77; Kadish 2011, pp. 70–74). On a pre-Enlightenment theory of architecture as a divinely inspired art, see (Soo 1998, p. 169). For theoretical reconstructions of the Jerusalem Temple as a derivative of Egyptian architecture, see (Hirt 1809; Stieglitz 1834; Canina 1845).

Arts 2019, 8, 99; doi:10.3390/arts8030099 www.mdpi.com/journal/arts Arts 2019, 8, 99 2 of 21

(Förster 1859). In the 1880s, the French scholars Charles Chipiez (1935–1901) and Georges Perrot (1832–1914) posited a theory that linked the Jerusalem Temple not only with Egyptian but also with Phoenician and Assyrian architecture (Chipiez and Perrot 1887, 1889).2 They expressly referred to the biblical prophet Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple, which in the rabbinical thought served as the model for the eschatological Temple of Jerusalem.3 However, exploration of the ancient synagogues in the Galilee cardinally changed the previous antiquarian and archeologically inspired discourse of Jewish architecture (Fine 2002, 2005; Gruber 2011). The change surfaced not only on the printed page but also in the actual synagogue architecture of the early twentieth century. This article explores how the recent scholarly and archeological discoveries influenced the design of synagogues in the interwar period, particularly in the newly-independent Baltic state of Latvia that then had a vibrant Jewish community, and how the Latvian Jewish identity was constructed through architecture.

2. Synagogues in Ancient Israel as a Source for Modern Synagogue Architecture Some ruins of ancient synagogues have long been well known to Jewish pilgrims to the holy places in the Galilee, for example, the tomb of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (Rashbi, second century CE) in Meron (Robinson and Smith 1856, pp. 73–74; Anonymous 1900, pp. 106–7). Nevertheless, it was the advance of archeology in Palestine that brought a considerable number of ancient synagogues to the attention of art and architectural historians, architects, and the wider public. Surveys were carried out by English and French archeologists including Edward Robinson (1794–1863) (Robinson and Smith 1841, p. 298)4 and Ernest Renan (1823–1892) (Renan 1864, pp. 765–81). The Palestine Exploration Fund was founded in England in 1865; by 1878 a total of eleven ancient synagogues had been discovered (Conder and Kitchener 1881, pp. 230–34, 243–44, 251–54, 256–57, 396–402, 406–8, 414–17). From the 1890s until the eve of the Second World War about 3000 postcards based on 27 photographs taken by the Palestine Exploration Fund were sold worldwide (Vitto 1997, p. 42). These archeological discoveries proved that the architecture of ancient synagogues had nothing in common with Egyptian, Phoenician or Assyrian forms as alleged by Chipiez and Perrot, but was obviously related to the Greco-Roman architecture of late antiquity. In the USA, in 1901, the first American-born Jewish architect, Arnold William Brunner (1857–1925), drew directly on the ancient synagogues of the Galilee in the design of the Henry S. Frank Memorial Synagogue at the Jewish Hospital in Philadelphia (Figure1)(Fine 2002, 2005; Gruber 2011, p. 84; see also Gruber 2003, p. 29). He made particular reference both to the overall classical style and detailing of the two synagogues in Kfar Baram (Arabic: Kafr Birim), both small (for an inscription) and large (Figure2), as well as of the nearby synagogue in Nabratein (Hebrew: Naburiya) (cf. Conder and Kitchener 1881, pp. 230–34, 243–44). In 1905, a photograph of the newly-built synagogue was published in the Jewish Encyclopaedia (Adler and Rosenbach 1905, p. 678). This was followed up, in 1907, by Brunner’s article in the American professional periodical The Brickbuilder, on the impact of recent archeological finds on synagogue architecture, in the light of his own design experience in Philadelphia (Brunner 1907a, 1907b). He was critical of the reconstruction of the Temple by Chipiez and Perrot, “One instinctively feels that their imagination has been allowed too much freedom and that these admirable restorations, while inspiring in the extreme, can hardly be considered as historic documents, nor do they indicate a sufficient degree of accuracy upon which to base an architectural style” (Brunner 1907a, p. 25).

2 On the use of this iconography in synagogue architecture, see (Kravtsov 2008). 3 Ezekiel’s prophesy to “make known unto them [the house of Israel] the form of the house [ ... ]; that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them” (Ezek. 43:11) was commented by Rashi (1040–1105): “They will learn the matters of the measurements from your mouth so that they will know how to do them at the time of the end.” Rashi’s Commentary on Tanakh holds that this prophecy does not refer to return of Jewish exiles led by Ezra, “for their repentance was not suitable.” Rabbi Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller(1602) rea ffirmed this view and the eschatalogical meaning of Ezekiel’s prophesy in his Tsurat beit ha-mikdash (Shape of the Temple). 4 On surveys of ancient synagogues, see (Vitto 1997). Arts 2019, 8, 99 3 of 21 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21

Figure 1. The Henry S. Frank Memorial Synagogue at the Jewish Hospital in Philadelphia, architect Figure 1. The Henry S. Frank Memorial Synagogue at the JewishJewish HospitalHospital in Philadelphia,Philadelphia, architect Arnold W. Brunner, 1901 (Adler and Rosenbach 1905, p. 678). Arnold W. Brunner,Brunner, 19011901 ((AdlerAdler andand RosenbachRosenbach 1905 1905,, p. p. 678).678).

FigureFigure 2. 2. TheThe largelarge synagoguesynagogue in in Kfar Kfar Baram Baram ( (BacherBacher and and Dembitz Dembitz 1905,19051905,, p. 621621 621).).). A pupil and apprentice of William R. Ware (1832–1915) and George B. Post (1883–1913), AA pupilpupil andand apprenticeapprentice ofof WWilliamilliam R.R. WareWare (1832(1832––1915)1915) andand GeorgeGeorge B.B. PostPost (1883(1883––1913)1913),, thethe the American adherents of the École des Beaux-Arts tradition, Brunner praised classical architecture as AmericanAmerican adherentsadherents ofof thethe ÉcoleÉcole desdes BeauxBeaux--ArtsArts tradition,tradition, BrunnerBrunner praisedpraised classicalclassical architecturearchitecture asas undeniably Jewish, and therefore applicable to modern synagogues, “With the sanction of antiquity it undeniablyundeniably JewishJewish,, andand thereforetherefore applicableapplicable toto modernmodern synagoguessynagogues,, “With“With thethe sanctionsanction ofof antiqantiquityuity (the ‘classical’ style) perpetuates the best traditions of Jewish art and takes up a thread, which was itit ((thethe ‘classical’‘classical’ stylestyle)) perpetuatesperpetuates thethe bestbest traditionstraditions ofof JewishJewish artart andand takestakes upup aa thread,thread, whichwhich waswas broken by circumstances, of a vigorous and once healthy style” (Brunner 1907b, p. 37). He claimed brokenbroken byby circumstances,circumstances, ofof aa vigorousvigorous andand onceonce healthyhealthy stylestyle”” (Brunner(Brunner 1907b,1907b, p.p. 37)37).. HeHe claimedclaimed that “upon examining the ruined remains that exist today, it is evident that whether this art inspired thatthat “upon“upon examiningexamining thethe ruinedruined remainsremains thatthat exexistist today,today, itit isis evidentevident thatthat whetherwhether thisthis artart inspiredinspired the Greeks, or was inspired by the Greeks, it was serious and important, and if circumstances had thethe Greeks,Greeks, oror waswas inspiredinspired byby thethe Greeks,Greeks, itit waswas seriousserious andand important,important, andand ifif circumstancescircumstances hadhad allowed it to develop, it would have probably continued on much the same lines as the art of Greece” allowedallowed it it to to develop, develop, it it would would have have probably probably continued continued on on much much the the same same lines lines as as the the art art of of (Brunner 1907a, p. 24). Greece”Greece” ((BrunnerBrunner 1907a,1907a, p.p. 2424)).. Thus, the archeology of ancient synagogues played an essential role in the construction of a Thus,Thus, thethe archeology archeology ofof ancientancient synagoguessynagogues playedplayed an an essentialessential rolerole inin thethe constructionconstruction ofof aa national Jewish architectural identity equal to that of other nations; indeed, to that of the Greeks whom nationalnational JewishJewish architectural architectural identityidentity equalequal toto thatthat ofof otherother nationsnations;; iindeedndeed,, toto thatthat ofof thethe GreeksGreeks the Enlightenment theory regarded as the progenitors of the finest western architecture. As Samuel D. whomwhom thethe EnlightenmentEnlightenment theorytheory regardedregarded asas thethe progenitorsprogenitors ofof thethe finestfinest westernwestern architecture.architecture. AsAs Gruber(2011, p. 75) has written, “The tie of classicism to the ancient synagogue helped give American SamuelSamuel D.D. GruberGruber ((2011,2011, p.p. 75)75) hashas writtenwritten,, “The“The tietie ofof classicismclassicism toto thethe ancientancient synagoguesynagogue helpedhelped givegive AmericanAmerican JudaismJudaism aa pedigreepedigree thatthat wouldwould resonateresonate inin WesternWestern EuropeanEuropean andand AmericanAmerican culture,culture,

Arts 2019, 8, 99 4 of 21 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21

Judaismand it allowed a pedigree Jews that to would skip over resonate the centuries in Western of European Diaspora and history American—of ghettos culture, and and the it allowed Pale of JewsSettlement to skip—that over fascinated the centuries and of repelled Diaspora much history—of of mainstream ghettos and America the Pale”. By of Settlement—thatthe end of the fascinatednineteenth andcentury, repelled the American much of mainstreamreform movement America”. was especially By the end keen of theon buildin nineteenthg synagogues century, the in Americanneoclassical reform style movement(ibid.). was especially keen on building synagogues in neoclassical style (ibid.). These changing influences influences on American synagogue architecture have been remarked upon in general by both Steven Fine and Samuel D. Gruber. I would contend that the portico of Brunner’sBrunner’s synagogue in Philadelphia (F (Figureigure1 1)) waswas influencedinfluenced byby additionaladditional iconographiciconographic sources,sources, specificallyspecifically by Ezekiel’s Temple as imagined in the sixteenth-centurysixteenth-century treatise by the Jesuit theologians Juan Bautista Villalpando and Hieronymus Prado. Brunner’s Corinthianesque capitals are plac placeded under a Doric frieze, frieze, an an inversion inversion of the of classical the classical orders that orders appears that in appears Villalpando’s in Villalpando’s drawings (Villalpandus drawings and(Villalpandus Pradus 1604 and, p. Pradus 420; Kravtsov 1604, p. 2005 420;). Kravtsov Alternatively, 2005) this. Alternatively, allusion could this have allusion reached could Brunner have indirectlyreached Brunner via Melchior indirectly de Vogü via Melchioré’s (1829–1916) de Vogüé’s reconstruction (1829–191 in6) his reconstruction 1864 work Le in Temple his 1864 de J éworkrusalem. Le DeTemple Vogü deé Jérusalem.made a questionable De Vogüé made connection a questionable between connection the Jerusalem between Temple the and Jerusalem the so-called Temple Palace and ofthe John so-called Hyrcanus Palace in Araq-el-Emirof John Hyrcanus in Jordan in Araq (Figure-el-Emir3)(de in Vogü Jordané 1864a (Figure, pp. 3) 37–43; (De Vogüé De Vogü 1864a,é 1864b pp., 5 pp.37–43; 52–62). De VogüéYet, the 1864 longb, pp.side 5 elevations2–62).5 Yet, of the Brunner’s long side synagogue elevations feature of Brunner’s paired windows synagogue borrowed feature frompaired Chipiez’s windows drawing borrowed of from the House Chipiez’s of the drawing Forest of of the Lebanon, House of however, the Forest these of Lebanon bipartite, however, elements cannotthese bipartite be called elements classical, although cannot be they called do possess classical, quasi-Palladian although they semicircular do possess lights quasi (cf.-Palladia Figures1n andsemicircular4)(Chipiez lights and (Perrotcf. Figure 1889s, plate1 and 12). 4) Thus,(Chipiez Brunner’s and Perrot synagogue 1889, platein Philadelphia 12). Thus, referenced Brunner’s severalsynagogue sources, in Philadelphia not only the referenced ancient synagogues several sources, of the not Galilee only the but ancient also visions synagogues of Ezekiel’s of the Temple,Galilee chargedbut also visions with traditional of Ezekiel's eschatological Temple, charged meaning. with traditional eschatological meaning.

Figure 3. Palace in Araq al al-Emir,-Emir, Jordan, detailed reconstruction by Howard C. Butler, based on the reconstruction by Melchior dede VogüVogüéé ((18641864aa).). ReproducedReproduced fromfrom ((Cohn-WienerCohn-Wiener 1929 1929,, p.p. 70).70).

5 For a detailed reconstruction of the palace in Araq-el-Emir, see (Butler 1907, plates 1, 2). De Vogüé explained the inverse architectural orders used in the Jerusalem Temple in historical terms, by the fact that this building dated from before the codification of the orders by Vitruvius in 30–10 BCE; Villalpando had ascribed the supposed inverse orders in the Temple to divine inspiration.

5 For a detailed reconstruction of the palace in Araq-el-Emir, see (Butler 1907, plates 1, 2). De Vogüé explained the inverse architectural orders used in the Jerusalem Temple in historical terms, by the fact that this building dated from before the codification of the orders by Vitruvius in 30–10 BCE; Villalpando had ascribed the supposed inverse orders in the Temple to divine inspiration.

Arts 2019, 8, 99 5 of 21 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21

FigureFigure 4. 4. House House of of the the Forest Forest of of Le Lebanonbanon (Chipiez(Chipiez (Chipiez and and Perrot Perrot 1889, 18891889, plate, plate 12) 12).12). .

TheThe name name of of Arnold Arnold Brunner, Brunner, firstfirstfirst publicizedpublicized by the the JewishJewish Encyclopedia Encyclopedia (New (New York, York, 1905) 1905) as asa a leading American Jewish architect (Adler 1905, p. 404; Bacher and Dembitz 1905, p. 628), was picked leading American Jewish architect ((AdlerAdler 19051905,, p.p. 404; Bacher and Dembitz 19051905,, p. 628) 628),, was picked up by the Russian Evreiskaia entsiklopedia in 1908 (Rogoff 1908, p. 226). The archeological discoveries, up by the Russian EvreiskaiaEvreiskaia entsiklopedia in 1908 ((RogoffRogoff 19081908,, p.p. 226).226). The archeological discoveries, which Brunner had discussed and utilized in his built work, were described in this encyclopedia in which Brunner had discussed and utilized in his built work, were described in this encyclopedia in 1913, although without illustrations (Bernfeld 1913, p. 258). The chief author of the “Synagogue” 1913, although without illustrations ((BernfeldBernfeld 19131913,, p.p. 258) 258).. The The chief chief author author of of the the “Synagogue” entry,entry, Simon Simon Bernfeld Bernfeld (1860–1940), (1860–1940), wrote: wrote: “The influence “The influence of Greco-Roman of Greco architecture-Roman architecture is undoubtedly is entry,undoubtedly Simon Bernfeldevident in (1860 the style–1940), of the wrote: Galilean “The synagogues, influence but of it Greco is specifically-Roman architectureJewish in its is evident in the style of the Galilean synagogues, but it is specifically Jewish in its essence and it perfectly undoubtedlyessence and evidentit perfectly in suits the stylethe purpose of the of Galilean the building” synagogues, (ibid.). but it is specifically Jewish in its suits the purpose of the building” (ibid.). essenceGerman and it perfectly scholarship suits was the now purpose making of substantial the building” progress (ibid.). Heinrich. Kohl (1877–1914) and Karl German scholarship was now making substantial progress. Heinrich Kohl (1877–1914) and Karl WatzingerGerman (1877scholarship–1948) hadwas now undertaken making archeological substantial progress exploration. Heinrich in 1905 Kohl–190 7(1877 and– 1914) their resultsand Karl Watzinger (1877–1948) had undertaken archeological exploration in 1905–1907 and their results were Watzingerwere published (1877– in1948) 1916 had (Kohl undertaken and Watzinger archeological 1916). These exploration confirmed Brunner’s in 1905–190 contention7 and their that “the results publishedwereplan published of the in 1916basilica in (1916Kohl was (Kohl andinvariably Watzinger and Watzinger adopted” 1916). in19 These the16) .ancient These confirmed confirmedsynagogues Brunner’s Brunner’s (Brunner contention 1907a,contention thatp. 24) “thethat. Kohl plan“the ofplanand the of basilicaWatzinger the basilica was proffered invariablywas invariably several adopted” possible adopted” in thereconstructions, in ancient the ancient synagogues which synagogues outwardly (Brunner (Brunner expressed 1907a 1907a,, p. the 24). p. basilical Kohl24). Kohl and Watzingerandstruct Watzingerure pro onff eredtheproffered façades several several of possible the synagoguespossible reconstructions, reconstructions, in Kfar which Baram outwardlywhich (Figure outwardly 5), expressed ed-Dikke expressed the (Figure basilical the 6), structurebasilical Umm onstructel the-Kanatirure façades on (Figure the of façades the 7), synagoguesand of Tell the Hum synagogues in (Capernaum, Kfar Baram in Kfar Kfar (Figure Baram Naḥ5um), (Figureed-Dikke, Figure 5),8) (Figure (Kohl ed-Dikke and6), UmmWatzinger (Figure el-Kanatir 6), 1916, Umm (Figureel-pp.Kanatir 97,7), 100, and(Figure 134, Tell plates7), Hum and 3, (Capernaum, Tell 4, 5, Hum 6). The (Capernaum, Kfarlatter Nareconstructionh. um, Kfar Figure Na ḥwas8um)( Kohlreproduced, Figure and 8) Watzinger (Kohl by Richard and 1916 Watzinger Krautheimer, pp. 97, 1916, 100, 134,pp.(1897 97, plates 100,–1994) 3, 134, 4, in 5, hisplates 6). influential The 3, latter4, 5, monograph6) reconstruction. The latter Mittelalterliche reconstruction was reproduced Synagogen was by reproduced Richard (Krautheimer Krautheimer by Richard 1927, p. (1897–1994) 59)Krautheimer. in his(1897 influential–1994) in monographhis influentialMittelalterliche monograph SynagogenMittelalterliche(Krautheimer Synagogen 1927 (Krautheimer, p. 59). 1927, p. 59).

Figure 5. The large synagogue in Kfar Baram, theoretical reconstruction by (Kohl and Watzinger 1916, p. 100). Figure 5. TheThe la largerge synagogue synagogue in in Kfar Kfar Baram, Baram, theoretical theoretical reconstruction reconstruction by by (KohlKohl and Watzinger (1916,1916 ,p. p. 100 100).).

Arts 2019, 8, 99 6 of 21

Arts 20192019,, 88,, xx FORFOR PEERPEER REVIEWREVIEW 66 ofof 2121

FigureFigure 6.6. Synagogue in in ed ed-Dikke,--Dikke, theoretical theoretical reconstruction reconstruction by by (Kohl(Kohl Kohl andand and WatzingerWatzinger Watzinger 1916,1916,(1916 p.p., p.124)124) 124)...

Figure 7. 7. SynagogueSynagogue in in Umm Umm el el-Kanatir,--Kanatir, theoretical theoretical reconstru reconstructionctionction byby (Kohl(KohlKohl andandand Watzinger WatzingerWatzinger( 1916 1916,1916,, p. p.p. 134). 134)134)..

Figure 8. Synagogue in Capernaum (Tell Humm, Kfar Nahum), theoretical reconstruction by (Kohl FigureFigure 8. 8. SynagogueSynagogue in in Capernaum Capernaum (Tell (Tell Humm, Humm, Kfar KfarNahum), Nahum), theoretical theoretical reconstructionreconstruction reconstruction byby (Kohl(Kohl by and Watzinger 1916, plate 3). Kohlandandand WatzingerWatzinger Watzinger 1916,1916,(1916 plate, plate 3)).. 3).

Arts 2019, 8, 99 7 of 21

Ernst Cohn-Wiener’s (1882–1941) Die Jüdische Kunst was the first of several book-length attempts at a general history of Jewish art (Cohn-Wiener 1929).6 It also provided the German reader with visual sources for ancient synagogues in the Land of Israel.7 All the aforementioned publications were available to the Jewish community and to practicing architects in interwar Latvia, where both German and Russian languages were spoken.

3. Archeological Inspirations and Synagogue Architecture in Latvia

The Peitavas Street Synagogue in Riga Chipiez’s and Perrot’s Temple iconography influenced the Peitavas Street Synagogue, built in Riga in 1903–1905 (Figure9). This synagogue was designed by two architects of Baltic German origin: the young Karl Rudolf Hermann Seuberlich (Hermanis Zeiberlihs, 1878–1938)8 and the experienced Johann Wilhelm Karl Neumann (Vilhelms Neimanis, 1849–1919).9 Chipiez’s imagery was first proposed in the professional press, in 1896, for the Temple Synagogue in Lviv (Lemberg, Lwów, then under Austro-Hungarian rule), but was eventually applied at the Sha‘ar ha-Shamayim Synagogue in Cairo (1899–1904) and the New Synagogue in the Bohemian city Hradec Králové (German Königgrätz, 1904–1905, then also in Austro-Hungary). These two synagogues were being buildt almost at the same time as the new synagogue in Riga (Kravtsov 2008, pp. 31–35). The latter employed reputedly “Egyptian” elements: cavetto moldings, lotus capitals, sloping door jambs, and relief palm branches. The “Phoenician” contribution exemplified acroteria allusive to the altar horns; the “Assyrian” rosettes decorated the interior architraves. In addition, the fenestration of the street elevation was modeled on the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon, all reminiscent of Chipiez’s drawings. The point and mode of employing such an exotic combination of styles varied from country to country. In Cairo, it was an allusion to the ancient presence of the Jewish people in Egypt. In Hradec Králové, its exoticism was blended with typical Central European decorative motifs. In Lviv and Riga, it served as a means of avoiding local stylistic controversies. Use of a style redolent of a remote time and place enabled the Jews to escape the “battles of the styles” that was then raging between competing nationalist groups. In Lviv, Poles and Ukrainians were fighting over the historical seniority in the region, of the Romanesque versus the Byzantine styles (Kravtsov 2018, p. 183). Germans and Latvians in Riga were arguing over the merits of the “Nordic” versus the “Baltic” styles (Grosa 2012). Instead, the Jews, aided by the hired architects, opted to construct an “other” Jewish identity, distinct from that of any of the rival nationalist groups. After the First World War, Latvia became an independent republic. In this state, all the limitations of the Jewish presence beyond the Pale of Settlement, which had been mandatory in the Livland and Courland provinces under the Russian empire, were abolished in 1920. The Latvian Jewish community grew from 79,644 to 93,479 by 1935 (4.79 percent of the general population) (Bogdanova 2004, p. 10). However, their newly-found prosperity was short lived thanks to the Great Depression, which began with the Wall Street Crash in the United States in 1929, the effects of which were felt internationally throughout the 1930s. Similar to other building projects in Latvia, the construction of new synagogues was considerably delayed. Several projects, initiated in the late 1920s, underwent protracted changes.

6 English translation: Jewish Art: Its History from the Beginning to the Present Day. Afterword by Hannelore Künzl; translated by Anthea Bell (Northamptonshire, 2001). 7 See, for instance, photographs of the synagogues in Kfar Baram, Meron, Nabratein, Tell Hum, Ashdod, and Chorazin, in (Cohn-Wiener 1929, pp. 81–85, 88, 90–91). 8 Seuberlich received his architectural education at the Riga Polytechnic Institute (Polytechnischen Institut zu Riga) in 1898–1904. Besides the Peitavas Street Synagogue, he is known for his restoration of the medieval Kuresaare Castle (1904–1912, with Neumann), and Riga Zoo. Latvian State Historical Archives, 7175-1-256; (BBLD n.d.). 9 Neumann, an architect, art historian and curator, was educated at the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts (1875–1876) and received his Ph.D. from Leipzig University. Besides the Peitavas Street Synagogue, he prepared the initial design for Richard Wagner’s Villa Wahnfried (1870), built Lutheran churches in Daugavpils (Dinaburg, Dvinsk, 1892–1893), Kuld¯ıga (Goldingen, 1892–1904), and Kabile (Kabillen, 1904–1907) and designed Riga Art Museum (ca. 1905). See (Wörster 2008; BBLD n.d.). Arts 2019, 8, 99 8 of 21 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21

Figure 9. TheThe Peitavas Peitavas Street Street Synagogue Synagogue in in Riga, Riga, architects architects Karl Karl R. R. H. H. Seuberlich Seuberlich and and Wilhelm Wilhelm K. K. Neumann, 1903 1903–1905.–1905. Photo by by the author, 2009.

4. SynagoguesAfter the Firs ont theWorld Baltic War, Riviera Latvia became an independent republic. In this state, all the limitations of theMajori Jewish (Majorenhof) presence beyond is a district the Pale of theof Settlement, Riga seaside which resort had Jurmala,¯ been mandatory also known in under the Livland its German and Courlandnames, Rigascher provinces Strand under orthe Baltische Russian empire, Riviera, were in the abolished historical in 1920. Livland. The Latvian A synagogue Jewish wascommunity built in grewMajori, from at 3379,644 Viktorijas to 93,479 Street by in 1935 1938–1939, (4.79 percent although of the the general original population) design, as (Bogdanova we shall see, 2004, dated p. from 10). However,ten years earliertheir newly (1929).-found This synagogueprosperity iswas the short earliest lived extant thanks synagogue to the Great in Latvia Depression, that was which inspired began by witharcheological the Wall discoveriesStreet Crash in in the the Land United of Israel. States in 1929, the effects of which were felt internationally throughoutJews, similar the 1930s. to other Similar holidaymakers, to other building generally projects visited in Latvia, Majori duringthe construction the summer of new months, synagogues once the wasRussian considerably ban on renting delayed. accommodation Several projects, to initiated Jews was in ended the late in 1920s, independent underw Latvia.ent protracted10 The numberchanges. of Jewish visitors steadily grew, and a “minyan” (prayer quorum) was soon formed in a rented cottage on 4.Viktorijas Synagogues Street, on though the Baltic to the Riviera great displeasure of the Christian landlord. By the end of the 1920s, 11 a purpose-builtMajori (Majorenhof) synagogue is had a districtbecome of indispensable the Riga seaside ( Hajnt resort1939a ). Jūrmala, also known under its GermanBulduri names (Bilderilngshof),, Rigascher Strand another or Baltische district ofRiviera Jurmala,¯ , in hadthe historical a longer historyLivland of. A Jewish synagogue settlement was builtthan Majori.in Majori, Shoemaker at 33 Viktorijas and retired Street soldier in 1938 Mordechai-Motel–1939, although Lezhik the original (or Ležik, design, Lessik, as Lesik,we shall Leshik, see, 12 datedb. Šiauliai, from Yiddishten years Shavl, earlier Lithuania, (1929). This 1853—d. synagogue New is York, the earliest 1930s) extantrented synagogue a house andin Latvia garden that in wasBulduri inspired for 25 by years archeological and lived discoveries there all year in round.the Land He of began Israel to. host a summer minyan and, in 1906, builtJews, in his similar garden to (at other Fourth holidaymakers, Sk, ers, i.e., “transverse,” generally visited Lane, Majori under during a later the address summer 20 Talsu,months today, once 8 theSaldus Russian Street) ban the on first renting synagogue accommodation in Bulduri. to Jews In independent was ended in Latvia, independent the attractiveness Latvia.10 The of number Bulduri offor Jewish Jewish visitors holidaymakers steadily increased, grew, and not a “ onlyminyan because” (prayer of the quorum) abolition w ofas Tsarist soon formedrestrictions in a but rented also cottagebecause on of Viktorijas its moderate Street prices, though and relativeto the great proximity displeasure to Riga. of the The Christian Bulduri landlord. Synagogue By was the runend byof theLezhik 1920s, as ana purpose elder (gabai)-built untilsynagogue his emigration had become to the indispensable USA in 1921, (Hajnt and afterward 1939a).11 by his son-in-law, a

10 The Russian imperial government granted residence rights on the Baltic Riviera to the following categories of Jewish citizens: 10 “honoraryThe Russian citizens,” imperial burghers government of the nearby grante townd residence Sloka (Schlock), rights militaryon the Baltic veterans, Riviera and the to familiesthe following of merchants categories of the First Guild (which included well-to-do Jews). The local overlord of Majori (Majorenhof), Baron Ernst H. G. von Fircks of(1843–1919), Jewish citizens: explicitly “honorary discriminated citizens,” against burghers Jews by refusing of the tonearby let property town toSloka them. (Schlock), See (Meler military 2015, pp. veterans, 257–8). and 11 theBy thefamilies end of of the merchants 1930s, the Jewish of the congregation First Guild in(which Majori included numbered well 210- (Bogdanovato-do Jews). 2004 The, p. local 168). overlord The general of numberMajori (Majorenhof),of holidaymakers Baron in Majori Ernst andH. G. neighboring von Fircks Dzintari (1843–1919), (named explicitly Edinburgh discriminated until 1922) reached against 14,925 Jews inby Augustrefusing 1938 to let( Segodnia property1938 to). them. See (Meler 2015, pp. 257–8). 12 On Lezhik’s date and place of birth, see (JewishGen n.d.). 11 By the end of the 1930s, the Jewish congregation in Majori numbered 210 (Bogdanova 2004, p. 168). The general number of holidaymakers in Majori and neighboring Dzintari (named Edinburgh until 1922) reached 14,925 in August 1938 (Segodnia 1938).

Arts 2019, 8, 99 9 of 21 shoemaker Samuel Michelson (ca. 1884–1941).13 In 1928, the freehold of the site was purchased by the members of the building committee, Meir Ritov (1870–1941), Zalman Chackielewicz, and Moses Chajt. By this time, the synagogue had become too cramped, and its replacement by a larger building was under discussion. However, nothing was done immediately (see below) ( Hajnt 1938a; Meler 2015, pp. 260–64). The plans for a new synagogue in Bulduri, prepared in 1929, were not intended for Lezhik’s garden at 20 Talsu Street but for a completely different site on the east side of Upes Street (today Bauskas Street).14 Upes and Talsu are intersecting streets (running from north to south and from east to west, respectively), but Lezhik’s garden was situated on a corner, whereas, the drawings show a west-facing plot on the street. A comparison of the Bulduri plans with the extant Majori synagogue reveals that the project prepared for Upes Street in Bulduri was actually implemented at Viktorijas Street in Majori, some 3.5 km to the west. The 1929 design was commissioned from a renowned architect, Paul Mandelstamm (1872–1941). Son of a Jewish family in Lithuanian Žagare˙ (Yiddish Zhagar), he was educated at the German Gymnasium and at the Polytechnikum (1891–1898) in Riga, where he lived and worked for the rest of his life until he was killed during the Holocaust. Throughout his career, he designed about seventy buildings in the Latvian capital, in various styles, from historicism to art nouveau and functionalism. Early on, Mandelstamm was involved in a survey of Jewish sacred architecture and published a brief essay on “religious buildings of the Hebrews” in Riga in 1898 (Mandelstamm 1903, pp. 188–90). Later, he worked for many Jewish clients. Mandelstamm built the Jewish vocational school at 2 Arbenes Street (1904), the burial house in the Old Jewish Cemetery of Riga (1905), and, in 1906, supervised the construction of the Stabu Street Synagogue, which had been designed by the Baltic-German architect, Reinhold Schmerling (1899–1901), all in a Germanic neo-Romanesque or Rundbogenstil style. In the early 1920s, Mandelstamm completed the construction of the Jewish Club in Riga, which had been started in 1913 by the Baltic-German architect, Edmund von Trompowsky (1851–1919), in the art nouveau style (Kotlyar 2015, pp. 164–165). In 1924, Mandelstamm designed the burial house in the New Jewish Cemetery of Riga, this time in an admixture of neo-Romanesque and neoclassical styles.15

He continued designing synagogues after 1929, for example, in the seaside resort of K, emeri (Kemmern) in 1932 (Bogdanova 2004, p. 97). Mandelstamm’s synagogue design of 1929 envisaged a brick structure, where the street elevation at the west was flanked by symmetrical projecting corner pavilions under low hipped roofs (Figure 10).16 The style combined neoclassicism with modernism by featuring flat platbands instead of cornices, plain pilasters, and door surrounds. The proposed building was to be set back within a spacious forecourt. Both the men’s and women’s vestibules, located in each of the pavilions, were to have double doors with a semicircular light over them. The central bay of the front elevation would possess no doorway but instead would have three tall rectangular windows. Along the side walls, the windows of the prayer hall were to be a round-headed design and Shields of David were to be used in the glazing of all the windows. Inside, the planned prayer hall would be square, measuring 11 by 11 meters by 5.60 m high. It was to be spanned by a coved ceiling with a ventilation grill in its center. There would be a central “bimah,” according to Ashkenazi tradition. A rear women’s gallery, raised only forty centimeters off the floor, was proposed; there was also the option of an upper gallery at the rear, although no stairs were shown in the drawings. A wooden caretaker’s house adjoined the synagogue on its northeast corner, while a shady verandah was added on its south.

13 Yad Vashem testimony, item ID 3938210. 14 Latvian National Historical Archives (Latvijas Nacionals¯ arh¯ıvs Latvijas Valsts vestures¯ arh¯ıvs, hereafter LNA LVVA), 140-6343-14-202-6. The house number is not specified in this document. 15 LNA LVVA, 2761-3-13547. 16 LNA LVVA, 140-6343-14-202-6. Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21

walls, the windows of the prayer hall were to be a round-headed design and Shields of David were walls, the windows of the prayer hall were to be a round-headed design and Shields of David were to be used in the glazing of all the windows. Inside, the planned prayer hall would be square, to be used in the glazing of all the windows. Inside, the planned prayer hall would be square, measuring 11 by 11 meters by 5.60 m high. It was to be spanned by a coved ceiling with a ventilation measuring 11 by 11 meters by 5.60 m high. It was to be spanned by a coved ceiling with a ventilation grill in its center. There would be a central “bimah,” according to Ashkenazi tradition. A rear grill in its center. There would be a central “bimah,” according to Ashkenazi tradition. A rear women’s gallery, raised only forty centimeters off the floor, was proposed; there was also the option women’s gallery, raised only forty centimeters off the floor, was proposed; there was also the option of an upper gallery at the rear, although no stairs were shown in the drawings. A wooden caretaker’s of an upper gallery at the rear, although no stairs were shown in the drawings. A wooden caretaker’s Artshouse2019 , adjoined8, 99 the synagogue on its northeast corner, while a shady verandah was added on10 ofits 21 house adjoined the synagogue on its northeast corner, while a shady verandah was added on its south. south.

Figure 10. Design for a synagogue in Bulduri by Paul Mandelstamm, 1929, brick alternative. LNA FigureFigure 10. 10.Design Design forfor aa synagoguesynagogue inin BulduriBulduri by Paul Mandelstamm, 1929, 1929, brick brick alternative alternative.. LNA LNA LVVA. Used by permission. LVVA.LVVA. Used Used by by permission. permission.

Mandelstamm also submitted a cheaper alternative (Figure 11),1717 of log construction rather than MandelstammMandelstamm also also submittedsubmitted aa cheapercheaper alternative (Figure (Figure 11),11),17 ofof log log construction construction rather rather than than brick. This option differed only in minor details: round-headed windows instead of rectangular brick.brick. This This optionoption di differedffered only only in in minor minor details: round round-headed-headed windows windows instead instead of of rectangular rectangular windows on the front elevation, a central rose window on the ark wall, and projecting cornices. The windowswindows onon thethe front elevation, elevation, a acentral central rose rose window window on the on theark wall, ark wall, and projecting and projecting cornices. cornices. The caretaker's house was detached and moved further away from the synagogue to the east. Thecaretaker's caretaker’s house house was wasdetached detached and andmoved moved further further away away from fromthe synagogue the synagogue to the to east. the east.

Figure 11. Design for a synagogue, in Bulduri, by Paul Mandelstamm, 1929, timber alternative. LNA FigureFigure 11. 11. DesignDesign fo forr a asynagogue synagogue,, in Bulduri in Bulduri,, by Paul by PaulMandelstamm, Mandelstamm, 1929, timber 1929, timberalternative. alternative. LNA LVVA. Used by Permission. LNALVVA. LVVA. Used Used by Permission by Permission..

The plans were approved by the construction authorities on 7 August 1929.18 However, not only did this synagogue not get built for another ten years, until 1938–1939, but it was, as has already been mentioned above, constructed in a completely different district at 33 Viktorijas Street in Majori

17 LNA LVVA, 140-196343-14-202-10. (Figures17 LNA 12 LVVA and, 13140).-6343On-14 this-202- site10. stood an old summer house that the local minyan had been renting at an exorbitant price since 1924 or 1925. Eventually, they decided to make an offer for the plot, in order “not to be subject to chance and to be insured against (unpleasant) surprises” ( Hajnt 1939a). The purchase of the plot and the construction of the synagogue were carried out by a building

17 LNA LVVA, 140-6343-14-202-10. 18 LNA LVVA, 140-6343-14-202-6l. 19 Services in the Majori Synagogue were reported already on 19 and 20 August 1938; Hajnt 194 (19 August 1938), p. 3. Its was only inaugurated on 5 August (20 Av) 1939 ( Hajnt 1939a, p. 4; 1939b). Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 21

The plans were approved by the construction authorities on 7 August 1929.18 However, not only did this synagogue not get built for another ten years, until 1938–1939, but it was, as has already been mentioned above, constructed in a completely different district at 33 Viktorijas Street in Majori (Figures 12 and 13).19 On this site stood an old summer house that the local minyan had been renting at an exorbitant price since 1924 or 1925. Eventually, they decided to make an offer for the plot, in orderArts 2019 “not, 8, 99 to be subject to chance and to be insured against (unpleasant) surprises” (Hajnt 193911 ofa 21). The purchase of the plot and the construction of the synagogue were carried out by a building committee headed by the Chabad Rabbi Naftali Herz Sosnovik (1875–?) and three leading members ofcommittee the congregation headed by, Yosef the Chabad Katz, Sh. Rabbi Dawidowicz, Naftali Herz and Sosnovik D. Himmelhoch, (1875–?) with and threefinancial leading backing members from affofluent the congregation, Riga merchants Yosef including Katz, Sh. David Dawidowicz, Bychowski. and20 The D. Himmelhoch, synagogue was with inaugurated financial backing on 5 August from 20 (20affl uentAv) 1939; Riga merchantsa telegram includingmarking the David opening Bychowski. of the veryThe first synagogue synagogue was in inauguratedMajori was sent on 5to August Kārlis Ulmanis(20 Av) 1939; (1877 a– telegram1942), an marking authoritarian the opening “leader of of the the very people first synagogue,” who suspended in Majori the was constitution sent to Karlis¯ in 1934Ulmanis and (1877–1942),occupied the an posts authoritarian of both President “leader of and the Prime people,” minister who suspendedof Latvia since the constitution 1936 (Hajntin 1939a, 1934 p.and 4; occupied1939b). The the postswhole of enterprise both President was a and gamble Prime be ministercause the of site Latvia had since been 1936 bought ( Hajnt before1939a all, p. the 4; 1939bmoney). had The wholebeen raised enterprise, and was therefore a gamble when because the synagogue the site had was been opened, bought the before congregation all the money was had in debtbeen (ibid.) raised,. and therefore when the synagogue was opened, the congregation was in debt (ibid.).

FigureFigure 12. 12. MajoriMajori Synagogue, Synagogue, Jūrmala, Jurmala,¯ 1929 1929–1939.–1939. View View from the southwest. Photo byby thethe author,author, 2009. 2009.

Figure 13. Majori Synagogue, view from the west (HajntHajnt 19391939aa))..

As built, the Majori Synagogue was a compromise, that is to say, part brick and part wood 18 LNA LVVA, 140-6343-14-202-6l. (Figures 12 and 14). The front (west) of the building was constructed of brick, as was the east wall of the 19 Services in the Majori Synagogue were reported already on 19 and 20 August 1938; Hajnt 194 (19 August prayer hall, but the whole building was plastered to make it look similar to ashlar stone.21 The hipped 1938), p. 3. Its was only inaugurated on 5 August (20 Av) 1939 (Hajnt 1939a, p. 4; 1939b). 20roofs On weretheir identities very low,, see barely (Yiddish visiblee bilder from 1938). the forecourt. The most striking addition was the main entrance placed in the center of the front bay within a large projecting porch. The double-leaved doors were set within an archway, several orders deep, devoid of columns or pilasters. The doorway was

20 On their identities, see ( Yiddishe bilder 1938). 21 This was proved by an investigation undertaken by Zoya Arshavsky and the author of the present article in 2010. Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21

As built, the Majori Synagogue was a compromise, that is to say, part brick and part wood (Figures 12 and 14). The front (west) of the building was constructed of brick, as was the east wall of the prayer hall, but the whole building was plastered to make it look similar to ashlar stone.21 The hipped roofs were very low, barely visible from the forecourt. The most striking addition was the main entrance placed in the center of the front bay within a large projecting porch. The Arts 2019, 8, 99 12 of 21 double-leaved doors were set within an archway, several orders deep, devoid of columns or pilasters. The doorway was probably designed to be flanked with two columns, but the latter have neverprobably been designed installed. to be The flanked porch with serv twoed thecolumns, men’s but entrance the latter and have the never low women’sbeen installed. gallery, The which porch wouldserved bar the men’spassage entrance to the prayer and the hall, low was women’s not constructed. gallery, which The would porch bar was passage flanked to by the rectangular prayer hall, windowswas not constructed. giving light Theto the porch two wasfloors flanked of the bymain rectangular mass. The windows upper-floor giving women’s light to gallery the two was floors built of fromthe main the outset. mass. The The upper-floor gallery was women’s facing the gallery prayer was hall, built which from received the outset. a cupola The gallery in the was center facing of the the covedprayer ceiling. hall, which The cupola received reached a cupola a height in the of center 7.40 m of from the coved the floor ceiling. level Thebut was cupola not reached visible from a height the outside.of 7.40 m The from corner the floor pavilions level but contained was not visible staircases, from thehad outside.symmetrical The corner western pavilions doorways contained, and additionalstaircases, hadShield symmetrical of David roundels western doorways, in the upper and portions additional of Shieldtheir front of David walls, roundels and every in the opening upper wasportions framed of theirby moldings. front walls, and every opening was framed by moldings.

FigureFigure 14. MajoriMajori Synagogue, Synagogue, ground ground plan. plan. Drawing Drawing by by Zoya Zoya Arshavsky, Arshavsky, 2010. 2010. CJA. CJA. Used Used by permissioby permission.n.

No doubt, the design concept drew on several visual sources. The Mediterranean appearance of 21the This Majori was Synagogueproved by an stood investigation out from undertaken the Latvian by Zoya vernacular Arshavsky and and its the aberrations author of the in present local Romantic article in Nationalist2010. architecture of the early part of the twentieth century. The overall layout and massing, including the broad front and corner pavilions, visually quoted from the Mishnaic description of the Herodian Temple, “As a lion is narrow behind and wide in front, so the sanctuary was narrow behind and wide in front” (Middot 4:7). From the seventeenth century onwards, Rabbi Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller (ca. 1579–1654), and other rabbinic commentators, ascribed these elements not only to the Mishnaic but also to the future, messianic Temple (Heller 1602; Kravtsov 2018, pp. 119–38). Arts 2019, 8, 99 13 of 21

The recently excavated ancient synagogues in the Galilee were built of ashlar stone and featured similar architectural elements including a projecting porch and a centrally-placed arched doorway flanked by squarish doors (see Figures2 and5, Figures6 and7). On the other hand, the style of the Majori Synagogue complimented the latest wave of neoclassicism, the so-called stripped classicism. Unlike the Beaux-Arts architecture, the stripped classicism evoked classical architecture rather than strictly copying it. This style was popular in several countries during the interwar period as a means to embrace modernity without displacing the history and tradition. Because of its blossom under the totalitarian regimes of Fascist Italy, National Socialist Germany, and Stalinist Soviet Union, stripped classicism received its bad name (Fleming et al. 1999, p. 118). However, it was used also in such democratic countries as the New Deal America, Canada, and Australia, and each regime employed it to achieve different political goals (Bryant 2011, pp. 59–61). Similar to the architecture of other authoritarian states, it heralded mightiness of statehood in the governmental architecture of interwar Latvia (Caupaleˇ 2017). Mandelstam, beside his adherence to the Latvian mainstream, was using stripped classicism in his synagogue design to bridge the Jewish historical past and modernity (cf. Bryant 2011, pp. 38, 61). The synagogue was close in style to other buildings of around 1930 by Mandelstamm, which also featured squarish windows and low-slope roofs.22 Mandelstamm may have also been responding in his way, as a Jewish architect, to the contemporary German Heimatschutz ideology, which in a depreciative manner characterized houses with flat roofs as “dachlos” (that is, “without roof”) and “Semitic” (Pommer 1983). At the same time, the Jewish architect and theoretician Józef Awin (1883–1942) promoted such roofs in the periodical Binyan ve-h. aroshet (Building and Industry, published by the Society of Engineers and Architects in the Land of Israel between 1924 and 1934), as indigenous to the Land of Israel and therefore entirely appropriate for its modern architecture (Awin 1927). A synagogue in the Bulduri district of Jurmala¯ was also built in 1937–1938, on the plot at 20 Talsu (now 8 Saldus) Street that had been purchased by Mordechai Lezhik’s congregation in 1928. 23 The architect was a Latvian, B. Kl,avin, š, but the contractor, Abram Ragol (1880–1942), was Jewish 24 ( Segodnia 1937). There have been no other buildings by B. Kl,avin, š that have come to light with which to compare the Bulduri Synagogue. The building committee was chaired by Shmuel Hirschfeld (ca. 1875–1941), who was elected in late 1936 or early 1937. Leading members of the congregation, Meir Ritov and Zalman Chackielewicz, donated the site. The old premises, which had been built in 1906, were partially dismantled by 24 January 1937, the date of the laying of the foundation stone for the new synagogue ( Hajnt 1937; Segodnia 1937). Complete demolition was delayed, in accordance with halah. ah (Jewish law) (bMegillah 26b), until the new synagogue was opened ( Hajnt 1938a; Segodnia 1937). Construction took a year and a half, and the synagogue was dedicated on 14 August (17 Av) 1938. The architect was not present at the ceremony, but builder Ragol, his team, and volunteers were praised for having worked throughout the winter cold ( Hajnt 1938b, 1938c; Meler 2015, pp. 260–65, 268–70). The chef rabbi of Riga, Menachem Mendel Zak (1873–1941) emphasized that in the time when the world produces cannons and other instruments of destruction, the Jewish weapon will be the synagogue ( Hajnt 1938c). Speeches were made celebrating the fact that a Jewish place of worship could freely be built in independent Latvia, unlike in the former Tsarist empire. Telegrams expressing gratitude and loyalty were sent to Karlis¯ Ulmanis, “the leader of the people” ( Segodnia 1937; Hajnt 1938c). An architect’s perspective sketch had been published in the Russian language newspaper Segodnia vecherom (Today evening) (Figure 15)( Segodnia vecherom 1937). Only two photographs depict the appearance of the synagogue as built (Figures 16 and 17). Evidently, it deviated in several details

22 See, for instance, the villa at 40 Meža Boulevard in Riga, built by Mandelstamm in 1930. 23 The Riga telephone directory listed Bernards Kl,avin, š without mentioning his profession (Pasta un telegrafa departaments 1940, p. 308). 24 See Yad Vashem witness testimony no. 68217 for biographical data on Abram Ragol. He was deported by the Soviets and died in Krasnoyarsk Krai, Siberia, in 1942. Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21 time when the world produces cannons and other instruments of destruction, the Jewish weapon will be the synagogue (Hajnt 1938c). Speeches were made celebrating the fact that a Jewish place of worship could freely be built in independent Latvia, unlike in the former Tsarist empire. Telegrams expressing gratitude and loyalty were sent to Kārlis Ulmanis, “the leader of the people” (Segodnia 1937a; Hajnt 1938c). Arts 2019An, 8 architect’s, 99 perspective sketch had been published in the Russian language newspaper14 of 21 Segodnia vecherom (Today evening) (Figure 15) (Segodnia vecherom 1937). Only two photographs depict the appearance of the synagogue as built (Figures 16 and 17). Evidently, it deviated in several from the initial design. While the general style was preserved, the cupola was omitted,25 the western details from the initial design. While the general style was preserved, the cupola was omitted,25 the front was remodeled, and the fenestration received another treatment. Essentially, this was a fairly western front was remodeled, and the fenestration received another treatment. Essentially, this was modest, stripped classicist building, constructed of timber, plastered and painted gray to imitate stone; a fairly modest, stripped classicist building, constructed of timber, plastered and painted gray to the front porch was “rusticated.”26 As built, the porch extended across the whole of the west front imitate stone; the front porch was “rusticated.”26 As built, the porch extended across the whole of the under a gently-sloping pitched roof. Beneath the corniced pediment that contained a small Shield west front under a gently-sloping pitched roof. Beneath the corniced pediment that contained a smallof David Shield roundel of David was roundel a round-headed was a round central-headed doorway. central Its doorway. arch had Its “voussoirs,” arch had “voussoirs,” and a “keystone,” and a and the door was flanked by round columns which was reminiscent of Romanesque style. On either “keystone,” and the door was flanked by round columns which was reminiscent of Romanesque style.side of On the either arch, was side a of pair the of arch, ancillary was a doorways pair of ancillary with flat, doorways hooded lintels. with flat, The hooded vestibule lintels. was lit The by vestibulerectangular was three-light, lit by rectangular mullioned three windows,-light, mullioned but the prayer windows, hall hadbut the a series prayer of fourhall had round-headed a series of windowsfour round on-headed the side windows walls, aon departure the side walls, from a the departure rectangular from openingsthe rectangular envisaged openings in the envisaged original indesign the (cf. original Figures design 15 and (cf. 16 Figures). An interior 15 and view 16). shows An interior that the viewark wall shows was punctuatedthat the ark by wall a pair was of punctuatedlarge round-headed by a pair windows, of large lettinground- inheaded lots of windows, light (Figure letting 17). By in alots comparison of light (Figure of the architect’s 17). By a comparisondrawing with of thethe photographsarchitect’s drawing of the synagogue with the photographs as built, it is of evident the synagogue that the design as built, evolved it is evident closer thatto the the “Mediterranean” design evolved closer influences to the that “Mediterranean” we have noted influences at Majori. that With we respect have noted to its at massing, Majori. style,With respectthe composition to its massing, of the style, west the front, composition and modest of the detailing, west front, Bulduri and wasmodest influenced detailing, by Bulduri the ancient was influencedsynagogues by of the Galilee ancient (cf. synagogues Figure 16 with of the Figures Galilee5,6 (cf.and Figure8). In addition, 16 with the Figures two columns 5, 6 and of 8) the. In addition,doorway couldthe two be columns interpreted of the as representing doorway could the biblicalbe interpreted bronze pillarsas representi Jachinng and the Boaz biblical that flankedbronze pillarsthe entrance Jachin toand Solomon’s Boaz that Templeflanked (1the Kings entrance 7:14–22; to Solomon’s 2 Chronicles Temple 3:17), (1 Kings which, 7:14 according–22; 2 Chron to Rabbiicles Yom-Tov3:17), which, Lipmann according Heller’s to Rabbi prediction, Yom- wouldTov Lipmann reappear Heller’s in the Temple prediction, rebuilt would during reappear the messianic in the Templetimes (Heller rebuilt 1602 during, paragraph the messianic 48; Kravtsov times (2018Heller, p. 1602 133)., paragraph 48; Kravtsov 2018b, p. 133).

FigureFigure 15. Design 15. Design for a for synagogue a synagogue in Bulduri, in Bulduri, perspective perspective view view by byB. B.Kļaviņš, Kl,avin, š1937( Segodnia (Segodnia vecherom vecherom1937 1937).).

25 The informationinformation on on the the cupola, cupola, which which was omitted was omitted on request on of request a Riga rabbi, of a wasRiga published rabbi, was by the published late Meyer byMeler the(2015 late, p.Meyer 264). Meler Meler did(2015, not p. mention 264). Meler any source did not of this mention information. any source It is possible of this that information. some roof superstructureIt is possible inthat seen some in a low-resolution photograph of the synagogue (Figure 16). 26 roof superstructure in seen in a low-resolution photograph of the synagogue (Figure 16). 26 The “rustication” is visible in the photograph (Figure 16) and was mentioned in the newspaper report ( Hajnt 1938d). WeThe deduce “rustication” the fact that is visible the Bulduri in the Synagogue photograph was made(Figure of wood16) and from was the mentioned fact that it was in burnedthe newspaper down during report the Second(Hajnt World1938d) War,. We on deduce 21 July the 1941 fact (Addison that the 1986 Bulduri, pp. 46–47; Synagogue Meler 2015 was, pp. made 265–68). of wood from the fact that it was burned down during the Second World War, on 21 July 1941 (Addison 1986, pp. 46–47; Meler 2015, pp. 265–68).

Arts 2019, 8, 99 15 of 21 Arts 2019, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21

Figure 16. 16. Bulduri Synagogue, Saldus Street, architect B. K Kļaviņš,l, avin, š, 1938. 1938. © AssociationAssociation “ “Shamir”.Shamir”. Used by permission.

Figure 17. InaugurationInauguration of of the the Bulduri Bulduri Synagogue, Synagogue, 14 14 August August (Av (Av 17) 17) 1938. 1938. YiddisheYiddishe bilder bilder 46 (1846 November(18 November 1938). 1938).

The Hasidic Kloyz in Bauska Bauska, known known in in Yiddish Yiddish as as Bausk Bausk or or Boysk, Boysk, is isa town a town in inthe the Zemgale Zemgale region region of Latvi of Latvia,a, 66 kilometers66 kilometers south south of of Riga. Riga. In In1867, 1867, 1620 1620 Jews Jews lived lived in in the the town, town, comprising comprising 39 39 percent percent of of the population. A A Hasidic Hasidic congregation congregation was was first first recorded recorded in inBauska Bauska in 1856 in 1856 (Levin (Levin 1988, 1988 p. ,65) p.. The 65). existingThe existing building building was waslocated located at 2 Azsargu at 2 Azsargu Street Street (today (today 2 Kalna 2 Kalna Street), Street), next next to the to bridge the bridge across across the Mēmelethe Memele¯ River. River. The “ Thekloyz “kloyz”” occupied occupied the site the of site a former of a former synagogue synagogue that was that destroyed was destroyed in the inflood the offlood 1928 of (Bogdanova 1928 (Bogdanova 2004, pp.2004 30, pp.–31; 30–31; Levin Levin1988, p.1988 67),. p. 67). The brick brick kloyz kloyz was was designed designed in 1931 in 1931 by a “construction by a “construction technician” technician” from Bauska, from whose Bauska, signature whose 27 signatureis illegible, is andillegible, his plans and his were plans approved were approved by the authoritiesby the authorities on 8 August on 8 August that year that (Figure year (Figure 18). According18).27 According to the to design, the design, the kloyz the hadkloyz to had be a to single-story be a single building-story building with a lofty with attic a lofty space. attic It space. featured It featureda rectangular a rectangular ground plan, ground supplied plan, withsupplied two lateralwith two projections lateral projections on its eastern on its front eastern facing front the town’sfacing themain town’s Kalna main Street. Kalna The Street. main entrance The main was entrance planned was at theplanned center at of the the center east front, of the and east it front, was flanked and it wasby rectangular flanked by and rectangular round-headed and round windows.-headed This windows. layout was This hardly layout suitable was hardly for the suitable Jewish place for the of Jewishprayer; place the entrance of prayer occupied; the entrance that very occupied place, wherethat very the place, Torah where ark would the Torah havebeen ark would located have to ensure been locatedthe proper to ensure direction the ofproper prayer. direction Moreover, of prayer. the plans Moreover, envisaged the lavatories plans envisaged and upper lavatories floor apartments, and upper floorelements apartments, barely thinkable elements inbarely a Hasidic thinkable synagogue in a Hasidic as inconsistent synagogue with as inconsistent demands of with its ritualdemands purity. of its ritual purity. The kloyz had to be covered with a steep cross-gable roof of variously shaped gables on its different elevations, all reminiscent of a dwelling house, rather than a synagogue. 27 LNA LVVA, 140-6343-16-62-5.

27 LNA LVVA, 140-6343-16-62-5.

Arts 2019, 8, 99 16 of 21

The kloyz had to be covered with a steep cross-gable roof of variously shaped gables on its different

Artselevations, 2019, 8, x allFOR reminiscent PEER REVIEW of a dwelling house, rather than a synagogue. 16 of 21

Figure 18. Design for the Hasidic Kloyz Kloyz in in Bauska Bauska by an unknown architect, architect, 1931. 1931. LNA LNA LVVA. LVVA. Used by permission.

The designdesign ofof 1931 1931 was was implemented implemented by by 1938 1938 with with noticeable noticeable alterations alterations (Figure (Figure 19) and 19) the and author the authorof the final of the rendition final rendition is unknown. is unknown. A photograph A photograp of that periodh of shows that period the central shows eastern the central gable lowered eastern gableand simplified lowered and as compared simplified with as compared the design; with other the gablesdesign; have other been gables dropped, have been and dropped, the roof adopted and the roofa low adopted hipped a shape low hipped inappropriate shape inappropriate for an inhabited for attican inhabited space. Probably, attic space. the easternProbably, doorway the eastern was doorwayblocked in was order block toed place in order the Torah to place ark the there. Torah The ark east there façade. The was east decorated façade was with decorated a flat plaster with friezea flat plasterincluding frieze a circular including pattern a circular and a round-headed pattern and a shouldered round-headed framing shouldered of the central framing door. of The the centraloverall door.style ofThe the overall kloyz style became of the stripped kloyz became classicist. stripped Its design classicist. features Its design were features reminiscent were of reminiscent the Galilean of thesynagogues, Galilean of synagogues, the central arched of the portals central flanked arched by rectangular portals flanked doors (as by in rectangular synagogues in doors Kfar Baram, (as in synagoguesed-Dikke, and in Capernaum Kfar Baram, in Figure ed-Dikke,2, Figure and6, andCapernaum Figure8, respectively)in Figures 2 (Cohn-Wiener, 6, and 8, respectively1929, p. 81; ) (CohnKohl and-Wie Watzingerner 1929, p.1916 81;, Kohl p. 84), and of Watzinger their series 19 of16 wreaths, p. 84), (asof their in Chorazin, series of Figurewreaths 20 ()(asCohn-Wiener in Chorazin, 1929Figure, p. 20 92),) (Cohn the- centralWiener wreath1929, p. within92), the the cent archedral wreath hood within above the the arched doorway hood (as above in Nabratein the doorway and (Philadelphia,as in Nabratein though and withoutPhiladelphia, a menorah), though as without well as lintelsa menorah), overrunning as well the as doorposts lintels overrunning and producing the doorpso-calledosts crossettes and producing (as in largeso-called and crossettes small synagogues (as in large in and Baram, small and synagogues one in Meron). in Baram28 In, theand Bauska one in Meron).rendition,28 theseIn the forms Bauska were rendition, greatly simplified these forms and flattened, were greatly but still simplified recognizable. and The flattened, side projections but still recognizable.of the façade probablyThe side alludedprojections to the of Mishnaicthe façade Temple, probably as didalluded the pavilions to the Mishnaic on the westernTemple, front as did of the pavilionsMajori Synagogue. on the western Sadly, front the flatof the plaster Majori decorative Synagogue. elements Sadly, of the the flat kloyz, plaster which decorative are depicted elements in the of theprewar kloyz photograph,, which are diddepicted not survive in the prewar (Figure photograph,21). did not survive (Figure 21).

28 For definition of crossettes, see (Ware 1904, p. 17). For the portal of the small synagogue in Kfar Baram, see (Cohn-Wiener 1929, p. 85).

28 For definition of crossettes, see (Ware 1904, p. 17). For the portal of the small synagogue in Kfar Baram, see (Cohn-Wiener 1929, p. 85).

Arts 2019, 8, 99 17 of 21 Arts 2019,, 8,, xx FORFOR PEERPEER REVIEWREVIEW 17 of 21

FigureFigure 19.19. The Hasidic Kloyz inin Bauska,Bauska, ca.ca. 1938. Museum “Jews in Latvia”. Used Used by by permission. permission.

FigureFigure 20. 20. FriezeFrieze from from the the synagogue synagogue in in Chorazin. Reproduced Reproduced from Ernst Cohn-WienerCohn-Wiener( 1929(1929,, p. p. 88). 88)..

FigureFigure 21. 21. TheThe former former Hasidic Hasidic Kloyz Kloyz in Bauska, in Bauska, view from view the from southeast. the southeast. Photo by Photo the auth byor, the 2007. author, CJA. 2007. CJA. 5. Conclusions The forms and style of ancient Galilean synagogues were employed in the design of the Memorial Synagogue in Philadelphia for the first, but not for the last time. Due to the authoritative

Arts 2019, 8, 99 18 of 21

5. Conclusions The forms and style of ancient Galilean synagogues were employed in the design of the Memorial Synagogue in Philadelphia for the first, but not for the last time. Due to the authoritative and richly illustrated German publications, the Galilean synagogues and their theoretical reconstructions became known to the architects and Jewish communities in Latvia, where their use in actual synagogue architecture surfaced only towards the late 1930s. The discussed examples of this phenomenon were the synagogues of Majori and Bulduri at the Riga seaside, built for the traditional congregations, and, in the case of Bauska, for Hasidim. These synagogues belonged to the Orthodox communities, rather than Reform congregations, who opted for the classicist style in the USA in the early twentieth century. The authors of these Latvian synagogues were the renowned Jewish architect Paul Mandelstamm, little known Latvian architect B. Kl,avin, š, the Jewish contractor Abram Ragol, and unknown technician or architect in Bauska. Similar to the Memorial Synagogue, the discussed Latvian edifices bore assorted meanings. They combined architectural quotations from the Mishnaic Temple, which were charged with eschatological meanings, and shapes of the Galilean synagogues imbued with modern cultural significations. The eschatological connotations were reinforced by the traditional dates of the synagogues’ inauguration following the Ninth of Av, the day when the destructions of the Temple are mourned. The usage of the style and shapes of the Galilean synagogues was meant to reinstate the historical bond of the Latvian Jews with the Land of Israel (the believably never-broken cultural thread traceable to the antiquity), and in the case of Mandelstamm served to identify him as a Jewish architect. Latvian synagogues were designed in the then-popular stripped classicism, a style that bridged the historical past and modernity, and thus they unobtrusively mentioned the Mediterranean cradle of the Jewish people as well as its pertinence to the modern world. This style ensured that the new synagogues fitted in with mainstream Latvian architecture. It expressed the mightiness of Latvian statehood and the congregations’ identification with the nationalism of modern independent Latvia.

Funding: This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant No. 1509/17). Acknowledgments: I wish to express my profound gratitude to Ilia Lensky and the late Meyer Meler (1929–2015) of the Museum “Jews in Latvia” for information shared with me and used in this article. The outlines of this article were first presented at the Eleventh Congress of the European Association for Jewish Studies, at The Jagiellonian University in Cracow on July 18, 2018. I am grateful to Sharman Kadish for her indispensable help in editing this text. Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

Addison, Lucy. 1986. Letters from Latvia. London: Macdonald. Adler, Cyrus. 1905. Brunner, Arnold William. In Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, vol. 3. Adler, Cyrus, and Abraham Simon Folf Rosenbach. 1905. Philadelphia. In Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, vol. 9. Anonymous. 1900. Palästina Album: Ansichten vom Heiligen lande, aus jüdischer Geschichte und jüdischen Leben, sowie Bilder mehrer berühmten Männer in Israel mit berschriebenden Text. Warsaw: Jakub Lidski. Awin, Józef. 1927. Al omanut ha-beniyah ba-eretz-Israel (On the Art of Building in the Land of Israel). Binyan ve-h. aroshet 3–4: 12. Bacher, Wilhelm, and Lewis N. Dembitz. 1905. Synagogue. In Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, vol. 11. BBLD (Baltisches Biografisches Lexikon Digital). n.d. Seuberlich, Karl Rudolf Hermann* (1878–). Available online: https:/bbld.de/Seuberlich-Karl-Rudolf-Hermann-1878-1938 (accessed on 21 November 2018). Bernfeld, Simon. 1913. Synagogue. In Evreiskaia entsikopedia. St. Petersburg: Brockhaus and Efron, vol. 14. (In Russian) Bogdanova, Rita. 2004. Latvia: Synagogues and Rabbis, 1918–1940. Riga: Shamir. Brunner, Arnold W. 1907a. Synagogue Architecture, I. The Brickbuilder 16: 20–25. Arts 2019, 8, 99 19 of 21

Brunner, Arnold W. 1907b. Synagogue Architecture (concluded). The Brickbuilder 16: 37–44, plates 33–38. Bryant, Brittany Paige. 2011. Reassessing Stripped Classicism within the Narrative of International Modernism in the 1920s–1930s. Master’s thesis, Savannah College of Art and Design, Savannah, GA, USA. Available online: http://ecollections.scad.edu:d1000695 (accessed on 27 July 2018). Butler, Howard C. 1907. Ancient Architecture of Syria. Leiden: Brill. Canina, Luigi. 1845. Ricerche sul genere di architettura proprio degli antichi giudei ed in particolare sul tempio di Gerusalemme. Rome: Canina. Caupale,ˇ Renate.¯ 2017. Parallels and Analogies in Interwar Architecture in Latvia and Czechoslovakia. Scientific Journal of Latvia University of Agriculture: Landscape Architecture and Art 10: 31. [CrossRef] Chipiez, Charles, and Georges Perrot. 1887. Histoire de l’art dans l’Antiquité, Égypte, Assyrie, Perse, Asie mineure, Grèce, Etrurie, Rome, vol. 4, Judée, Sardaigne, Syrie, Cappadoce. Paris: Hachette. Chipiez, Charles, and Georges Perrot. 1889. Le Temple de Jérusalem. Paris: Hachette. Cohn-Wiener, Ernst. 1929. Die jüdische Kunst: ihre Geschichte von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Berlin: Kunst Kammer. Conder, Claude R., and Horatio H. Kitchener. 1881. The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoir of the Topography, Hydrography, and Archaeology. London: Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, vol. 1. De Vogüé, Melchior. 1864a. Le Temple de Jérusalem, monographie du Haram-ech-Chérif, suivie d’un Essai sur la topographie de la Villesainte. Paris: Noblet & Baudry. De Vogüé, Melchior. 1864b. Ruines d’Araq-el-Émir. In Revue Archéologique. New Series; Paris: Librairie académique—Didier, vol. 10. Fine, Steven. 2002. Arnold Brunner’s Henry S. Frank Memorial Synagogue and the Emergence of ‘Jewish Art’ in Early Twentieth-Century America. American Jewish Archives Journal 54: 47–70. Fine, Steven. 2005. Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 12–21. Fleming, John, Hugh Honors, and Nikolaus Pevsner. 1999. The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, 5th ed. London: Penguin Books. Förster, Ludwig. 1859. Das israelitische Bethaus in der Wiener Vorstadt Leopoldstadt. Allgemeine Bauzeitung 24: 14–16, plates 230–5. Grosa, Sylvija. 2012. Rethinking National Romanticism in the Architecture of Riga at the Turn of the Twentieth Century. Kunstiteaduslikke Uurimusi 21: 56–75. Gruber, Samuel D. 2003. American Synagogues: A Century of Synagogues and Jewish Community. New York: Rizzoli. Gruber, Samuel D. 2011. Arnold W. Brunner and the New Classical Synagogue in America. Jewish History 25: 69–102. [CrossRef] Hajnt. 1937. Di impozante grundshtain-leigung fun nayem minyan in Bulduri (Imposing ceremony of laying the foundation stone of the new synagogue in Bulduri. Hajnt, January 25, 2. (In Yiddish) Hajnt. 1938a. Vi azoi yidn hobn ofgeboit a prakhtikn mokom kodesh in an ort, vo zain hobn prier kain drisas ha-regel nit gehat (How the Jews have built a beautiful sacred place in the site, where they previously could not step). Hajnt, August 11, 4. (In Yiddish) Hajnt. 1938b. Haynt groise khanukes-habayis-fayerung fun nayem buldurer minyan (Today: A great inauguration of the new synagogue in Bulduri). Hajnt, August 14, 2. (In Yiddish) Hajnt. 1938c. Der kol ya’akov darf vern tsurik unzer klei-zayn (The voice of Jacob to become again our weapon). Hajnt, August 16, 2. (In Yiddish) Hajnt. 1938d. Zontik—khanukas habayis fun nayem buldurer minyan (Sunday: Inauguration of the new synagogue in Bulduri). Hajnt, September 8, 4. (In Yiddish) Hajnt. 1939a. Di yidn in Mayori veln hayntikn zuntog zikh masameyekh zayn afn khanukes ha-bayis fun der ney-oysgeboyter shul (The Jews in Majori celebrate this Sunday the inauguration of their new-built synagogue). Hajnt, August 4, 4. (In Yiddish) Hajnt. 1939b. Khanukes ha-bayis fon nayem minyan in Mayori. Hajnt, August 7. (In Yiddish) Heller, Rabbi Yom-Tov Lipmann. 1602. Tsurat Beit ha-Mikdash (Shape of the Temple). Prague, unpaginated. (In Hebrew) Hirt, Aloys. 1809. Der Tempel Salomon’s. Berlin: Johann Friedrich Weiss. JewishGen. n.d. Available online: https://www.jewishgen.org/databases/jgdetail_2.php (accessed on 15 December 2018). Arts 2019, 8, 99 20 of 21

Kadish, Sharman. 2011. The Synagogues of Britain and Ireland: The Architectural and Social History. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kohl, Heinrich, and Karl Watzinger. 1916. Antike Synagogen in Galilaea. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. Kotlyar, Eugeny. 2015. Riga–Sankt-Peterburg–Khar’kov: Istoki i vzaimosviazi ‘evreiskoi arkhitektury’ Yakova Gevirtsa (Riga–Sankt-Peterburg–Kharkov: Sources and i’nterconnections of Yakov Gevirts’s ‘Jewish architecture’). In Evrei v meniaiushchemsia mire: Materialy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii (Jews in a Changing World: Materials of an International Conference). Edited by Herman Branover and Ruvin Ferber. Riga: Shamir, vol. 8. (In Russian) Krautheimer, Richard. 1927. Mittelalteriche Synagogen. Berlin: Frankfurter Verlag-Anstalt. Kravtsov, Sergey R. 2005. Juan Bautista Villalpando and Sacred Architecture in the Seventeenth Century. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 3: 312–39. [CrossRef] Kravtsov, Sergey R. 2008. Reconstruction of the Temple by Charles Chipiez and Its Applications in Architecture. Ars Judaica: The Bar-Ilan Journal of Jewish Art 4: 25–42. Kravtsov, Sergey R. 2018. Architecture of ‘New Synagogues’ in East-Central Europe. In In The Shade of Empires: Synagogue Architecture in East Central Europe. Weimar: Grünberg Verlag. Kravtsov, Sergey R. 2018. Wooden Synagogues of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: Between Polish and Jewish Narratives. In In The Shade of Empires: Synagogue Architecture in East Central Europe. Weimar: Grünberg Verlag. Krinsky, Carol H. 1985. Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Levin, Dov, ed. 1988. Pinkas ha-kehilot: Latviyah ve-estoniyah (Encyclopedia of Jewish Communities: Latvia and Estonia). Jerusalem: Yad Vashem. (In Hebrew) Mandelstamm, Paul. 1903. Kultusbauten der Ebräer. In Riga und seine Bauten. Edited by Rigaschen Technischen Verein and Rigaschen Architekten-Verein. Riga: Rigaschen Technischen Verein und Rigaschen Architekten-Verein, pp. 188–90. Meler, Meir. 2015. Buldurskaia sinagoga: Istoriia ee vozvedeniia i unichtozheniia. (Bulduri Synagogue: A history of its construction and destruction). In Evrei v meniaiushchemsia mire: Materialy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii (Jews in a Changing World: Materials of an International Conference). Edited by Herman Branover and Ruvin Ferber. Riga: Shamir, vol. 8. Pasta un telegrafa departaments. 1940. Latvijas 1940. g. telefona abonentu Saraksts. Riga: Pasta un telegrafa departaments. Pommer, Richard. 1983. The Flat Roof: A Modernist Controversy in Germany. Art Journal 43: 158–69. [CrossRef] Renan, Ernest. 1864. Mission de Phénicie. Paris: Imprimere Impériale, vol. 1. Robinson, Edward, and Eli Smith. 1841. Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai, and Arabia Petræa. Boston: Crocker and Brewster. Robinson, Edward, and Eli Smith. 1856. Biblical Researches in Palestine and Adjacent Countries: A Journal of Travels in the Year 1852, 2nd ed. Boston and London: John Murray. Rogoff, Harry. 1908. America. In Evreiskaia entsikopedia. St. Petersburg: Brockhaus and Efron, vol. 2. (In Russian) Segodnia. 1937. Torzhestvo zakladki novoi sinagogi (Solemn laying the foundation stone of the new synagogue). Segodnia, January 26, 4. (In Russian) Segodnia. 1938. Na vzmor’e zaregistrirovano bolee 37,000 dachnikov (More than 37,000 holidaymakers recorded at the seaside). Segodnia, August 9, 5. (In Russian) Segodnia vecherom. 1937. Proekt zdaniia sinagogi, zakladka kotorogo sostoialas’ vchera v Bulduri (The synagogue building project: The foundation-stone laying ceremony that took place yesterday in Bulduri). Segodnia vecherom, January 25, 6. (In Russian) Soo, Lydia M. 1998. Wren’s “Tracts” on Architecture and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stieglitz, Christian L. 1834. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Ausbildung der Baukunst. Leipzig: Gustav Scharschmidt, vol. 1. Villalpandus, Ioannes Baptista, and Hieronymus Pradus. 1604. Ezechielem explanationes et apparatus urbis ac templi Hierosolimitani: Commentarii et emaginibus illustratus opus, vol. 2, Rome. Vitto, Fanny. 1997. Synagogues in Cupboards. Eretz Magazine 52: 36–42. Ware, William R. 1904. The American Vignola, 5th ed. Scranton: International Textbook Company, vol. 2. Arts 2019, 8, 99 21 of 21

Wörster, Peter. 2008. Der Vater der baltischen Kunstgeschichte: Wilhelm Neumann–Architekt, Kunsthistoriker und Denkmalpfleger. Jahrbuch des baltischen Deutschtums 55: 83–100. Yiddishe bilder. 1938. Di bilder zaynen grupirt loitn alef-bet (Aphabetically arranged portraits). Yiddishe bilder, November 18, unpaged. (In Yiddish)

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).