The Portrayal of Jews in Nineteenth-Century English Literature
The Portrayal of Jews in Nineteenth-Century English Literature
In nineteenth-century English literature, the most common portrayal of a Jew was a negative racial stereotype. In society, and thus in literature, Jews were often seen in terms of their "otherness"—their difference in appearance, social standing, religion and morality with respect to their non-Jewish counterparts. This is especially true of the fiction of the early nineteenth-century when the ghost of Shakespeare's greedy, evil Shylock still haunted English literature. However, even when Jews gained political equality in England with the passage of numerous reforms and a rise in realism in fiction caused novelists writing in the mid-1800s to look increasingly to real life rather than to established stereotypes as inspiration for their writing, Jews were (aside from a few more balanced portrayals) still depicted in extreme terms: as completely evil or as impossibly virtuous; as people seeking complete assimilation into English culture or as adamantly separatist; as wealthy politicians and international financiers or as lowly impoverished immigrants. And as interpretations of Jewish life and views regarding the appropriate role of the Jew in English society were set into fiction by both Jewish and non-Jewish novelists, an increasingly racial debate was also waged, both in and out of the realm of fiction, regarding the contributions of Hebraism to English culture.
Certain non-Jewish novelists are discussed below for their contribution to these trends in the portrayal of Jews in nineteenth-century English literature. Sir Walter Scott produced the first novel-length treatment of Jewish characters in Ivanhoe (1819). As Harold Fisch (1971) notes, Scott (who depicted the Jew in medieval society) defended the Jews by attacking some of the nineteenth-century prejudices against Jews and by attributing negative aspects of "Jewish character" to Christian oppression. But Scott also devoted much attention to the negative qualities of the Jew, Isaac of York, and made Isaac's daughter, Rebecca, the heroine of the story, represented as the height of beauty. Other non-Jewish writers treated Jews in similarly extreme terms. Some novelists, such as Amelia Bristow in Sophia de Lissau (1828), used their work as a platform to advocate the conversion of Jews to Christianity. But others, such as George Du Maurier in Trilby (1894) with the evil Jew Svengali, gave a portrayal of the Jew as wholly despicable that remained popular throughout the nineteenth-century. Charles Dickens produced one of the most famous examples of the stereotypical "evil Jew"—the character of Fagin in Oliver Twist (1838). Certain novelists attempted in later novels to "atone" for a negative portrayal of Jews in earlier novels. For example, Dickens portrayed the Jewish character Riah in Our Mutual Friend (1864-65) as a paragon of virtue compared to his earlier character Fagin. Similarly, Maria Edgeworth depicted the Jewish heroine in Harrington (1817) much more favorably than a Jewish character from her 1812 novel The Absentee (although, it has been pointed out that Harrington's Jewish heroine also converts to Christianity). Against the backdrop of so many flawed portraits, George Eliot provided a portrait of the Jew in her novel Daniel Deronda (1876) that stands out as at least an honest effort at a more accurate portrayal of Judaism. And this portrait has been admired by many (including Jewish readers living at the time of the original publication of Daniel Deronda) for its faithful attempt at capturing the essence of Jewish life. As Rabbi David Philipson (1889) notes, Daniel Deronda can be identified as one of the few legitimate efforts at characterizing the Jew in fiction, in that it portrays the Jew as a follower of his religion rather than in racial terms. Yet the novel has also been criticized for the way in which the Jewish portions of the novel never fully integrate with the rest of its plot.
Nineteenth-century Jewish writers contributed to a more realistic representation of Jews in English literature. Jewish novelist Amy Levy (1886) took issue with Eliot's work, maintaining that, despite its "sincere and respectful attempt" at depicting the features of Judaism, the novel fails to genuinely reflect contemporary Jewish life. In Levy's own novel on middle-class Jewish life, Reuben Sachs (1889), Levy makes several direct criticisms of Daniel Deronda, including references to the Zionism of Eliot's Jewish characters. Levy defended her work as realistic, although some criticized her novel for presenting overly negative portrayals of Jewish life. Certain other British Jews, as Bryan Cheyette (1990) argues, felt compelled to "negotiate" between their cultural heritage and the English national culture. For example, Grace Aguilar, in The Spirit of Judaism (1842), adopted a form of "Christianized" or "Anglicanized" Judaism, in which she urged the acceptance of Jews and Judaism as an extension of Christian values. As Cheyette contends, other Anglo-Jewish novelists—such as Julia Frankau (Frank Danby), Benjamin Farjeon, and Israel Zangwill—attempted to revise prevalent Jewish stereotypes by making them more "acceptable" to the "majority values of English culture." However, Farjeon's novels (Cheyette notes) are similar to those of Benjamin Disraeli in their assumption of Jewish racial superiority. In such works as Coningsby (1844) and Tancred (1847), Disraeli (the Prime Minister of England [1867; 1874-80] who had been raised as a Jew until his father had a falling out with the synagogue and had subsequently been baptized as an adolescent) continually praised the Jewish race. As Rabbi EdwardN. Calisch (1909) notes, Disraeli dubbed the Jewish race "the aristocracy of nature."
Disraeli was a prime contributor in the argument concerning the cultural ideals of Hebraism and Hellenism. According to Michael Ragussis (1995), Disraeli's beliefs on the significance of the Jewish race (expounded upon in novels such as Tancred and Lothair ), appear to have influenced the poet Matthew Arnold. Disraeli maintained that English culture was based on Hebraism, but Arnold, while embracing the contributions of Hebraism (which Arnold equated with Jewish moral conduct and authority), argued in Culture and Anarchy (1869) that the overly Hebraic English culture needed to be balanced by Hellenism (Greek-inspired philosophy, culture, and art). In Literature and Dogma (1892), Arnold expressed his beliefs about Hebraism and Hellenism in terms of differentiation between the Aryan and Semitic races—with basic characteristics being assigned to each race. Arnold appeared to extoll the virtues of both races, on the one hand, but, on the other hand, to rely on the Aryan race to both respect the value of Hebraism and to balance the Hebraic with the Hellenic. Disraeli considered the ideology of Hellenism to be based on a racial criticism of the Jews.
Ninteenth-century novelists of Jewish and non-Jewish backgrounds fought, through their work, to make countless political, economic, racial, and religious statements about Jewish life, the "Jewish identity," and the role of the Jew in English society and culture. Many such arguments and portrayals have been characterized as negative, a few are arguably positive, and most continue to be evaluated in the twentieth-century. Yet students of this period and scholars alike might agree with critic Edgar Rosenberg (1960), who makes the following observation: "the image of the Jew in English literature has been a depressingly uniform and static phenomenon."
The Spirit of Judaism 1842
Sophia de Lissau 1828
Sir Edward Bulwer-Lytton
My Novel 1853
The Scapegoat 1891
Oliver Twist 1838
Our Mutual Friend 1864-65
George Du Maurier
The Absentee 1812
Daniel Deronda 1876
Benjamin L. Farjeon
Solomon Isaacs 1877
Aaron the Jew 1894-95
Julia Frankau [Frank Danby]
Dr. Phillips; A Maida Vale Idyll 1887
*Daughters of Shem 1898
Reuben Sachs 1889
The Tragic Comedians 1880
It Is Never Too Late to Mend 1856
Sir Walter Scott
William Makepeace Thackery
**Rebecca and Rowena 1850
Nina Balatka 1867
Children of the Ghetto 1892
Ghetto Tragedies 1893
The King of Schnorrers 1894
*This work is a collection of short stories.
**This work is a parody of Scott's Ivanhoe.
***This work is a parody of Disraeli's Coningsby.
George Eliot (essay date 1879)
SOURCE: "The Modern Hep! Hep! Hep!," in Impressions of Theophrastus Such, edited by Nancy Henry, William Pickering, 1994, pp. 143-65.
[In the following essay, first published in 1879 and reprinted in 1994, Eliot (1) documents the negative stereotypes prevalent in nineteenth-century England,(2) argues that the "revived expression of old antipathies " had been stimulated by the fact that Jews had attained political power, and (3) defends Jews against the defamation that they continued to receive in her lifetime.]
To discern likeness amidst diversity, it is well known, does not require so fine a mental edge as the discerning of diversity amidst general sameness.1 The primary rough classification depends on the prominent resemblances of things: the progress is towards finer and finer discrimination according to minute differences.
Yet even at this stage of European culture one's attention is continually drawn to the prevalence of that grosser mental sloth which makes people dull to the most ordinary prompting of comparison—the bringing things together because of their likeness. The same motives, the same ideas, the same practices, are alternately admired and abhorred, lauded and denounced, according to their association with superficial differences, historical or actually social: even learned writers treating of great subjects often show an attitude of mind not greatly superior in its logic to that of the frivolous fine lady who is indignant at the frivolity of her maid.
To take only the subject of the Jews: it would be difficult to find a form of bad reasoning about them which has not been heard in conversation or been admitted to the dignity of print; but the neglect of resemblances is a common property of dulness which unites all the various points of view—the prejudiced, the puerile, the spiteful, and the abysmally ignorant.
That the preservation of national memories is an element and a means of national greatness, that their revival is a sign of reviving nationality, that every heroic defender, every patriotic restorer, has been inspired by such memories and has made them his watchword, that even such a corporate existence as that of a Roman legion or an English regiment has been made valorous by memorial standards,—these are the glorious commonplaces of historic teaching at our public schools and universities, being happily ingrained in Greek and Latin classics. They have also been impressed on the world by conspicuous modern instances. That there is a free modern Greece is due—through all infiltration of other than Greek blood—to the presence of ancient Greece in the consciousness of European men; and every speaker would feel his point safe if he were to praise Byron's devotion2 to a cause made glorious by ideal identification with the past; hardly so, if he were to insist that the Greeks were not to be helped further because their history shows that they were anciently unsurpassed in treachery and lying, and that many modern Greeks are highly disreputable characters, while others are disposed to grasp too large a share of our commerce. The same with Italy: the pathos of his country's lot pierced the youthful soul of Mazzini,3 because, like Dante's, his blood was fraught with the kinship of Italian greatness, his imagination filled with a majestic past that wrought itself into a majestic future. Half a century ago, what was Italy? An idling-place of dilettanteism or of itinerant motiveless wealth, a territory parcelled out for papal sustenance, dynastic convenience, and the profit of an alien Government.4 What were the Italians? No people, no voice in European counsels, no massive power in European affairs: a race thought of in English and French society as chiefly adapted to the operatic stage, or to serve as models for painters; disposed to smile gratefully at the reception of half-pence; and by the more historical remembered to be rather polite than truthful, in all probability a combination of Machiavelli, Rubini, and Masaniello.5 Thanks chiefly to the divine gift of a memory which inspires the moments with a past, a present, and a future, and gives the sense of corporate existence that raises man above the otherwise more respectable and innocent brute, all that, or most of it, is changed.
Again, one of our living historians6 finds just sympathy in his vigorous insistance on our true ancestry, on our being the strongly marked heritors in language and genius of those old English seamen who, beholding a rich country with a most convenient seaboard, came, doubtless with a sense of divine warrant, and settled themselves on this or the other side of fertilising streams, gradually conquering more and more of the pleasant land from the natives who knew nothing of Odin,7 and finally making unusually clean work in ridding themselves of those prior occupants. 'Let us,' he virtually says, 'let us know who were our forefathers, who it was that won the soil for us, and brought the good seed of those institutions through which we should not arrogantly but gratefully feel ourselves distinguished among the nations as possessors of long-inherited freedom; let us not keep up an ignorant kind of naming which disguises our true affinities of blood and language, but let us see thoroughly what sort of notions and traditions our forefathers had, and what sort of song inspired them. Let the poetic fragments which breathe forth their fierce bravery in battle and their trust in fierce gods who helped them, be treasured with affectionate reverence. These seafaring, invading, self-asserting men were the English of old time, and were our fathers who did rough work by which we are profiting. They had virtues which incorporated themselves in wholesome usages to which we trace our own political blessings. Let us know and acknowledge our common relationship to them, and be thankful that over and above the affections and duties which spring from our manhood, we have the closer and more constantly guiding duties which belong to us as Englishmen.'
To this view of our nationality most persons who have feeling and understanding enough to be conscious of the connection between the patriotic affection and every other affection which lifts us above emigrating rats and free-loving baboons, will be disposed to say Amen. True, we are not indebted to those ancestors for our religion: we are rather proud of having got that illumination from elsewhere. The men who planted our nation were not Christians, though they began their work centuries after Christ; and they had a decided objection to Christianity when it was first proposed to them: they were not monotheists, and their religion was the reverse of spiritual. But since we have been fortunate enough to keep the island-home they won for us, and have been on the whole a prosperous people, rather continuing the plan of invading and spoiling other lands than being forced to beg for shelter in them, nobody has reproached us because our fathers thirteen hundred years ago worshipped Odin, massacred Britons, and were with difficulty persuaded to accept Christianity, knowing nothing of Hebrew history and the reasons why Christ should be received as the Saviour of mankind. The Red Indians, not liking us when we settled among them, might have been willing to fling such facts in our faces, but they were too ignorant, and besides, their opinions did not signify, because we were able, if we liked, to exterminate them. The Hindoos also have doubtless had their rancours against us and still entertain enough ill-will to make unfavourable remarks on our character, especially as to our historic rapacity and arrogant notions of our own superiority; they perhaps do not admire the usual English profile, and they are not converted to our way of feeding: but though we are a small number of an alien race profiting by the territory and produce of these prejudiced people, they are unable to turn us out; at least, when they tried we showed them their mistake.8 We do not call ourselves a dispersed and a punished people: we are a colonising people, and it is we who have punished others.
Still the historian guides us rightly in urging us to dwell on the virtues of our ancestors with emulation, and to cherish our sense of a common descent as a bond of obligation. The eminence, the nobleness of a people depends on its capability of being stirred by memories, and of striving for what we call spiritual ends—ends which consist not in immediate material possession, but in the satisfaction of a great feeling that animates the collective body as with one soul. A people having the seed of worthiness in it must feel an answering thrill when it is adjured by the deaths of its heroes who died to preserve its national existence; when it is reminded of its small beginnings and gradual growth through past labours and struggles, such as are still demanded of it in order that the freedom and wellbeing thus inherited may be transmitted unimpaired to children and children's children; when an appeal against the permission of injustice is made to great precedents in its history and to the better genius breathing in its institutions. It is this living force of sentiment in common which makes a national consciousness. Nations so moved will resist conquest with the very breasts of their women, will pay their millions and their blood to abolish slavery, will share privation in famine and all calamity, will produce poets to sing 'some great story of a man,' and thinkers whose theories will bear the test of action. An individual man, to be harmoniously great, must belong to a nation of this order, if not in actual existence yet existing in the past, in memory, as a departed, invisible, beloved ideal, once a reality, and perhaps to be restored. A common humanity is not yet enough to feed the rich blood of various activity which makes a complete man. The time is not come for cosmopolitanism to be highly virtuous, any more than for communism to suffice for social energy. I am not bound to feel for a Chinaman as I feel for my fellow-countryman: I am bound not to demoralise him with opium, not to compel him to my will by destroying or plundering the fruits of his labour on the alleged ground that he is not cosmopolitan enough, and not to insult him for his want of my tailoring and religion when he appears as a peaceable visitor on the London pavement. It is admirable in a Briton with a good purpose to learn Chinese, but it would not be a proof of fine intellect in him to taste Chinese poetry in the original more than he tastes the poetry of his own tongue. Affection, intelligence, duty, radiate from a centre, and nature has decided that for us English folk that centre can be neither China nor Peru. Most of us feel this unreflectingly; for the affectation of undervaluing everything native, and being too fine for one's own country, belongs only to a few minds of no dangerous leverage. What is wanting is, that we should recognise a corresponding attachment to nationality as legitimate in every other people, and understand that its absence is a privation of the greatest good.
For, to repeat, not only the nobleness of a nation depends on the presence of this national consciousness, but also the nobleness of each individual citizen. Our dignity and rectitude are proportioned to our sense of relationship with something great, admirable, pregnant with high possibilities, worthy of sacrifice, a continual inspiration to self-repression and discipline by the presentation of aims larger and more attractive to our generous part than the securing of personal ease or prosperity. And a people possessing this good should surely feel not only a ready sympathy with the effort of those who, having lost the good, strive to regain it, but a profound pity for any degradation resulting from its loss; nay, something more than pity when happier nationalities have made victims of the unfortunate whose memories nevertheless are the very fountain to which the persecutors trace their most vaunted blessings.
These notions are familiar: few will deny them in the abstract, and many are found loudly asserting them in relation to this or the other particular case. But here as elsewhere, in the ardent application of ideas, there is a notable lack of simple comparison or sensibility to resemblance. The European world has long been used to consider the Jews as altogether exceptional, and it has followed naturally enough that they have been excepted from the rules of justice and mercy, which are based on human likeness. But to consider a people whose ideas have determined the religion of half the world, and that the more cultivated half, and who made the most eminent struggle against the power of Rome, as a purely exceptional race, is a demoralising offence against rational knowledge, a stultifying inconsistency in historical interpretation. Every nation of forcible character—i.e., of strongly marked characteristics, is so far exceptional. The distinctive note of each bird-species is in this sense exceptional, but the necessary ground of such distinction is a deeper likeness. The superlative peculiarity in the Jews admitted, our afffinity with them is only the more apparent when the elements of their peculiarity are discerned.
From whatever point of view the writings of the Old Testament may be regarded, the picture they present of a national development is of high interest and speciality, nor can their historic momentousness be much affected by any varieties of theory as to the relation they bear to the New Testament or to the rise and constitution of Christianity. Whether we accept the canonical Hebrew books as a revelation or simply as part of an ancient literature, makes no difference to the fact that we find there the strongly characterised portraiture of a people educated from an earlier or later period to a sense of separateness unique in its intensity, a people taught by many concurrent influences to identify faithfulness to its national traditions with the highest social and religious blessings. Our too scanty sources of Jewish history, from the return under Ezra to the beginning of the desperate resistance against Rome,9 show us the heroic and triumphant struggle of the Maccabees, which rescued the religion and independence of the nation from the corrupting sway of the Syrian Greeks,10 adding to the glorious sum of its memorials, and stimulating continuous efforts of a more peaceful sort to maintain and develop that national life which the heroes had fought and died for, by internal measures of legal administration and public teaching. Thenceforth the virtuous elements of the Jewish life were engaged, as they had been with varying aspects during the long and changeful prophetic period and the restoration under Ezra, on the side of preserving the specific national character against a demoralising fusion with that of foreigners whose religion and ritual were idolatrous and often obscene. There was always a Foreign party reviling the National party as narrow, and sometimes manifesting their own breadth in extensive views of advancement or profit to themselves by flattery of a foreign power. Such internal conflict naturally tightened the bands of conservatism, which needed to be strong if it were to rescue the sacred ark, the vital spirit of a small nation—'the smallest of the nations'—whose territory lay on the highway between three continents; and when the dread and hatred of foreign sway had condensed itself into dread and hatred of the Romans, many Conservatives became Zealots,11 whose chief mark was that they advocated resistance to the death against the submergence of their nationality. Much might be said on this point towards distinguishing the desperate struggle against a conquest which is regarded as degradation and corruption, from rash, hopeless insurrection against an established native government; and for my part (if that were of any consequence) I share the spirit of the Zealots. I take the spectacle of the Jewish people defying the Roman edict, and preferring death by starvation or the sword to the introduction of Caligula's deified statue12 intothe temple, as a sublime type of steadfastness. But all that need be noticed here is the continuity of that national education (by outward and inward circumstance) which created in the Jews a feeling of race, a sense of corporate existence, unique in its intensity.
But not, before the dispersion, unique in essential qualities. There is more likeness than contrast between the way we English got our island and the way the Israelites got Canaan. We have not been noted for forming a low estimate of ourselves in comparison with foreigners, or for admitting that our institutions are equalled by those of any other people under the sun. Many of us have thought that our sea-wall is a specially divine arrangement to make and keep us a nation of sea-kings after the manner of our forefathers, secure against invasion and able to invade other lands when we need them, though they may lie on the other side of the ocean. Again, it has been held that we have a peculiar destiny as a Protestant people, not only able to bruise the head of an idolatrous Christianity in the midst of us, but fitted as possessors of the most truth and the most tonnage to carry our purer religion over the world and convert mankind to our way of thinking. The Puritans, asserting their liberty to restrain tyrants, found the Hebrew history closely symbolical of their feelings and purpose; and it can hardly be correct to cast the blame of their less laudable doings on the writings they invoked, since their opponents made use of the same writings for different ends, finding there a strong warrant for the divine right of kings13 and the denunciation of those who, like Korah, Dathan, and Abiram,14 took on themselves the office of the priesthood which belonged of right solely to Aaron and his sons, or, in other words, to men ordained by the English bishops. We must rather refer the passionate use of the Hebrew writings to affinities of disposition between our own race and the Jewish. Is it true that the arrogance of a Jew was so immeasurably beyond that of a Calvinist? And the just sympathy and admiration which we give to the ancestors who resisted the oppressive acts of our native kings, and by resisting rescued or won for us the best part of our civil and religious liberties—is it justly to be withheld from those brave and steadfast men of Jewish race who fought and died, or strove by wise administration to resist, the oppression and corrupting influences of foreign tyrants, and by resisting rescued the nationality which was the very hearth of our own religion? At any rate, seeing that the Jews were more specifically than any other nation educated into a sense of their supreme moral value, the chief matter of surprise is that any other nation is found to rival them in this form of self-confidence.
More exceptional—less like the course of our own history—has been their dispersion and their subsistence as a separate people through ages in which for the most part they were regarded and treated very much as beasts hunted for the sake of their skins, or of a valuable secretion peculiar to their species. The Jews showed a talent for accumulating what was an object of more immediate desire to Christians than animal oils or wellfurred skins, and their cupidity and avarice were found at once particularly hateful and particularly useful: hateful when seen as a reason for punishing them by mulcting15 or robbery, useful when this retributive process could be successfully carried forward. Kings and emperors naturally were more alive to the usefulness of subjects who could gather and yield money; but edicts issued to protect 'the King's Jews'16 equally with the King's game from being harassed and hunted by the commonalty were only slight mitigations to the deplorable lot of a race held to be under the divine curse, and had little force after the Crusades began. As the slaveholders in the United States counted the curse on Ham17 a justification of negro slavery, so the curse on the Jews was counted a justification for hindering them from pursuing agriculture and handicrafts; for marking them out as execrable figures by a peculiar dress; for torturing them to make them part with their gains, or for more gratuitously spitting at them and pelting them; for taking it as certain that they killed and ate babies, poisoned the wells, and took pains to spread the plague; for putting it to them whether they would be baptised or burned, and not failing to burn and massacre them when they were obstinate; but also for suspecting them of disliking the baptism when they had got it, and then burning them in punishment of their insincerity; finally, for hounding them by tens on tens of thousands from the homes where they had found shelter for centuries, and inflicting on them the horrors of a new exile and a new dispersion. All this to avenge the Saviour of mankind, or else to compel these stiff-necked people to acknowledge a Master whose servants showed such beneficent effects of His teaching.
With a people so treated one of two issues was possible: either from being of feebler nature than their persecutors, and caring more for ease than for the sentiments and ideas which constituted their distinctive character, they would everywhere give way to pressure and get rapidly merged in the populations around them; or, being endowed with uncommon tenacity, physical and mental, feeling peculiarly the ties of inheritance both in blood and faith, remembering national glories, trusting in their recovery, abhorring apostasy, able to bear all things and hope all things with the consciousness of being steadfast to spiritual obligations, the kernel of their number would harden into an inflexibility more and more insured by motive and habit. They would cherish all differences that marked them off from their hated oppressors, all memories that consoled them with a sense of virtual though unrecognised superiority; and the separateness which was made their badge of ignominy would be their inward pride, their source of fortifying defiance. Doubtless such a people would get confirmed in vices. An oppressive government and a persecuting religion, while breeding vices in those who hold power, are well known to breed answering vices in those who are powerless and suffering. What more direct plan than the course presented by European history could have been pursued in order to give the Jews a spirit of bitter isolation, of scorn for the wolfish hypocrisy that made victims of them, of triumph in prospering at the expense of the blunderers who stoned them away from the open paths of industry?—or, on the other hand, to encourage in the less defiant a lying conformity, a pretence of conversion for the sake of the social advantages attached to baptism, an outward renunciation of their hereditary ties with the lack of real love towards the society and creed which exacted this galling tribute?—or again, in the most unhappy specimens of the race, to rear transcendent examples of odious vice, reckless instruments of rich men with bad propensities, unscrupulous grinders of the alien people who wanted to grind them?
No wonder the Jews have their vices: no wonder if it were proved (which it has not hitherto appeared to be) that some of them have a bad pre-eminence in evil, an unrivalled superfluity of naughtiness. It would be more plausible to make a wonder of the virtues which have prospered among them under the shadow of oppression. But instead of dwelling on these, or treating as admitted what any hardy or ignorant person may deny, let us found simply on the loud assertions of the hostile. The Jews, it is said, resisted the expansion of their own religion into Christianity; they were in the habit of spitting on the cross; they have held the name of Christ to be Anathema. Who taught them that? The men who made Christianity a curse to them: the men who made the name of Christ a symbol for the spirit of vengeance, and, what was worse, made the execution of the vengeance a pretext for satisfying their own savageness, greed, and envy: the men who sanctioned with the name of Christ a barbaric and blundering copy of pagan fatalism in taking the words 'His blood be upon us and on our children'18 as a divinely appointed verbal warrant for wreaking cruelty from generation to generation on the people from whose sacred writings Christ drew His teaching. Strange retrogression in the professors of an expanded religion, boasting an illumination beyond the spiritual doctrine of Hebrew prophets! For Hebrew prophets proclaimed a God who demanded mercy rather than sacrifices. The Christians also believed that God delighted not in the blood of rams and of bulls, but they apparently conceived Him as requiring for His satisfaction the sighs and groans, the blood and roasted flesh of men whose forefathers had misunderstood the metaphorical character of prophecies which spoke of spiritual pre-eminence under the figure of a material kingdom. Was this the method by which Christ desired His title to the Messiahship to be commended to the hearts and understandings of the nation in which He was born? Many of His sayings bear the stamp of that patriotism which places fellow-countrymen in the inner circle of affection and duty. And did the words 'Father, forgive them, they know not what they do,"19 refer only to the centurion and his band, a tacit exception being made of every Hebrew there present from the mercy of the Father and the compassion of the Son?—nay, more, of every Hebrew yet to come who remained unconverted after hearing of His claim to the Messiahship, not from His own lips or those of His native apostles, but from the lips of alien men whom cross, creed, and baptism had left cruel, rapacious, and debauched? It is more reverent to Christ to believe that He must have approved the Jewish martyrs who deliberately chose to be burned or massacred rather than be guilty of a blaspheming lie, more than He approved the rabble of crusaders who robbed and murdered them in His name.
But these remonstrances seem to have no direct application to personages who take up the attitude of philosophic thinkers and discriminating critics, professedly accepting Christianity from a rational point of view as a vehicle of the highest religious and moral truth, and condemning the Jews on the ground that they are obstinate adherents of an outworn creed, maintain themselves in moral alienation from the peoples with whom they share citizenship, and are destitute of real interest in the welfare of the community and state with which they are thus identified. These anti-Judaic advocates usually belong to a party20 which has felt itself glorified in winning for Jews, as well as Dissenters and Catholics, the full privileges of citizenship, laying open to them every path to distinction. At one time the voice of this party urged that differences of creed were made dangerous only by the denial of citizenship—that you must make a man a citizen before he could feel like one. At present, apparently, this confidence has been succeeded by a sense of mistake: there is a regret that no limiting clauses were insisted on, such as would have hindered the Jews from coming too far and in too large proportion along those opened pathways; and the Roumanians are thought to have shown an enviable wisdom in giving them as little chance as possible.21 But then, the reflection occurring that some of the most objectionable Jews are baptised Christians, it is obvious that such clauses would have been insufficient, and the doctrine that you can turn a Jew into a good Christian is emphatically retracted. But clearly, these liberal gentlemen, too late enlightened by disagreeable events, must yield the palm of wise foresight to those who argued against them long ago; and it is a striking spectacle to witness minds so panting for advancement in some directions that they are ready to force it on an unwilling society, in this instance despairingly recur-ring to mediaeval types of thinking—insisting that the Jews are made viciously cosmopolitan by holding the world's money-bag, that for them all national interests are resolved into the algebra of loans, that they have suffered an inward degradation stamping them as morally inferior, and—'serve them right,' since they rejected Christianity. All which is mirrored in an analogy, namely, that of the Irish, also a servile race, who have rejected Protestantism though it has been repeatedly urged on them by fire and sword and penal laws, and whose place in the moral scale may be judged by our advertisements, where the clause, 'No Irish need apply,' parallels the sentence which for many polite persons sums up the question of Judaism—'never did like the Jews.'
It is certainly worth considering whether an expatriated, denationalised race, used for ages to live among antipathetic populations, must not inevitably lack some conditions of nobleness. If they drop that separateness which is made their reproach, they may be in danger of lapsing into a cosmopolitan indifference equivalent to cynicism, and of missing that inward identification with the nationality immediately around them which might make some amends for their inherited privation. No dispassionate observer can deny this danger. Why, our own countrymen who take to living abroad without purpose or function to keep up their sense of fellowship in the affairs of their own land are rarely good specimens of moral healthiness; still, the consciousness of having a native country, the birthplace of common memories and habits of mind, existing like a parental hearth quitted but beloved; the dignity of being included in a people which has a part in the comity of nations and the growing federation of the world; that sense of special belonging which is the root of human virtues, both public and private,—all these spiritual links may preserve migratory Englishmen from the worst consequences of their voluntary dispersion. Unquestionably the Jews, having been more than any other race exposed to the adverse moral influences of alienism, must, both in individuals and in groups, have suffered some corresponding moral degradation; but in fact they have escaped with less of abjectness and less of hard hostility towards the nations whose hand has been against them, than could have happened in the case of a people who had neither their adhesion to a separate religion founded on historic memories, nor their characteristic family affectionateness. Tortured, flogged, spit upon, the corpus vile22 on which rage or wantonness vented themselves with impunity, their name flung at them as an opprobrium by superstition, hatred, and contempt, they have remained proud of their origin. Does any one call this an evil pride? Perhaps he belongs to that order of man who, while he has a democratic dislike to dukes and earls, wants to make believe that his father was an idle gentleman, when in fact he was an honourable artisan, or who would feel flattered to be taken for other than an Englishman. It is possible to be too arrogant about our blood or our calling, but that arrogance is virtue compared with such mean pretence. The pride which identifies us with a great historic body is a humanising, elevating habit of mind, inspiring sacrifices of individual comfort, gain, or other selfish ambition, for the sake of that ideal whole; and no man swayed by such a sentiment can become completely abject. That a Jew of Smyrna,23 where a whip is carried by passengers ready to flog off the too officious specimens of his race, can still be proud to say, 'lam a Jew,' is surely a fact to awaken admiration in a mind capable of understanding what we may call the ideal forces in human history. And again, a varied, impartial observation of the Jews in different countries tends to the impression that they have a predominant kindliness which must have been deeply ingrained in the constitution of their race to have outlasted the ages of persecution and oppression. The concentration of their joys in domestic life has kept up in them the capacity of tenderness: the pity for the fatherless and the widow, the care for the women and the little ones, blent intimately with their religion, is a well of mercy that cannot long or widely be pent up by exclusiveness. And the kindliness of the Jew overflows the line of division between him and the Gentile. On the whole, one of the most remarkable phenomena in the history of this scattered people, made for ages 'a scorn and a hissing' is, that after being subjected to this process, which might have been expected to be in every sense deteriorating and vitiating, they have come out of it (in any estimate which allows for numerical proportion) rivalling the nations of all European countries in healthiness and beauty of physique, in practical ability, in scientific and artistic aptitude, and in some forms of ethical value. A significant indication of their natural rank is seen in the fact that at this moment, the leader of the Liberal party in Germany is a Jew, the leader of the Republican party in France is a Jew, and the head of the Conservative ministry in England is a Jew.24
And here it is that we find the ground for the obvious jealousy which is now stimulating the revived expression of old antipathies. 'The Jews,' it is felt, 'have a dangerous tendency to get the uppermost places not only in commerce but in political life. Their monetary hold on governments is tending to perpetuate in leading Jews a spirit of universal alienism (euphemistically called cosmopolitanism), even where the West has given them a full share in civil and political rights. A people with oriental sunlight in their blood, yet capable of being everywhere acclimatised, they have a force and toughness which enables them to carry off the best prizes; and their wealth is likely to put half the seats in Parliament at their disposal.'
There is truth in these views of Jewish social and political relations. But it is rather too late for liberal pleaders to urge them in a merely vituperative sense. Do they propose as a remedy for the impending danger of our healthier national influences getting overridden by Jewish predominance, that we should repeal our emancipatory laws? Not all the Germanic immigrants who have been settling among us for generations, and are still pouring in to settle, are Jews, but thoroughly Teutonic and more or less Christian craftsmen, mechanicians, or skilled and erudite functionaries; and the Semitic Christians who swarm among us are dangerously like their unconverted brethren in complexion, persistence, and wealth. Then there are the Greeks who, by the help of Phoenician blood or otherwise, are objectionably strong in the city. Some judges think that the Scotch are more numerous and prosperous here in the South than is quite for the good of us Southerners; and the early inconvenience felt under the Stuarts25 of being quartered upon by a hungry, hard-working people with a distinctive accent and form of religion, and higher cheek-bones than English taste requires, has not yet been quite neutralised. As for the Irish, it is felt in high quarters that we have always been too lenient towards them;—at least, if they had been harried a little more there might not have been so many of them on the English press, of which they divide the power with the Scotch, thus driving many Englishmen to honest and ineloquent labour.
So far shall we be carried if we go in search of devices to hinder people of other blood than our own from getting the advantage of dwelling among us.
Let it be admitted that it is a calamity to the English, as to any other great historic people, to undergo a premature fusion with immigrants of alien blood; that its distinctive national characteristics should be in danger of obliteration by the predominating quality of foreign settlers. I not only admit this, I am ready to unite in groaning over the threatened danger. To one who loves his native language, who would delight to keep our rich and harmonious English undefiled by foreign accent, foreign intonation, and those foreign tinctures of verbal meaning which tend to confuse all writing and discourse, it is an affliction as harassing as the climate, that on our stage, in our studios, at our public and private gatherings, in our offices, warehouses, and workshops, we must expect to hear our beloved English with its words clipped, its vowels stretched and twisted, its phrases of acquiescence and politeness, of cordiality, dissidence or argument, delivered always in the wrong tones, like ill-rendered melodies, marred beyond recognition; that there should be a general ambition to speak every language except our mother English, which persons 'of style' are not ashamed of corrupting with slang, false foreign equivalents, and a pronunciation that crushes out all colour from the vowels and jams them between jostling consonants. An ancient Greek might not like to be resuscitated for the sake of hearing Homer read in our universities, still he would at least find more instructive marvels in other developments to be witnessed at those institutions; but a modern Englishman is invited from his after-dinner repose to hear Shakspere delivered under circumstances which offer no other novelty than some novelty of false intonation, some new distribution of strong emphasis on prepositions, some new misconception of a familiar idiom. Well! it is our inertness that is in fault, our carelessness of excellence, our willing ignorance of the treasures that lie in our national heritage, while we are agape after what is foreign, though it may be only a vile imitation of what is native.
This marring of our speech, however, is a minor evil compared with what must follow from the predominance of wealth-acquiring immigrants, whose appreciation of our political and social life must often be as approximative or fatally erroneous as their delivery of our language. But take the worst issues—what can we do to hinder them? Are we to adopt the exclusiveness for which we have punished the Chinese? Are we to tear the glorious flag of hospitality which has made our freedom the world-wide blessing of the oppressed? It is not agreeable to find foreign accents and stumbling locutions passing from the piquant exception to the general rule of discourse. But to urge on that account that we should spike away the peaceful foreigner, would be a view of international relations not in the long-run favourable to the interests of our fellow-countrymen; for we are at least equal to the races we call obtrusive in the disposition to settle wherever money is to be made and cheaply idle living to be found. In meeting the national evils which are brought upon us by the onward course of the world, there is often no more immediate hope or resource than that of striving after fuller national excellence, which must consist in the moulding of more excellent individual natives. The tendency of things is towards the quicker or slower fusion of races. It is impossible to arrest this tendency: all we can do is to moderate its course so as to hinder it from degrading the moral status of societies by a too rapid effacement of those national traditions and customs which are the language of the national genius—the deep suckers of healthy sentiment. Such moderating and guidance of inevitable movement is worthy of all effort. And it is in this sense that the modern insistance on the idea of Nationalities has value. That any people at once distinct and coherent enough to form a state should be held in subjection by an alien antipathetic government has been becoming more and more a ground of sympathetic indignation; and in virtue of this, at least one great State has been added to European councils.26 Nobody now complains of the result in this case, though far-sighted persons see the need to limit analogy by discrimination. We have to consider who are the stifled people and who the stiflers before we can be sure of our ground. The only point in this connection on which Englishmen are agreed is, that England itself shall not be subject to foreign rule. The fiery resolve to resist invasion, though with an improvised array of pitchforks, is felt to be virtuous, and to be worthy of a historic people. Why? Because there is a national life in our veins. Because there is something specifically English which we feel to be supremely worth striving for, worth dying for, rather than living to renounce it. Because we too have our share—perhaps a principal share—in that spirit of separateness which has not yet done its work in the education of mankind, which has created the varying genius of nations, and, like the Muses, is the offspring of memory.
Here, as everywhere else, the human task seems to be the discerning and adjustment of opposite claims. But the end can hardly be achieved by urging contradictory reproaches, and instead of labouring after discernment as a preliminary to intervention, letting our zeal burst forth according to a capricious selection, first determined accidentally and afterwards justified by personal predilection. Not only John Gilpin and his wife, or Edwin and Angelina,27 seem to be of opinion that their preference or dislike of Russians, Servians, or Greeks, consequent, perhaps, on hotel adventures, has something to do with the merits of the Eastern Question;28 even in a higher range of intellect and enthusiasm we find a distribution of sympathy or pity for sufferers of different blood or votaries of differing religions, strangely unaccountable on any other ground than a fortuitous direction of study or trivial circumstances of travel. With some even admirable persons, one is never quite sure of any particular being included under a general term. A provincial physician, it is said, once ordering a lady patient not to eat salad, was asked pleadingly by the affectionate husband whether she might eat lettuce, or cresses, or radishes. The physician had too rashly believed in the comprehensiveness of the word 'salad,' just as we, if not enlightened by experience, might believe in the all-embracing breadth of 'sympathy with the injured and oppressed.' What mind can exhaust the grounds of exception which lie in each particular case? There is understood to be a peculiar odour from the negro body, and we know that some persons, too rationalistic to feel bound by the curse on Ham, used to hint very strongly that this odour determined the question on the side of negro slavery.
And this is the usual level of thinking in polite society concerning the Jews. Apart from theological purposes, it seems to be held surprising that anybody should take an interest in the history of a people whose literature has furnished all our devotional language; and if any reference is made to their past or future destinies some hearer is sure to state as a relevant fact which may assist our judgment, that she, for her part, is not fond of them, having known a Mr Jacobson who was very unpleasant, or that he, for his part, thinks meanly of them as a race, though on inquiry you find that he is so little acquainted with their characteristics that he is astonished to learn how many persons whom he has blindly admired and applauded are Jews to the backbone. Again, men who consider themselves in the very van of modem advancement, knowing history and the latest philosophies of history, indicate their contemptuous surprise that any one should entertain the destiny of the Jews as a worthy subject, by referring to Moloch and their own agreement with the theory that the religion of Jehovah was merely a transformed Moloch-worship,29 while in the same breath they are glorifying 'civilisation' as a transformed tribal existence of which some lineaments are traceable in grim marriage customs of the native Australians. Are these erudite persons prepared to insist that the name 'Father' should no longer have any sanctity for us, because in their view of likelihood our Aryan ancestors were mere improvers on a state of things in which nobody knew his own father?30
For less theoretic men, ambitious to be regarded as practical politicians, the value of the Hebrew race has been measured by their unfavourable opinion of a prime minister who is a Jew by lineage. But it is possible to form a very ugly opinion as to the scrupulousness of Walpole or of Chatham;31 and in any case I think Englishmen would refuse to accept the character and doings of those eighteenth century statesman as the standard of value for the English people and the part they have to play in the fortunes of mankind.
If we are to consider the future of the Jews at all, it seems reasonable to take as a preliminary question: Are they destined to complete fusion with the peoples among whom they are dispersed, losing every remnant of a distinctive consciousness as Jews; or, are there in the breadth and intensity with which the feeling of separateness, or what we may call the organised memory of a national consciousness, actually exists in the worldwide Jewish communities—the seven millions scattered from east to west—and again, are there in the political relations of the world, the conditions present or approaching for the restoration of a Jewish state planted on the old ground as a centre of national feeling, a source of dignifying protection, a special channel for special energies which may contribute some added form of national genius, and an added voice in the councils of the world?
They are among us everywhere: it is useless to say we are not fond of them. Perhaps we are not fond of proletaries and their tendency to form Unions, but the world is not therefore to be rid of them. If we wish to free ourselves from the inconveniences that we have to complain of, whether in proletaries or in Jews, our best course is to encourage all means of improving these neighbours who elbow us in a thickening crowd, and of sending their incommodious energies into beneficent channels. Why are we so eager for the dignity of certain populations of whom perhaps we have never seen a single specimen, and of whose history, legend, or literature we have been contentedly ignorant for ages, while we sneer at the notion of a renovated national dignity for the Jews, whose ways of thinking and whose very verbal forms are on our lips in every prayer which we end with an Amen? Some of us consider this question dismissed when they have said that the wealthiest Jews have no desire to forsake their European palaces, and go to live in Jerusalem. But in a return from exile, in the restoration of a people, the question is not whether certain rich men will choose to remain behind, but whether there will be found worthy men who will choose to lead the return. Plenty of prosperous Jews remained in Babylon when Ezra marshalled his band of forty thousand and began a new glorious epoch in the history of his race, making the preparation for that epoch in the history of the world which has been held glorious enough to be dated from for evermore. The hinge of possibility is simply the existence of an adequate community of feeling as well as widespread need in the Jewish race, and the hope that among its finer specimens there may arise some men of instruction and ardent public spirit, some new Ezras, some modern Maccabees, who will know how to use all favouring outward conditions, how to triumph by heroic example, over the indifference of their fellows and the scorn of their foes, and will steadfastly set their faces towards making their people once more one among the nations.
Formerly, evangelical orthodoxy was prone to dwell on the fulfilment of prophecy in the 'restoration of the Jews.' Such interpretation of the prophets is less in vogue now. The dominant mode is to insist on a Christianity that disowns its origin, that is not a substantial growth having a genealogy, but is a vaporous reflex of modern notions. The Christ of Matthew had the heart of a Jew—'Go ye first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'32 The Apostle of the Gentiles had the heart of a Jew: 'For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came.'33 Modern apostles, extolling Christianity, are found using a different tone: they prefer the mediaeval cry translated into modern phrase. But the mediaeval cry too was in substance very ancient—more ancient than the days of Augustus.34 Pagans in successive ages said, 'These people are unlike us, and refuse to be made like us: let us punish them.' The Jews were steadfast in their separateness, and through that separateness Christianity was born. A modern book on Liberty35 has maintained that from the freedom of individual men to persist in idiosyncrasies the world may be enriched. Why should we not apply this argument to the idiosyncrasy of a nation, and pause in our haste to hoot it down? There is still a great function for the steadfastness of the Jew: not that he should shut out the utmost illumination which knowledge can throw on his national history, but that he should cherish the store of inheritance which that history has left him. Every Jew should be conscious that he is one of a multitude possessing common objects of piety in the immortal achievements and immortal sorrows of ancestors who have transmitted to them a physical and mental type strong enough, eminent enough in faculties, pregnant enough with peculiar promise, to constitute a new beneficent individuality among the nations, and, by confuting the traditions of scorn, nobly avenge the wrongs done to their Fathers.
There is a sense in which the worthy child of a nation that has brought forth illustrious prophets, high and unique among the poets of the world, is bound by their visions.
Yes, for the effective bond of human action is feeling, and the worthy child of a people owning the triple name of Hebrew, Israelite, and Jew, feels his kinship with the glories and the sorrows, the degradation and the possible renovation of his national family.
Will any one teach the nullification of this feeling and call his doctrine a philosophy? He will teach a blinding superstition—the superstition that a theory of human wellbeing can be constructed in disregard of the influences which have made us human.
1 The phrase 'Hep! Hep! Hep!' is an anti-Semitic cry which may have originated during the Crusades as an abbreviation of 'Hierosolyma est perdita ' (Jerusalem is lost), or perhaps as a cry used for driving herds of animals. It is the name given to a series of anti-Jewish riots which broke out in Germany in 1819.
2 Byron died in 1824 in Missolonghi, where he had gone to help train Greek nationalists fighting against Turkish rule. Greek independence was achieved in 1830.
3 Italian patriot and republican Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-72) who was instrumental in the unification of Italy, which was achieved in 1870.
4 In the 1820's, Austria was an 'alien government' present in some Italian states.
5 Italian political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), Giulio Rubini (c. 1845-1917), patriot who fought with Garibaldi in the campaign to unite Italy, and Neapolitan insurrectionist Tomasso Aniello Mansaniello (1620-47).
6 Probably J. R. Green, author of The History of the English People (1878).
7 Scandinavian name of Anglo-Saxon god Woden (one-eyed).
8 Probably a reference to the Indian Mutiny of 1857.
9 King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia captured Judah in 586 BC, destroyed the Temple, and exiled most of the Jews to Babylon. After the defeat of the Babylonians by Cyrus the Great of Persia, the Jews were allowed to return to Judah and Jerusalem. The return to Jerusalem was spread out over decades. Ezra describes the return of the Jews (c. 397) BC to a country in which the Temple had been rebuilt, but which was still dominated by pagan tribes. In addition to the Zealots (see note 12 below), there were a number of factions described by Josephus Flavius (c. AD 37-95) as fighting with the Romans between 63 BC-AD 70. His The Jewish War was a primary source of George Eliot's knowledge of Jewish history.
10 The Seleucids were a Hellenistic dynasty established in Syria in 312 BC by Seleuces I. The Seleucids were an important power in the region and played a primary role in the Hellenisation of the Middle East. In 168 BC, Antiochus IV invaded Jerusalem and, in the following year, rededicated the Temple to Zeus and outlawed the Jewish religion. In 166 BC, Mattathias, a high priest, fled to the countryside with his five sons and began guerrilla war with the Seleucid conquerors. Mattathiasdied in 166 BC and Judas Maccabaeus took over leadership, reconquering Jerusalem in 164 BC, and rededicating the Temple. This is still marked by Chanukah. The family maintained control over the country until 63 BC when Pompey conquered it for Rome.
11 The Zealots were a sect of Jews, driven by religious ardor and hatred of foreign occupation and paganism. Organised as a political party during the reign of Herod the Great (37-4 BC), they conducted a campaign of violence against Roman occupation, ultimately leading to the revolt in AD 66 and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Diaspora in AD 70.
12 The reference is to the Roman desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem by the placement of a statue of the deified emperor, Caligula, in the most sacred part of the building.
13 The reference is to the English Civil War (1642-8) when both Puritans and Anglicans invoked biblical texts to justify opposing doctrines. James I, Stuart King of England (1603-25), was a proponent of the doctrine that kings drew their authority from God.
14 Leaders of a rebellion against Moses and Aaron (Numbers 16:13).
15 Extracting large sums of money on fraudulent, questionable, or arbitrary grounds. The reference is to the medieval, princely practice of forcing Jewish communities to pay large amounts of money to the local prince or King when money got tight in the royal household. These levies were not assessed against Christians.
16 For nearly a millennium, beginning in the eighth century AD, Jews were considered unwelcome resident aliens in most European countries. Generally, they were not allowed to own land, or exercise most property rights granted to Christians. Moreover, Jews were not protected from attacks by their Christian neighbours. Some European kings and princes invited wealthy Jews, known for their commercial sagacity, to establish communities in their countries for the purpose of stimulating the economy. These Jews were given diplomas by the king, granting protection from attack, certain property rights, and often, the right to hire Christian workmen.
17 Noah curses his son Ham (for seeing his father's nakedness) to be 'a slave of slaves' (Genesis 9:25).
18 Matthew 27:25. The words of Jewish observers at the crucifixion of Jesus, taken as a sanction to persecute Jews for the death of Jesus.
19 Words spoken by Jesus on the cross (Luke 23:34).
20 Catholic Emancipation was achieved in 1829. Jews were admitted to the House of Commons in 1858.
21 In 1866, the government of the newly united Rumania, under Alexander Cuza, enacted a constitution specifically excluding suffrage to non-Christians. This was followed by other legal restrictions on Jews and by years of anti-Semitic riots, in which many Jews were killed annually.
22 Literally 'common body'. From the phrase: Fiat experimentum in corpore vili (Let the experiment be made on some common body). The phrase derives from a quotation in Antoine du Verdier's Prosopographie … des hommes illustre (Lyon, 1603) 3:2542-43.
23 Throughout the nineteenth century, Jews living in the Turkish seaport of Smyrna were accused of the ritual murder of Christian children. The most well known of these accusations were brought in 1872, 1874, and 1876, and the cases received worldwide attention in the press.
24 The leader of the Liberal party in Germany in 1878 was Eduard Lasker (1829-84). The leader of the Republican party in France may refer to Léon Gambetta (1804-81), who was reported to be Jewish. The head of the conservative ministry in England was Benjamin Disraeli (1804-81).
25 The Scottish Stuarts ruled between 1603 and 1649 and were restored to the throne after the Civil War and English Commonwealth, ruling again between 1660 and 1714.
26 Germany, which achieved total unification in 1871.
27 See Cowper's ballad 'John Gilpin' (1782) and 'Edwin and Angelina, or the Hermit' (1764) by Goldsmith (included in The Vicar of Wakefield).
28 'The Eastern Question' was the term used in Western Europe to refer to a host of political-territorial problems related to the slow dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The European provinces of the Empire, including Bulgaria, Bosnia, Serbia and Hercegovina were in constant turmoil beginning in the 1850s. British and French politicians were particularly concerned that the Russians would overrun these provinces and upset the carefully worked out balance of power that had been established in Europe during the first part of the century.
29 The worship of Moloch, a Canaanite God, was distinguished by sacrifices of the first-born. The Mosaic law specifically prohibits such sacrifice: 'And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to set them apart to Moloch.' Leviticus 18:21.
30 Cf. Ch. II, n. 23. Some anthropological theories of the late nineteenth century saw Aryan civilisation as superior to those 'less civilised' cultures, which were organised matrilineally, inheritances being established through the male relatives of the mother, rather than through the father.
31 Benjamin Disraeli was a Jewish convert to Christianity. Robert Walpole (see Ch. XVI, n. 7) and William Pitt, First Earl of Chatham (see Ch. II, n. 2).
32 Jesus to his disciples (Matthew 10:6).
33 Letter of Paul to the Romans (9:3-5).
34 27 BC-14 AD.
35 John Stuart Mill's On Liberty (1859).
Amy Levy (essay date 1886)
SOURCE: "The Jew in Fiction," in The Jewish Chronicle, June 4, 1886, p. 13.
[In the following essay, Levy contends that, although Jews have secured a "prominent position " in English society, they have not been fairly represented in English novels—particularly George Eliot's novel Daniel Deronda, which, according to Levy, makes a "sincere and respectful attempt " at portraying Judaism but does not genuinely reflect contemporary Jewish life.]
It is curious, that, while the prominent position of the Jew is recognised as one of the characteristic features of English social life of the present day, so small a place should be allotted him in contemporary fiction.
In finance, in politics, in society; in every branch of art and science the English Jew is to be found in a position of more or less distinction. It is only in the novel, with one notable exception, that his claims to consideration have been almost entirely overlooked. Rebecca, of York, with her hopeless love for the Gentile knight, and Isaac of York, divided, like Shylock, between his ducats and his daughter, remain to day the typical Hebrews of fiction. Dickens, as might be expected, places himself on the crudely popular side, but tries to compensate for his having affixed the label "Jew" to one of his bad fairies by creating the good fairy Riah. Thackeray has reproduced Jews in less romantic guise, as Mr. and Miss Moss of the sponging houses, and today Mr. Baring-Gould (a clergyman of the Church of England) slavishly follows the old Jew-baiting traditions in his absurd portrait of Emanuel Lazarus in Court Royal.
In Daniel Deronda, it is true, a sincere and respectful attempt was made to portray the features of modern Judaism. But which of us will not acknowledge with a sigh, that the noble spirit which conceived Mirah, Daniel and Ezra, was more royal than the king? It was, alas! no picture of Jewish contemporary life, that of the little group of enthusiasts, with their yearnings after the Holy Land and dreams of a separate nation. Nor can we derive much satisfaction from the superficial smartness of such sketches as that of Jacob Alexander Cohen and his family. As a novel treating of modern Jews, Daniel Deronda cannot be regarded as a success; although every Jew must be touched by, and feel
grateful for the spirit which breathes throughout the book; perhaps, even be spurred by its influence to nobler effort, and taught a lesson, sadly needed, to hold himself and his people in greater respect.
As for Lord Beaconsfield's grandiloquent attempts in this direction, is not Coningsby forgotten in Codlingsbey, and which of us remembers the original of Raphael Mendoza?
In that clever, vulgar, unpleasant novel Mrs. Keith's Crime we are presented with several specimens of Jewish portraiture, which at least make some attempt at realism. Perhaps, however, no outspoken picture of Jewish vice could be so offensive as the author's condescending acknowledgement of Jewish virtue. "The Sardine," (as, with characteristic refinement, he is called throughout the book) is an impossibly slangy Jew of wealth and position, who spends his time in doing good to ungrateful Gentiles. The patronising reception of his kindness on the part of the extremely unpleasant heroine, is enough to fill with wrath the honest Semitic bosom. However, as a concession, no doubt, to modern feeling, the despised Sardine is allowed to be happy with a woman of his own race and is not, as we had expected, left forlorn at the last; a male and modern Rebecca of York. There is far more cleverness in the sketch of the elderly Jewess in the same book, with her indolence and persistence; her indifference and tenacity of purpose; a sketch which for once shows real insight into Jewish character, not mere observation of outward peculiarities.
But these and kindred efforts are, when all is said, of the slightest nature. There has been no serious attempt at serious treatment of the subject; at grappling in its entirely with the complex problem of Jewish life and Jewish character. The Jew, as we know him to-day, with his curious mingling of diametrically opposed qualities; his surprising virtues and no less surprising vices; leading his eager, intricate life, living, moving, and having his being both within and without the tribal limits; this deeply interesting product of our civilisation has been found worthy of none but the most superficial observation.
There is yet to be done for him, the comparison inevitably suggests itself, what M. Daudet has done for the inhabitants of Southern France. No picture of English 19th century life and manners can be considered complete without an adequate representation of the modern son of Shem.
While writers and readers of fiction complain that tout est dit, producers and consumers, alike, sending forth an Athenian cry for something new, it is strange that a field at once so rich and so untrodden, should have been almost entirely overlooked.
We have, alas! no M. Daudet among us. His mingled brilliance and solidity; his wonderful blending of picturesqueness and fidelity, have no counterparts among our own contemporary novel-writers. It is in the throng of aspirants to fame that must be sought a writer able and willing to do justice to the Jewish question in its social and psychological aspects.
Harold Fisch (essay date 1971)
SOURCE: "The Romantic Movement and Beyond," in The Dual Image: The Figure of the Jew in English and American Literature, KTAV Publishing House, 1971, pp. 53-79.
[In the following essay, Fisch argues that the literature of the nineteenth-century typically portrayed Jews as evil rather than good, as representing one extreme or the other, and as not being fully integrated with the world of non-Jews.]
The Romantic Movement continued much of the inspiration of late eighteenth century benevolence and tolerance. Wordsworth had felt the thrill of the French Revolution and had responded to the new climate of universal brotherhood. It is not surprising therefore that his poems of humble folk, celebrating the sanctities of hearth and home, should have included one or two of Jewish interest. His A Jewish Family (1828) is a descriptive lyric in which the dark-brown curls of the Jewish child more or less exhaust the specifically Jewish character of the poem. His conclusion expresses a certain veneration for the unseen Guardian who has preserved Israel through history:
Mysterious safeguard, that, in spite
Of poverty and wrong,
Doth here preserve a living light,
From Hebrew fountains sprung;
That gives this ragged group to cast
Around the dell a gleam
Of Palestine, of glory past,
And proud Jerusalem!
But we should remind ourselves of a new kind of literary anti-semitism which arose as a by-product of the Enlightenment. (Among Jews also at this period and later the literary movement of Enlightenment (Haskalah) produced a strong anti-religious reaction.) We find in Blake as in Voltaire a hatred of the God of the Old Testament as the author of the moral law. In Blake's Everlasting Gospel (approx. 1818), the true Jesus is the protagonist of free-love who "lays his hand on Moses' law" and defies the God of Sinai by "putting back the bloody shrine" wherein his moral restrictions are inscribed. This mood is also exemplified by Shelley. In his early poem Queen Mab (1813), the free progress of mankind towards the possession of knowledge, love, and beauty in their ideal manifestations are shown to be impeded by the decrees of "tyrannous omnipotence" and his servant Moses whose history is characterised as follows:
A Murderer heard
His voice in Egypt, one whose gifts and arts
Had raised him to his eminence in power,
Accomplice of omnipotence in crime,
And confidant of the all-knowing one.
And later, in Shelley's most mature verse-drama, Prometheus Unbound, the tyrant-god and enemy of the human race is Jupiter, who reveals no slight imaginative connexion with the God of the Hebrews. Clearly this ideological anti-semitism springs not so much out of a direct reaction to Jews or Judaism as out of the current revolt against evangelical orthodoxy and its negative Christian ethic, and also in particular it arose from the Romantic poets' hatred of the ugliness and illiberalism of the Industrial Revolution which was felt (rightly) to be associated with the religion of the nonconformist Middle Classes. This moral revolt in Blake and Shelley is thus in origin a Christian affair; it takes on an anti-semitic character through the false identification of Pauline Christianity—at war always with the World, the Flesh and the Devil—with Hebraism! (Matthew Arnold was later on guilty of the same false identification.) That anti-semitism should be produced as an extension of, and substitute for, anti-Christianity and, in particular, anti-Puritanism, is another example of that unfortunate confusion of values which we are constantly encountering in our discussion of this subject.
In Shelley's case confusion is made more confounded by the fact that in the very poem in which he first issues his defiance to the God of Israel, viz., Queen Mab, he also introduces as perhaps the most positive character in the poem, a character no other than Ahasuerus, the Wandering Jew. It is he who, as the author's mouthpiece, expresses the above-quoted blasphemies against the Old Testament God. Yet in contrast to the Wandering Jew as he figures in the ballads, there is here in Shelley no trace of anti-semitic feeling attaching to the Jew himself: he is rather a symbol of endurance "peaceful, and serene, and self-enshrined."
There is no doubt that the Wandering Jew exercised a peculiar compulsion over the romantic imagination. Both Wordsworth and Shelley were deeply impressed by the legend (though Wordsworth's Song for the Wandering Jew could equally well have been a song for the Wandering Indian or even for the Leech-gatherer). Shelley treated the subject five times. In his dramatic poem Hellas, Ahasuerus appears to reveal to Mahmud the secrets of the past and future:
What has thought
To do with time, or place, or circumstance,
Wouldst thou behold the future? ask and have!
Knock and it shall be opened—look, and lo!
The coming age is shadowed on the past
As on a glass.
Ahasuerus has insight into those truths which remain unchanged in a world of mutability. This positive approach to the legendary Ahasuerus is, however, only made possible by the weakening of the hold of Christian dogma which had earlier served to emphasise the disagreeable traits of the Wandering Jew. Thus we see how the processes of the Enlightenment served at the same time to promote a higher anti-semitism and to make possible a noble and tragic portrayal of the Jew of legend! The interest of the Ahasuerus story for Shelley and Wordsworth had nothing to do with its earlier use as an expression of Christian apologetics: indeed, insofar as the Wandering Jew was a recipient of the Divine curse, he was a figure to be pitied and admired. One could go further and say that the poets tended to identify themselves with the awesome and tragic figure of the Jew: this was especially the case with Shelley, who was an outcast, or at least a voluntary exile, and a rebel against the existing order. The romantic poet liked to think of himself as "a man of sorrows" elected for peculiar privilege and peculiar sufferings, and in the Wandering Jew he found the true model for such a self-portrait.
Coleridge's celebrated poem The Ancient Mariner, provides another example of the influence of the Wandering Jew story. There is good evidence that many touches in the mariner's guilt, his expiation, and his extraordinary sub-reading of the legend in M. G. Lewis's fantastic novel The Monk (1796) where the Wandering Jew specializes in exorcism and the uncovering of guilty secrets. The mariner's guilt, his expiation, and his extraordinary subsequent relation to society as well as the extent of his travels and his experience of life, all are features belonging to the legend; at the same time they reflect the peculiar burdens, obsessions, and intensities of the poète maudit of later romanticism.
All this suggests that the romantic poets were interested in Ahasuerus as a projection of themselves rather than in bestowing upon him a distinctive Jewish conscience or colouring. On the other hand, he does...
(The entire section is 29581 words.)
Rabbi Edward N. Calisch (essay date 1909)
SOURCE: "From 1800 to Date—" in The Jew in English Literature: As Author and As Subject, Bell Book and Stationary Co., 1909, pp. 161-82.
[In the following excerpt, Calisch assesses the novels written during the nineteenth-century by Jews about Jewish life, and identifies novelist Israel Zangwill as "the foremost Jewish literary figure" of his time.]
In the realm of fiction, Jewish literary genius finds large representation. There appears a number of names that will survive more than their own generation. A pioneer of the century was Grace Aguilar, 1816-1847. Her history is pathetically interesting....
(The entire section is 22215 words.)
Rachel Mordecai Lazarus and Maria Edgeworth (correspondence dates 1815-1817)
SOURCE: "The Correspondence," in The Education of the Heart: The Correspondence of Rachel Mordecai Lazarus and Maria Edgeworth, University of North Carolina Press, 1977, pp. 3-18.
[In the following correspondence, Lazarus (who helped her father—an American Jewish merchant—run a school for girls, and who read the educational treatises by Maria Edgeworth and her father, Richard Lovell Edgeworth) writes to Maria Edgeworth, politely condemning Edgeworth 's portrayal of a Jewish character (in her 1812 novel, The Absentee) in a stereotypical, derogatory manner; then...
(The entire section is 38446 words.)
G. L. Hersey (essay date 1976)
SOURCE: "Aryanism in Victorian England," in Yale Review, Vol. 66, Autumn, 1976, pp. 104-13.
[In the following essay, Hersey notes that the novel Lothair of Benjamin Disraeli (Prime Minister [1867; 1874-80] as well as novelist) "gently mocked" the views on Aryanism of Lord Leighton (painter), and that Leighton's positioning of Aryanism against Semitism resembled the construction of Matthew Arnold's arguments on Hellenism versus Hebraism.]
The cult, or philosophy, of Aryanism has flourished at various times and in various places during the past 150 years. In Britain from the late 1860's through at least the...
(The entire section is 20674 words.)
Baker, William. Introduction to George Eliot and Judaism, pp. 1-10. Salzburg, Austria: Institut fur Englische Sprache und Literatur, Universität Salzburg, 1975.
Discusses the critical response to the Jewish content of Daniel Deronda.
Braude, Benjamin. "The Heine-Disraeli Syndrome among the Palgraves of Victorian England." In Jewish Apostasy in the Modern World, edited by Todd M. Endelman, pp. 108-41. New York: Holmes and Meier, 1987.
Compares the "well-known obsessions with their Jewish pasts" of Benjamin Disraeli and Heinrich Heine with similar "obsessions" of lesser known converts, such...
(The entire section is 1079 words.)