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" 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," 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 party 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. 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
recurring 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--"I 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 vile_ 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, where a whip is carried by passengers ready to flog off the too
officious specimens of his race, can still be proud to say, "I am 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. 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 Stuarts 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. 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, 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; 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 modern 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, 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?
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; and in any case I think Englishmen would refuse
to accept the character and doings of those eighteenth century statesmen
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 world-wide 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?