CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA IN ENGLAND
A new appeal――Earl of Shaftesbury in 1876――Edward Cazalet
――Laurence Oliphant――Zionism in English fiction――George Eliot
――“Daniel Deronda”――The Jewish nationalism of Mordecai Cohen
――A quotation from Dr. Joseph Jacobs.
IN Palestine the Jews continued to cherish the hope of colonization,
though they had a hard struggle for existence. In a new appeal
addressed to the Jews in England, _Rabbi_ Sneersohn describes
the situation in Palestine, and gives a clear idea of the efforts
previously made in the direction of colonization. This appeal is
very instructive as to the history of the colonization efforts in
the earlier stages (Appendix lxxi).
At the same time, while the Jewish organizations grappled with the
problem from the standpoint of charity, the great Zionist idea was
again put forth by English Christians. In the first place, Lord
Shaftesbury wrote in 1876 a most remarkable Zionist article, from
which we quote a few sentences:――
“Is there no other destiny for Palestine but to remain desolate or
to become the appendage of an ambitious foreign power? Syria and
Palestine will ere long become most important. On the Euphrates and
along the coast old cities will revive and new ones will be built: the
old time will come back on a scale of greater vastness and grandeur:
and bridging the districts the stream will run in the track of the
caravans. Syria then will be a place of trade pre-eminence. And who
are pre-eminently the traders of the world? Will there, when the
coming change has taken place, be any more congenial field for the
energies of the Jew? The country wants capital and population. The
Jews can give it both. And has not England a special interest in
promoting such a restoration? It would be a blow to England if either
of her rivals should get hold of Syria. Her Empire reaching from
Canada in the West to Calcutta and Australia in the South-East would
be cut in two. England does not covet any such territories, but
she must see that they do not get in the hands of rival Powers. She
must preserve Syria to herself. Does not policy then――if that were
all――exhort England to foster the nationality of the Jews and aid
them, as opportunity may offer, to return as a leavening power to
their old country? England is the great trading and maritime power of
the world. To England, then, naturally belongs the rôle of favouring
the settlement of the Jews in Palestine. The nationality of the Jews
exists: the spirit is there and has been there for 3000 years, but the
external form, the crowning bond of union is still wanting. A nation
must have a country. The old land, the old people. This is not an
artificial experiment: it is nature, it is history.” Needless to say,
the political idea, as expounded in these sentences, could not have
been put more convincingly by the staunchest Jewish political Zionist.
A few years later, two distinguished Englishmen started propaganda
work on the same lines as Lord Shaftesbury: Edward Cazalet and
Laurence Oliphant.
Edward Cazalet (1827‒1883) was a man of great political ability.
He was a staunch friend of the Jews, and he knew the East. His idea
was that “wrong should be righted and freedom allowed a place in the
world.” He had a very high conception of Great Britain’s duty in the
East. His appreciation of a centre for “Jewish culture” is especially
remarkable. Hardly a single point seems to have escaped him; he covers
the ground thoroughly, from criticism of the old English policy to
discussion of the new Eastern problem, taking the question of the
Palestinian population, the jealousies of the sects, and a hundred
other things by the way. There are naturally a few debatable points in
this comprehensive treatise (Appendix lxxii). But as a whole it shows
remarkable insight.
A place of honour in the realm of England’s Zionism belongs to
another remarkable personality: Laurence Oliphant (1829‒1888). He
was a friend of Lord Shaftesbury, and had been a high official in
connection with Indian affairs, secretary to the Earl of Elgin and
Kincardine (1811‒1863), traveller, journalist, diplomatist and member
of Parliament. He took up a scheme for colonizing Palestine with
Jews, and early in 1879 went to the East to examine the country
and endeavour to obtain a concession from the Turkish Government.
In consequence of jealousies this attempt to influence the Turkish
Government failed, and the scheme broke down, as did many others
that were launched about this time. He again took up the Palestine
colonization scheme in 1882. He travelled to Constantinople in the
summer of that year, and settled for a time in Therapia. At the end
of the year he moved with his wife to _Haifa_.
He reports thus on his efforts in his book¹:――
¹ The Land of Gilead with Excursions in the Lebanon. By
Laurence Oliphant.... Edinburgh and London, MDCCCLXXX.
Introduction, _pp._ xxxv‒xxxvi.
“... Prior to starting, however, it seemed to be my first duty to lay
the matter before the Government, with the view of obtaining their
support and approval, and I therefore communicated to the then Prime
Minister and Lord Salisbury the outline of the project. From both
Ministers I received the kindest encouragements and assurances of
support, as far as it was possible to afford it without officially
committing the Government. And I was instructed to obtain, if possible,
the unofficial approval of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the scheme. I therefore proceeded to Paris, and submitted it to
_M._ W. H. Waddington (1826‒1894), who was sufficiently favourably
impressed with the idea to give me a circular letter to the French
Ambassador at Constantinople and other diplomatic and consular
representatives in Turkey. I was also similarly provided with letters
of recommendation from our own Foreign Office.
“I would venture to express most respectfully my gratitude and
thanks to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales¹ and to their
Royal Highnesses the Prince (1831‒1917) and Princess Christian of
Schleswig-Holstein for the warm interest and cordial sympathy with
which they regarded the project and which encouraged me to prosecute
it.”
¹ Afterwards King Edward VII. (1841‒1910).
“It appeared to me that this object might be attained by means of
a Colonisation Company, and that one of those rich and unoccupied
districts which abound in Turkey might be obtained and developed
through the agency of a commercial enterprise which should be formed
under the auspices of His Majesty, and have its seat at Constantinople,
though, as in the case of the Ottoman Bank and other Turkish companies,
the capital would be found abroad, provided the charter contained
guarantees adequate for the protection of the interests of the
shareholders.”¹ “It is somewhat unfortunate that so important a
political and strategical question as the future of Palestine should
be inseparably connected in the public mind with a favourite religious
theory. The restoration of the Jews to Palestine has been so often
urged upon sentimental or Scriptural grounds, that now, when it may
possibly become the practical and common-sense solution of a great
future difficulty, a prejudice against it exists in the minds of
those who have always regarded it as a theological chimera, which it
is not easy to remove. The mere accident of a measure involving most
important international consequences, having been advocated by a large
section of the Christian community, from a purely Biblical point of
view, does not necessarily impair its political value. On the contrary,
its political value once estimated on its own merits and admitted,
the fact that it will carry with it the sympathy and support of those
who are not usually particularly well versed in foreign politics is
decidedly in its favour. I would avail myself of this opportunity of
observing that, so far as my own efforts are concerned, they are based
upon considerations which have no connection whatever with any popular
religious theory upon the subject.”²
¹ _Ibid._, _p._ xv: “In his endeavours to obtain a concession
for an autonomous Jewish state in Palestine from the Porte,
Oliphant had the support of both Lord Salisbury and Lord
Beaconsfield.”
² _Ibid._, _pp._ xxxii‒xxxiii.
These last remarks are particularly worthy of the attention of those
who, ignorant of the actual facts, are inclined to represent Zionism
merely as a theological or sectarian idea. There is ♦undoubtedly a
strong religious feeling underlying it, but the idea has been dealt
with, defended and propagated in England from all points of view.
♦ “undoubedly” replaced with “undoubtedly”
Illustration:
_Rt. Hon._ JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN EARL _of_ SHAFTESBURY
_London Stereoscopic Co._
GEORGE ELIOT
_London Stereoscopic Co._
JAMES FINN LAURENCE OLIPHANT
Laurence Oliphant continued to take an interest in the question until
his death on December 23rd, 1888.
Among English writers who have understood the idea in all its depth
and breadth, the place of honour belongs unquestionably to George
Eliot (1819‒1880).¹ She chose the Zionist idea for the theme of
an imaginative creation, wherein she displayed unequalled depth
of comprehension and breadth of conception. In “Daniel Deronda”²
(1874‒1876) the Jew demands the rights pertaining to his race,
and claims admittance into the community of nations as one of its
legitimate members. He demands real emancipation, real equality. The
blood of the prophets surges in his veins, the voice of God calls to
him, and he becomes conscious, and emphatically declares that he has
a distinct nationality; the days of levelling are over. Where calumny
and obtuseness see nothing but _disjecta membra_, the eye of the
English poetess perceives a complete national entity destined to begin
life afresh, full of strength and vigour.
¹ Mary Ann (Marian) Cross, _née_ Evans.
² דָּנִיֵּאל דּרוֹנְדָה ספור כתוב אנגלית ביד ”גארג“ עליוט ונעתק לעברית על ידי דוד
.פרישמאנן ... ווארשא ... שנת תרנ״ג לפ״ק ... 1893
(8º. 1 _l._ + 774 _pp._, in printed wrapper as issued.
([B. M.])
דזארזש עליאט דניאל דיראנדה ראמאן ... ווארשא, תרע״ד.. ווארשא, תרע״ד
(8º. 308 _pp._ [B. M.])
It is a memorable book, written by an author devoted to humanity and
to the deeper realities of English national life. Its atmosphere is
far removed from the conception of a materialistic world. Yet it is
practical in a higher sense. It preaches a great idea. The Jewish
nationality is represented as it actually is: not as an artificial
combination, but as an ethnological group which possessed the glory of
independence in the happier past and has been kept alive to hope for
the future by a deep historical consciousness and a lofty devotion to
humanity. This is a Zionist message indeed.
The wonderful completeness and accuracy with which George Eliot
represented the Jewish character is particularly remarkable. The
sketches of Klesmer and Alcharisi are triumphs of artistic skill.
Ezra Cohen is the embodiment of the successful commercial faculty.
The influence of the mother and the home on the inner life of the Jew,
as described in the novel, must impress every reader. Pusti, the “Jew
who is no Jew,” typifies excellently the despised class of which he
is a specimen. The more temperate Gideon represents a large section
of the Jews who are neither ashamed of their race nor proud of it, but
are prepared to let the racial and religious distinctions for which
the Jewish nation has fought so valiantly perish unexpressed. But the
great character of the book is Mordecai Cohen.
Mordecai Cohen is a lineal descendant of three great spiritual houses
which, in past ages, have waged a moral warfare in defiance of the
whole world against terrible odds; and the fact that those noble souls
are descendants of the Jewish race affords ample proof of the physical,
intellectual, and moral stamina which Judaism has always preserved.
Mordecai is the leader of a party which refuses to believe that
Israel’s part in history is accomplished, and maintains that Israel’s
future policy should be to join the nations as soon as possible.
George Eliot explains the traditions, habits and characteristics of
the Jews with the affectionate accuracy of a delighted scientific
observer and with the fine enthusiasm of a humanitarian spirit.
The abundance of detail and the sensitiveness of the fine shades
are marvellous. With subtlety, restraint and delicacy, without the
excitements of sensationalism, she succeeds in throwing into relief
the real Jewish problem. Something is passing away that once possessed
a life and value of its own. The labour of thousands of years is
lost; a flame has burnt in vain, a fire is extinguished without having
fostered life. There is a terrible sadness in it. The human soul
turns to what has been the highest aspiration of its life. Mordecai
has a profound contempt for the arts of emulation; he wants creative
originality. His idea is to be wholly what he is partly, his own self,
his own self restored. He wants to live entirety at home, to live by
the work of his hands, to bring to maturity the ideas which he feels
developing in his mind. Where would this be possible? Only within
an organization of his own people in their ancient home, in the
mother-country of his own kin and ancestry, in a commonwealth which
should focus and embody the whole of Jewish life as it should be,
not ossified, dried, cut up, preserved in the form of saintly relics
and adapted by interpretations and compromises to different zones,
cultures and customs. He has, it is true, a great reverence for these
saintly relics, and――_faute de mieux_――in the Diaspora he feels it a
sacred duty to preserve them. But he feels that this is not the ideal,
he sees that it is going to vanish, and therefore he longs for his
home, for a cultural entity working independently in harmony with
similar entities. This and only this would bring the Jews nearer to
the world, nearer to humanity. Is this “nationalism”? In the absence
of a happier name, let us accept this term. “What’s in a name?” In
reality, it is human liberty; it involves no secession from the stream
of common humanity. There is no aspiration more in harmony with the
spirit and deeper tendencies of our age, more in accordance with
liberty and justice, for nations as well as for individuals. This is
Zionist “nationalism.” No writer defends it more enthusiastically than
George Eliot.¹
¹ The late Dr. Joseph Jacobs (1854‒1916) was more Zionist
than the Zionists themselves when he wrote: “Unless some
such project as Mordecai has in view be carried out in the
next three generations, it is much to be feared that both
the national life of the Jews and the religious life of
Judaism will perish utterly from the face of the earth”
(_Macmillan’s Magazine_, June, 1877, _p._ 110). This
opinion is rather too gloomy, and he took a different view
in later years. But his first opinion is significant.
In the Valhalla of the Jewish people, among the tokens of homage
offered by the genius of centuries, “Daniel Deronda” will take its
place as the proudest testimony to English recognition of the Zionist
idea.