« VorigeDoorgaan »
which is to lead to a millennium of State proprietorship of all land, to be managed by the State for the benefit of the nation at large, the land being let out in small farms at reasonable and practically fixed rents. Free trade in coal mines, iron mines, ironworks, &c., is condemned, and therefore we are to have no free trade in land, and the owner is not to be allowed to sell his farm for a profit.
It is little to the purpose that this sort of thing is opposed not only to common sense, but to all the traditions of the Liberal party, and to all experience in India, America, and Australia, as well as in Europe.
The important fact is that the enormous bribe of a share in the redivision of landed property among the labouring classes, can be held out by sober advisers of the Government as an inducement to join forces with the agitators for alterations in the English Land Laws. Nothing more wild is to be found in the early programmes of the first French Revolution. Let us hope that a Reign of Terror is not needed to bring English and Scotch farmers back to the regions of common sense.
H. B. E. FRERE. November 15, 1881.
RECENT PHASES OF JUDÆOPHOBIA.
In the October number of this Review, Professor Goldwin Smith renews his onslaughts upon Jews and Judaism with an acerbity and virulence which I may be permitted to term Hamanic. Each sentence is a barbed arrow; each barb is tipped with venom. I do pot propose to traverse the ground already covered by my former replies to the Professor's attacks, but shall mainly confine myself to the task of examining sine irâ et studio the new charges which he brings forward, and of exposing his distortions of Judaism and his perversions of Jewish history.
The main argument, stripped of its side issues, is contained in a narrow compass. Mr. Goldwin Smith discusses the anti-Jewish agitation prevalent in Germany, and justifies it on various grounds. He attributes the persecutions of the Hebrew, past and present, in the first instance to the tribal exclusiveness of the Jewish people. According to him the Jew makes a religious idol of his tribe. All the other races profess at least allegiance to humanity; they all look forward, however vaguely, to a day of universal brotherhood. The Jew alone regards his race as superior to humanity, and looks forward, not to its ultimate union with other races, but to its triumph over them all, and to its final ascendency under the leadership of a tribal Messiah. I maintain that these statements are entirely opposed to fact. The great bond which unites Israel is not one of race, but the bond of a common religion. We regard all mankind as brethren. We consider ourselves citizens of the country in which we dwell, in the highest and fullest sense of the term, and esteem it our dearest privilege and duty to labour for its welfare. Is there aught incompatible with our devotion to humanity and with our patriotism, if, at the same time, we feel sympathy for those who profess the same religious faith and practise the same religious ordinances, whether they inhabit this country or other lands? If the bond which unites the Jew were, in truth, tribal, it would be a matter of perfect indifference to us what might be the religious belief or practice of our brethren in race. But the bare fact that we regard as apostates those of our fellow Jews who abandon their faith, is proof sufficient that religion is the main
· Nineteenth Century, April and July 1878.
bond. So Mr. Goldwin Smith proposes, as his panacea, that the Israelite should abandon his tribalism, and all that separates him socially from the people among whom he dwells. This means that he should give up his separate church, his religious rites and prayers, his seventh day Sabbath, and that in Turkey he should conform to Islam, in Russia to Greek orthodoxy—in other words, that he should cease to be a Jew; and in spite of this, the Professor claims that he upholds religious toleration and liberty of conscience. I will tolerate you Jews,' he would say, 'when you cease to be Jews; I will tolerate your religion when you reject it.'
Yet he himself demonstrates the worthlessness of his suggested remedy. For one would have thought that the late Lord Beaconsfield, who adopted the dominant faith of this country, and married out of the pale of his tribe, would have been a Jew after Mr. Goldwin Smith's own heart. Yet the ire of the historian pursues tbe statesman whose memory all England honours, and whose loss all Europe deplores, as though the author of Lothair had been a hardshell’ Sarmatian. In Berlin, the head-quarters of anti-Semitism, are numbers of Jews, who, according to the new nomenclature, would be classed among the Mollusks—men who have discarded every trace of tribalism and intermarried freely with the general population. But against these, even more loudly than against the consistent, observant, “hard-shell’ Jew, the modern ‘Hep! Hep!' is raised.
I emphatically contest the position that our objection to mixed marriages is the outcome of tribal exclusiveness. It is essentially a matter of religion. It is an indispensable condition of domestic peace and happiness, that two persons who have entered into a compact to pass their lives together should fairly agree in their views on religion, which, to those who possess any religion at all, is a paramount concern of life. Hence statistics show that in all religious denominations the parties who contract marriage usually belong to the same faith, and that, for example, alliances between Churchmen and Catholics are comparatively rare.
Alliances between Christians and Hindoos, between Christians and Mahommedans, between Greek Christians and Protestants are still more rare, and probably in every case must practically (and especially for reasons connected with the religious education of the offspring) be attended with renunciation of faith by one of the parties to the marriage. Why, then, should the Jew specially be taunted and blamed for refusing intermarriage, seeing that it would practically necessitate the abandonment of a faith which he has ever felt dearer to him than life itself?
Next, our opponent taunts us with practising the rite of circumcision, as Apion in the days of Josephus did; for there is a strange coincidence of argument between the anti-Semites, old and new. He calls it a savage custom; though the pain of the operation is probably not equal to that produced by the barbarous custom of
piercing children's ears, and certainly not more dangerous than the highly salutary operation of vaccination. Nay, most medical men agree, that the practice of this rite is positively conducive to health. And what distortion of fact does it indicate to brand the accomplishment of this rite as a tribal mark! We initiate our sons into the covenant of Abraham not because we desire to indicate that we belong to the same tribe, but because we are thereby obeying what we believe to be a Divine behest. Does not Milton himself, first among sacred Christian poets, characterise this ordinance as that great covenant which we still transgress ??
The allegation that we hope for a Messianic age not of universal brotherhood is altogether without foundation. All the predictions of our inspired seers point to precisely the opposite view. They prophesy, indeed, that Israel will be restored to his land, and that a wise and pious king of David's lineage will there rule over him. But this is not to be the crowning climax of that golden age. Not a tribal Messiah will govern the world, but the Lord will be King over all the earth! And he shall judgeamong the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.' « Then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.'3 This, it may perhaps be argued, was the spiritual teaching of prophets holding transcendental views, which, however, took no root among the mass of the people. Turn we then to the recognised liturgy of the Hebrews. At the period when the article on the Jewish Question' appeared we were celebrating the most solemn festivals of the year. And the burden of our chief prayer was: 'Inspire, O Lord our God, all thy creatures with the reverence of Thee, that they may unitedly perform thy will. Speed the time when the dominion of tyranny will be removed from the earth, when all iniquity shall be dumb, all wickedness vanish like smoke.' At the conclusion of each one of our daily services throughout the year we supplicate the Lord that He may cause us speedily to behold the time when all flesh shall invoke His name, when all the inhabitants of the world shall know and acknowledge Him, so that unto Him every knee shall bow, every tongue swear fealty. Does this look as if we believe in a tribal God'? So, too, all the authorised expositors of our law agree in declaring that the supreme boon of the Messianic days will consist herein, that their blessings are not to be reserved unto us, but will be diffused throughout the earth, that those truths for which we have bled and suffered will be recognised by mankind, that racial antipathy will come to an end, that all religious hatred will cease, that all men will feel and consider themselves as brethren and will think and act as brethren, that one language will be spoken--the language of truth, mercy, and love. What aspirations can be nobler than these ? Can there be an acknowledgment ampler than this, of hope and expectation of universal brotherhood in the days to come?
2 Milton's Ode upon the Circumcision. Isaiah xi. 4; Zephaniah iii. 9.
Mr. Goldwin Smith proceeds further to trace the persecutions of the Jews not to any religious fanaticism on the part of the oppressors, but to the peculiar character, habits, and position of the Jewish people. He stigmatises them as a wandering and parasitic race, without a country, avoiding ordinary labour, spreading over the world to live on the labour of others by means of usury and other equally discreditable pursuits. And he does not stay to investigate whether he may not be guilty of the crying injustice of making a whole community responsible for the wrong-doings of its black sheep. He does not stop to inquire whether any of these failings may not be due to a long-continued system of persecution unparalleled in the annals of humanity. No; he asserts that they are characteristics inherent in the Hebrew branch of the Semitic stock. Otherwise the Jews would not have adopted as a typical hero the man who takes advantage of his brother's hunger to buy him out of his birthright with a mess of pottage, or they would not record with exultation how they had spoiled the Egyptians by borrowing their jewels on a feigned pretext.' This is all that the Professor has to say in respect to the place occupied by the Jewish nation and the Jewish Scripture in the development of mankind, and such suppressio veri may well justify the indignation with which a gifted writer · laments the abysmal ignorance prevailing concerning our people.
Has the Jew indeed done nothing for the world but to live on the labour of others ? I address myself to the great body of my English countrymen and countrywomen whose hearts will beat responsively to the noble reply once given by our Queen to an African prince. The prince sent an embassy with costly presents, and asked her to tell him, in return, the secret of England's greatness and glory. She sent him not the number of her fleet, not the details of the inexhaustible wealth of her country; but, handing the envoy a copy of the Bible, she said: "Tell the prince that this is the secret of England's greatness. Need I state, that three-fourths of this volume consists of the Old Testament, which in the words of Professor Leathes-and, I may add, by common consent of Christian theologians-contains the germ and nucleus of the New? And it is the Hebrew who has written down, preserved, and treasured his Sacred Scriptures. In the words of an eloquent divine 6: They have influenced, taught, pervaded mankind.
* See Maimonides, Jad Hachasa ka, the concluding chapter of the work. • George Eliot in The Impressions of Theophrastus Such.
6 General Introduction to the Old Testament, by Canon Farrar in the Palpit Commentary. The words spoken by the new Dean of Westminster in bis inangural