Philhellenism and antisemitism: Matthew Arnold and his German models

Comparative Literature, Winter 1994 by Gossman, Lionel

34 It is true, of course, that Disraeli, though he flaunted his Jewish roots, had been baptised, and could therefore take the oath that was offensive to Jews and that prevented them, even when they had been duly elected, from taking their seats in Parliament until the final passing of the Jews' Act Amendment Bill in 1859. This fact hardly diminishes the extraordinary character, in the European context of the mid-nineteenth century, of Disraeli's role in British politics and public life.

35 Abraham Gilam ii. Gilam points out that, in contrast to Germany and france, "Jewish communal autonomy and separateness remained untouched in Britain. The Board of Deputies retained control over marriages, education, welfare and other domestic concerns. In 1836 it was given statutory recognition by Parliament as the marriage registrar for the Jewish community and in 1852, the chief rabbi and head of the Portuguese congregation were entrusted with the responsibility of supervising educational grants allocated from parliamentary endowments...British politicians constantly refused to intervene in internal Jewish disputes even when asked to do so by Jewish dissidents...England was the only European country where Jews continued to retain an autonomous management of their domestic affairs during a process of emancipation." (151) Gilam contrasts this with the Napoleonic interrogation of the Sanhedrin to determine whether the Jewish creed was sufficiently universalistic and whether Jews were ready to alter it when ever it seemed anti-social. (152) The British road to Jewish emancipation was in fact a compromise between liberal and conservative interests: "English statesmen wanted to establish freedom of conscience in the country while retaining the privileged position of the Anglican Church. In order to retain Church establishment, British legislation had to recognize the uniqueness of other creeds. They did not wish to separate church and state, diestablish Anglicanism or secularize public life. They did not confine religion to the sphere of individual privacy. If England wanted to retain an inequality before the law in favor of Anglicans, it had no right asking other minorities to make concessions in return for their own civil rights" (ii; see also 152).

36 For a sense of what these might be, from the point of view of the Jewish community in Britain itself, see Howard Cooper and Paul Morrison.

WORKS CITED

Alexander, Edward. Matthew Arnold and John Stuart Mill. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965.

Arnold, Matthew. Complete Prose Works. Ed. R. H. Super. 11 vols. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1961.

--. Culture and Anarchy. Ed. J. Dover Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

--. "Democracy." The Portable Arnold 436-69.

--. Essays in Criticism. London: Macmillan, 1865.

--. "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time." The Portable Arnold 234-67

--. The Portable Arnold. Ed. Lionel Trilling. New York: Viking Press, 1949.

Benjamin, Walter. Gesammelte Schriften. Ed. Rolf Tiedeman and Herman Schweppenhauser. Vol. 3. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1972. 7 vols.