Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England (review)

Julius, a distinguished British lawyer best known for having bested David Irving in court and for being the counsel for Princess Diana’s divorce case, previously published T.S. Eliot, anti-Semitism and Literary Form (New York, 1995), as well as two books on art history. His investigation of antisemitism in England is formidable in length and erudition. The study is interdisciplinary in its variety of sources as well as in its author’s profession as a lawyer rather than a historian. But, unfortunately, the fact that Julius is not a professional historian is more of a liability than an advantage in this case.

Writing such a book is admittedly a minefield and gives every promise of continuing to be one. Few areas have been so influenced, indeed almost overshadowed, by recent history—in this case, the Holocaust. Moreover, the vexed issue of Israel is always a source of strong feelings. Present concerns about Israel, far from ignored by Julius, make it difficult to discuss the subject of antisemitism in any sort of detached way. Julius makes little attempt to do so. Ultimately, he is disgusted with the subject, referring to antisemitism on his last page as “a sewer” that he hopes never to write about again (586).

English antisemitism is a perplexing subject. It was so intense in 1290 that the Jews were expelled from the realm and not readmitted until 1656. Since then, however, England, unlike other countries, has enacted hardly any legislation specifically directed against Jews. After their re-admission, Jews faced the same discrimination in English society as any other group not comprised of Anglican gentlemen of means. Gradually, like their compatriots, Jews became full-fledged participants in English society. By 1858, when a Rothschild became a Member of Parliament, they were as viable as any other citizens. They were still subject to informal discrimination, but whether their social status had a unique quality that differentiated it from that of, say, Catholics or the poor is difficult to ascertain.

Julius discusses the usual important suspects at length, although he tends to make chronological leaps, frequently drawing examples from different periods on the same page. He shows little sense of change or development, and the victims of antisemitism, the Jews themselves, are barely present in his narrative. Since, technically, Jews are not the subjects of the book, their absence might be excusable. So far as history is concerned, Julius covers the well-known topics of the Jew Bill of 1753 and the Aliens Act of 1905. He also discusses the canonical works of literature that were particularly influential in negative portraits of Jews— Geoffrey Chaucer’s Prioress’s Tale and, even more important, the figures of Shylock from William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice and Fagin from Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist. Julius’ suggestion of a visceral hatred of Jews in England based on the blood libel—the notion that Jews murdered Christians, particularly boys, to use their blood to make matzos during the Passover—may be intriguing, but it is not completely convincing. Despite the book’s numerous pages, Julius fails to provide an adequate explanation of English antisemitism and of the reason why many regard the Jews in England as not truly English.

Although his study covers many years, Julius is most interested in the present and the implications for today’s attitudes toward Israel. Unlike other nations in the Western world, England tends to show little sympathy for Israel. Could this negative view be a result of England’s historical ties with the Middle East and its tradition of romanticizing the Arabs? Could it be the result of England’s role in the modern history of Palestine? Julius seems to accept, with some hesitation, that antisemitism and anti-Zionism are not much different. The book often seems more like a lawyer’s brief than a historical work. All historians are deeply influenced by concerns of the present. The challenge is to use them...