Iris Idelson-Shein

Difference of a Different Kind


Скачать книгу

ection>

      

      Difference of a Different Kind

      JEWISH CULTURE AND CONTEXTS

      Published in association with the Herbert D. Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies of the University of Pennsylvania

      David B. Ruderman, SERIES EDITOR

      ADVISORY BOARD

       Richard I. Cohen

       Moshe Idel

       Alan Mintz

       Deborah Dash Moore

       Ada Rapoport-Albert

       Michael D. Swartz

      A complete list of books in the series is available from the publisher.

      Difference of a Different Kind

      JEWISH CONSTRUCTIONS OF RACE DURING THE LONG EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

      Iris Idelson-Shein

Image

      UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PRESS Philadelphia

Image

      THIS BOOK IS MADE POSSIBLE BY A COLLABORATIVE GRANT FROM THE ANDREW W. MELLON FOUNDATION.

      © 2014 University of Pennsylvania Press

      All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations used for purposes of review or scholarly citation, none of this book may be reproduced in any form by any means without written permission from the publisher.

      Published by

      University of Pennsylvania Press

      Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-4112

       www.upenn.edu/pennpress

      Printed in the United States of America

      on acid-free paper

      10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

      A Cataloging-in-Publication record is available from the Library of Congress.

      ISBN 978-0-8122-4609-4

       To my parents

      CONTENTS

       Note on Translations and Transliteration

       Introduction

       1. An East Indian Encounter: Rape and Infanticide in the Memoirs of Glikl Bas Leib

       2. “And Let Him Speak”: Noble and Ignoble Savages in Yehudah Horowitz’s Amudey beyt Yehudah

       3. Whitewashing Jewish Darkness: Baruch Lindau and the “Species” of Man

       4. Fantasies of Acculturation: Campe’s Savages in the Service of the Haskalah

       Epilogue. A Terrible Tale: Some Final Thoughts on Jews and Race

       Notes

       Bibliography

       Index

       Acknowledgments

      NOTE ON TRANSLATIONS AND TRANSLITERATION

      All translations are my own unless otherwise mentioned. All biblical excerpts in English, including those incorporated in the translation of maskilic biblical allusions, are based on the Authorized King James edition. All Hebrew and Yiddish terms have been transliterated according to the guidelines set forth in the Encyclopaedia Judaica and the standard YIVO transcription system. The Anglicized form is used for terms or names already familiar in English. Parenthetical explanations of Hebrew and Yiddish terms are given upon first mention.

      Difference of a Different Kind

      Introduction

      There is an amusing scene in V. S. Naipaul’s The Mimic Men, in which Ralph Singh, a Caribbean immigrant in London, describes his impression of his English landlord, Mr. Shylock: “For Mr. Shylock … I had nothing but admiration. I was not used to the social modes of London or to the physiognomy and complexions of the North, and I thought Mr. Shylock looked distinguished.… He had the habit of stroking the lobe of his ear and inclining his head to listen. I thought the gesture was attractive; I copied it. I knew of recent events in Europe; they tormented me; and … I offered Mr. Shylock my fullest, silent compassion.”1

      Naipaul’s portrayal of the enthusiastic young immigrant, who has his heart set on becoming a true Englishman, is, of course, ripe with irony. But there is also something unsettling in this description; as we, the readers, cannot help but notice that Singh’s object of admiration is not a true Englishman at all, one graced with “the physiognomy and complexions of the North.” Rather, Singh’s landlord is a Jew, and not just any Jew at that, but one named after the archetypical “ugly Jew” of English literature—Shakespeare’s Shylock. Indeed, the man Singh is trying to mimic in order to become an authentic Englishman is in himself a “mimic man.” The irony inherent in the situation reaches its climax toward the end of the paragraph, with Singh’s implied reference to the Shoah. Here, the tables are suddenly turned, and the Jewish landlord’s mimicry assumes center stage, announcing itself most clearly.

      Naipaul’s short episode offers a tantalizing expression of the dilemma inherent in the “Jewish situation” in Europe. Throughout the history of Europe, Jews have occupied a sensitive location at the discursive crossroads of “sameness” and “otherness.” To adapt Homi Bhabha’s terminology, they have often been considered “almost the same, but not quite.” This ambivalence of Jewish ethnicity goes back all the way to the thought of Ḥazal, the ancient Jewish sages. In the canonical text of the Mishnah (the first compendium of rabbinic tradition, c. 200 c.e.), it is noted: “An intense brightness in the German is dark, and the darkness of the Kushite is intense, [but] the Children of Israel are … neither black nor white, but in between” (Mishnah, Negaim 2:1). Over the years, this “in between-ness” of the Jews, with its religious, cultural, political, and historical implications, has received a great deal of scholarly attention. Historians, anthropologists, theologians, and others have dedicated studies to exploring the Jews’ ambivalent status in Europe; their political and social marginalization have been studied rigorously, the Janus-faced and often tormented relationship between Jews and Christians has preoccupied scholars throughout the ages, and the question of Jewish otherness, uniqueness, or difference continues to excite the imagination of many of our own contemporaries.

      In contrast, however, to this scholarly enticement with the question of Jewish-Christian relations, very little attention has been given to the other side of Jewish “otherness,” so to speak. The question of Jewish perceptions and representations of other Others, and their relationships with them, has been virtually neglected by historians. This scholarly tendency to overlook the question of Jewish agency in the history of race conveys a preconception of what race history—indeed, what race—is all about. It is motivated by two dominant historiographical