Dostoyevski Ve Yahudiler (David I. Goldstein, 1981)

7/28/2019 Dostoyevski Ve Yahudiler (David I. Goldstein, 1981)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dostoyevski-ve-yahudiler-david-i-goldstein-1981 1/40

The Diary of a Writer

F. M. Dostoievsky, "The Diary of a Writer", George Braziller, New York 1954

TRANSLATED AND ANNOTATED BY BORIS BRASOL

The following is an extract from Dostoievsky's non-fiction work The Diary of a Writer , published serially from 1873 to 1871.

{p. 630} FEODOR DOSTOIEVSKY: 1877 ...

Many people, in a purely Western fashion, began to see in the Church nothing but dead formalism, segregation, ritualism, and

starting with the end of the past century - even prejudice and hypocrisy: the spirit, the idea, the living force was forgotten. There

appeared economic conceptions of the Western pattern, new political doctrines, new morality which sought to correct and

supersede the former one. Finally, science made its appearance, and it could not help but introduce disbelief in the former ideas.

... Besides, in the peoples of the East there began to awaken pre-eminently national ideas: suddenly there arose a fear that, after

having shaken off the Turkish yoke, they would fall under the yoke of Russia.

However, among the many millions of our common people and in their czars the idea of the liberation of the East and of the

Church of Christ was never dead. The movement which seized the Russian people last summer proved that they forgot nothing

of their ancient hopes and beliefs; it even surprised the overwhelming mass of our intelligentsia to such an extent that they

adopted a skeptical and scoffing attitude toward it, assuring everybody - and above all themselves - that the movement was

invented and counterfeited by disreputable men who were seeking to come to the forefront to occupy a showy place.

n ee , w o, n our ay, among our nte gents a - save a sma port on o t w c etac e tse rom t e genera c orus -

could admit that our people are capable of consciously comprehending their political, social and ethical mission? How could it

be conceived that this coarse common mass, which only recently was kept in bondage and which now half-killed itself with

vodka, knew and was convinced that its destiny was to serve Christ, and that of its Czar - to guard the Christian faith and to

liberate Orthodoxy ? "Even though this mass always called itself Christian, nevertheless it has no conception of either religion or

even Christ; it knows not even the most ordinary prayers." This is what is usually being said about our people. Who is saying this

? You think - a German pastor who has organized our Stundism; or a travelling European; a correspondent of a political

newspaper; or some educated top Jew, from among those who do not believe in God and of whom suddenly nowadays so many

have been propagated ir complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed. Let the Jew also show at least

some brotherly feeling for

{p. 631} the guise of a drunken peasant woman with a square bottle in her hand ? - Oh, no ! Thus thinks an enormous part of our

Russian, very best society. Yet they do not suspect that even though our people do not know prayers, nevertheless the

essence of Christianity, its spirit and truth, are conserved and fortified in them despite their vices - as strongly as, perhaps,

in no other people in the world.

rue, an at e st or a uss an uropean n erent to re g on even oes not un erstan t ot erw se t an n t e s ape o

formalism and hypocrisy. However, in the people they behold nothing akin to hypocrisy, and, therefore, they infer that the people

understand nothing in religion; that they pray, whenever they deem it necessary, to a board, but that, essentially, they are

indifferent and their spirit is killed by formalism. They do not at all discern in the people the Christian spirit, perhaps, because

they have long ago lost it and do not know where it resides and where it blows. However, this "depraved" and ignorant people

of ours loves the humble man and God's holy fool: in all their traditions and legends the people have preserved the belief that

the weak and the humbled, unjustly suffering for Christ, will be raised above the eminent and the strong when God's

judgment and ordainment are pronounced. Our people are also fond of telling the story of the renowned and grand life of their

great, chaste and hr complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed. Let the Jew also show at least some brotherly feeling for the Russian people

And possessing, revering and loving such a valiant knight, how can our people fail to believe in the triumph of oppressed

peoples and our brethren in the East ? Our people revere the memory of their great and humble hermits and saints; they are

fond of reciting to their children the stories about the great Christian martyrs. They have learned and know these stories, and it

was from them that I first heard them; they were told with deep understanding and reverence and they became engraved in my

heart.



Besides, every year, there arise from the people's midst great repenting "Vlases" who give away all their property and who, with

touching emotion, engage in the humble and great exploit of truth, work and poverty. ...

{p. 637} CHAPTER II

1

"The Jewish Question"

OH, PLEASE don't think that I mean to raise "the Jewish question" ! I wrote the title jestingly. To raise a question of such

magnitude as the status of the Jew in Russia, and the status of Russia which among her sons has three million Jews - is beyond

my power. The question exceeds my limits. Still, I can have a certain opinion of my own, and it now appears that some Jews

begin to take interest in it. For some time I have been receiving letters from them in which they seriously and with bitterness

have reproached me for the fact that I am attacking them, that "I hate the Yiddisher," that I hate him not for his vices, "not as an

exploiter," but specifically as a race, i.e., somewhat along the line that "Judas sold out Christ." This is being written by

"educated" Jews, meaning, by such ones as (this I have noticed, but by no means do I generalize my remark, and this I am

emphasizing in advance) always, as it were, endeavor to advise you that, because of their education, they long ago ceased to

share "the prejudr complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed. Let the Jew also show at least some

brotherly feeling for the Russian people so as to encourage them. I know that even at present th

I shall observe, parenthetically, that to all those gentlemen from among the "top Jews" who are such staunch advocates of their

nation, it is much too sinful to forget their forty-century-old Jehovah and to renounce him. And this is sinful not only because of

national sentiment but likewise for other momentous reasons. And strangely: a Jew without God is somehow inconceivable; a

Jew without God cannot be imagined. However, this is a vast theme, and for the time being we shall leave it aside.

The thing that surprises me most is how, on what grounds,

{p. 638} have I been classed as a hater of Jews as a people, as a nation? To a certain extent I am permitted by these gentlemen

themselves to condemn the Jew as an exploiter and for some of his vices, but only ostensibly: in fact, it is difficult to find

anything more irritable and susceptible than the educated Jew, more touchy than he, as a Jew. But, again, when and how did I

declare hate against the Jews as a people? - Since there never has been such a hatred in my heart, and those Jews who are

acquainted with me and have dealt with me know it, from the very outset and before I say a word, I withdraw from myself this

accusation, once and forever, so as not to make special mention of it later.

Am I not accused of hatred because sometimes I called the Jew "Yiddisher"? But, in the first place, I did not think that this is so

abusive, and secondly, as far as I can remember, I have always used the word "Yiddisher" in order to denote a certain idea:

"Yiddisher, Yiddishism, Yiddish reign," etc. This denotes a certain conception, orientation, characteristic of the age. One may

argue about this idea, and disagree with it, but one shouldn't feel offended by a word.

I shall quote certain passages from a long, and in many respects, beautiful letter, addressed to me by a highly educated Jew,

which aroused in me great interest. It is one of the most typical accusations of my hatred of the Jew, as a people. It goes without

saying that the name of Mr. N. K., the author of this letter, is kept strictly anonymous.

"... But I intend to touch upon a subject which most decidedly I am unable to explain to myself: this is your hatred of the

'Yiddisher' which is revealed virtually in every issue of your Diary.

"I should like to know why are you protesting against the Yiddisher, and not the exploiter in general? I, not less than you, cannot

tolerate the prejudices of my nation, - not little have I suffered from these - but I shall never concede that there dwells sham less

exploitation in the blood of this nation.



"Is it possible that you are unable to lift yourself to the comprehension of the fundamental law of any social life to the effect that

all citizens of a state, without any exception, if they are paying all taxes required for the existence of the state, must enjoy all

rights and advantages of its existence, and that for the violators of the law, the harmful members of the society, there must be

one and the same measure of punishment, common to all? ... Why, then, should all the Jews be restricted in their rights, and

why should special penal laws exist for them? In what manner is alien exploitation (the Jews are nevertheless Russian

subjects) by Ger-

{p. 639} mans, Englishmen, Greeks, of whom there is so great a number in Russia, better than Yiddish exploitation? In what

way is the Russian Orthodox kulak, peasant-exploiter, inn-keeper, blood-sucker, who has propagated so profusely all over

Russia, better than the one from among Yiddishers, who nevertheless is operating within a limited area? Why is this one better

than the other ..."

[At this juncture my esteemed correspondent compares several notorious Russian kulaks with Jewish ones in the sense that the

Russians are just as bad. But what does this prove? Indeed, we take no pride in our kulaks and we do not set them as examples

for imitation, and on the contrary we agree wholeheartedly that both are no good.]

"I could propound to you such questions by the thousand.

"Meanwhile, speaking about the 'Yiddisher,' you include in this term the whole terribly destitute mass of the three-million Jewish

population in Russia, of which at least 2,900,000 are engaged in a desperate struggle for existence, a mass which is morally

purer not only than the other nationalities but also than the Russian people deified by you. Likewise, you have included inthis term that considerable number of Jews with higher education who are distinguishing themselves in all fields of state life.

Take, for instance ..."

[Here there are again several names which, with the exception of that of Goldstein, I do not deem myself entitled to print, since

some of them perhaps would be displeased to read that they are of Jewish origin.]

"Take, for example, Goldstein [who died heroically in Serbia for the Slavic idea] and those who labor for the good of society and

of mankind. Your hate of the 'Yid' extends even to Disraeli ... who, probably, knows not himself that his ancestors some time in

the past were Spanish Jews, and who, of course, does not direct English conservative policy from the standpoint of a 'Yiddisher.'

"No, unfortunately, you know neither the Jewish people nor their life - neither their spirit nor, finally, their forty-century history.

Unfortunately - because you are, at any rate, a sincere, absolutely sincere, man; yet, unconsciously you are causing harm to an

enormous mass of destitute people, whereas influential 'Yids' who receive in their salons the potent ones of this world,naturally, are afraid of neither the press nor even the impotent wrath of the exploited. But enough has been said on this subject.

Hardly will I sway you to my view, but I am very anxious that you should convince me."

Such are the excerpts. Before I answer anything (because I don't want to bear so grave an accusation) I shall call attention

p. to t e ve emence o t e attac an t e egree o touc ness. os t ve y, ur ng t e w o e year o t e pu cat on o my

Diary there has been no slur against the "Yiddisher" of such dimensions as would justify so strong an attack. Secondly, it should

be also observed that my esteemed correspondent, having also touched in these few lines of his upon the Russian people, could

not bear, could not refrain from adopting toward the poor Russian people a somewhat too haughty attitude. True, in Russia even

Russians have not left a spot not bespat (Schedrin's expression), so it is all the more excusable for a Jew. However, in any event,

this animus clearly shows how the Jews themselves look upon the Russians. Indeed, this was written by an educated and talented

man (only I don t think that he is devoid of prejudices). What, then, should one be expecting from uneducated Jews, of whom

there are so many - what sentiments for the Russian? I am not saying this accusingly: all this is natural ! I wish only to indicar complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed. Let the Jew also show at least some brotherly feeling for

the Russian people so as to encourage them. I know that even at present there are plenty of m

Having noted the above, I shall say a few words in my defense, and generally, as to how I view this matter. And even though as

stated, this question is beyond my capacity, nevertheless I too can express at least something.

2



PRO-AND-CON

True, it is very difficult to learn the forty-century-long history of a people such as the Jews; but, to start with, this much I know,

that in the whole world there is certainly no other people who would be complaining as much about their lot, incessantly

after each step and word of theirs, - about their humiliation, their suffering, their martyrdom. One might think that it is not

they who are reigning in Europe, who are directing there at least the stock-exchanges, and therefore politics, domestic affairs, the

morality of the states. Let noble Goldstein be dying for the Slavic idea. Even so, if the Jewish idea in the world had not been so

strong, maybe that very "Slavic" question (of last year) would long ago have been settled in favor of the Slavs, and not of the

Turks.

I am ready to believe that Lord Beaconsfield has, perhaps forgotten about his descent - some time in the past - from Spanish

Yiddishers (for sure, however, he hasn't forgotten); but that dur-

{p. 641} ing last year he did "direct English conservative policy" partly from the standpoint of a Yid is, in my opinion,

impossible to doubt. "Partly" - cannot but be admitted.

But let all this be merely verbalism on my part, - light tone and light words. I concede. Nevertheless, I am unable fully to believe

in the screams of the Jews that they are so downtrodden, oppressed and humiliated. In my opinion, the Russian peasant, and

generally, the Russian commoner, virtually bears heavier burdens than the Jew. In another letter my correspondent writes

me:

"In the first place it is necessary to grant them [the Jews] all civil rights (think, up to now they are deprived of the most

fundamental right - of free selection of the place of residence, which leads to a multitude of awful restrictions for the whole

Jewish mass) as to all other alien nationalities in Russia, and only after that may it be demanded from them that they comply with

their duties toward the state and the native population."

But Mr. Correspondent, you who write me in the same letter, on the next page, that you "are far more devoted to, and pity more,

the toiling mass of the Russian people, than the Jewish mass" (which, to be sure, for a Jew, is too strongly expressed) you, too,

should remember that at the time when the Jew "has been restricted in the free selection of the place of residence," twenty-three

millions of "the Russian toiling mass" have been enduring serfdom which was, of course, more burdensome than "the

selection of the place of residence." Now, did the Jews pity them then - I don't think so: in the Western border region and in the

South you will get a comprehensive answer to this question. Nay, at that time the Jews also vociferated about rights which the

Russian people themselves did not have; they shouted and complained that they were downtrodden and martyrs, and that when

they should be granted more rights, "then demand from us that we comply with the duties toward the state and the native

population."

But then came the Liberator and liberated the native people. And who was the first to fall upon them as on a victim7 Who

preeminently took advantage of their vices? Who tied them with that sempiternal gold pursuit of theirs? By whom - whenever

possible - were the abolished landowners promptly replaced, with the difference that the latter, even though they did strongly

exploit men, nevertheless endeavored - perhaps in their own interest - not to ruin the peasants in order to prevent the exhaustion

of labor, whereas the Jew is not concerned about the exhaustion of Russian labor: he grabs what's his, and off he goes.

I know that upon reading this, the Jews will forthwith start screaming that this is a lie; that this is a calumny; that I am

{p. 642} lying; that I believe all this nonsense because I "do not know the forty-century-old history of these chaste angels who

are incomparably purer morally not only than the other nationalities but also than the Russian people deified by me" (according

to the words of my correspondent. See above).



But let, let them be morally purer than all the peoples of the world, nevertheless I have just read in the March issue of The

Messenger of Europe a news item to the effect that in America, in the Southern States, they have already leaped en masse upon

the millions of liberated Negroes, and have already taken a grip upon them in their, the Jews', own way, by means of their

sempiternal "gold pursuit" and by taking advantage of the inexperience and vices of the exploited tribe. Imagine, when I read

this, I immediately recalled that the same thing came to my mind five years ago, specifically, that the Negroes have now been

liberated from the slaveowners, but that they will not last because the Jews, of whom there are so many in the world, will jump at

this new little victim. This came to my mind, and I assure you that several times during this interim I was asking myself: "Well,

why doesn't one hear anything about the Jews there; why do not newspapers write about them, because the Negroes are a treasure

for the Jr complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed. Let the Jew also show at least some brotherly

feeling for

Now, some ten days ago I read in The New Times (No. 371) a most characteristic communication from Kovno to the effect that:

"the Jews there have so assaulted the local Lithuanian population, that they almost ruined all of them with vodka, and only the

Roman Catholic priests began to save the poor drunkards threatening them with the tortures of hell and organizing temperance

societies." True, the enlightened correspondent strongly blushes on behalf of his population which still believes in its priests and

in the tortures of hell, but he adds in this connection that following the example of the priests, enlightened local economists

began to establish rural banks specifically with the object of saving the people from the Jew - the money lender, and also

rural markets where "the destitute toiling mass" could buy articles of first necessity at real prices, and not at those set by the Jew.

Well, I have read all this, and I know that instantly people will start shouting that this proves nothing; that all this is caused bythe fact that the Jews themselves are oppressed; that they are poor themselves; that all this is but a "struggle for existence";

that only a fool would fail to understand it, and that were the Jews not so destitute themselves, were they, contrariwise, to grow

rich, - they would instantly reveal themselves in a most humane light so that the

{p. 643} whole world would be astounded. However, it goes without saying that all those Negroes and Lithuanians are even

poorer than the Jews who are squeezing the sap out of them, and yet, the former (only read the correspondence) loathe the

kind of trade for which the Jew is so eager.

Secondly, it is not difficult to be humane and moral when one rolls in butter, but the moment "the struggle for existence" comes

into play, - don't you dare reproach me. To my way of thinking, this is not a very angelic trait.

Third, of course, I am not setting forth these two news items from The Messenger of Europe and The New Times as capital and

all-decisive facts. If one should start writing the history of this universal tribe, it would at once be possible to discover a

hundred thousand of analogous and even more important facts, so that one or two additional facts would mean nothing in particular. However, it is curious in this connection that the moment you should require - say, in the course of an argument or in

a minute of silent irresolution - information about the Jew and his doings, - don't go to public libraries; don't ransack old books or

your own old notes; don't labor, don't search, don't exert your efforts, instead, without leaving your chair, stretch out your hand to

any newspaper at random which happens to be near you, and look at the second or third page: unfailingly, you will find

something about Jews, and unfailingly - that which interests you; unfailingly - that which is most characteristic, and unfailingly -

r complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of

Now, concede that this does mean something; it does indicate and reveal to you something, even though you be an absolute

ignoramus in the forty-century-long history of this tribe. No question, I will be told that everybody is hatred-stricken, and

therefore everybody is lying. Of course, it may happen that everyone to the last man is lying; but if this be so, there arises at once

a new question: if everybody without exception is lying and hatred-stricken, whence did this hatred arise? Since this universal

hatred does mean something; as Bielinsky exclaimed once: "indeed, the word everybody does mean something ! "

"Free selection of the place of residence ! " But is the "native" Russian absolutely free in the choice of the place of residence? Is

it not true that also in the case of the Russian commoner, up to the present, the former restrictions in the complete freedom of the

selection of the place of residence continue to persist, - those undesirable restrictions which are survivals of the times of serfdom

and which have long been attracting the attention of the government? And as far as Jews are concerned, it is apparent tb

everybody that in the last twenty years their rights in the selection of the place of

{p. 644} residence have been very considerably expanded. At least, they have appeared throughout Russia in places where they

have not been seen before. However, the Jews keep complaining of hatred and restrictions.



e e conce e a am no rm n my now e ge o e ew s mo es o v ng, u one ng o now or sure, an am

ready to argue about it with anyone, namely, that among our common people there is no preconceived, a priori, blunt

religious hatred of the Jew, something along the lines: "Judas sold out Christ." Even if one hears it from little children or

drunken persons, nevertheless our people as a whole look upon the Jew, I repeat, without a preconceived hatred. I have been

observing this for fifty years. I even happened to live among the people, in their very midst, in one and the same barracks,

sleeping with them on the same cots. There there were several Jews, and no one despised them, no one shunned them or

persecuted them. When they said their prayers (and Jews pray with screams, donning a special garment) nobody found this

strange, no one hindered them or scoffed at them, - a fact which precisely was to be expected from such a coarse people - in your

estimation - as the Russians. On the cr complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed. Let the Jew also

show at least some brotherly feeling for the Rus

n ye ese same ews n many respec s s unne e uss ans, ey re use o a e mea s w em, oo e upon em

with haughtiness (and where ? - in a prison ! ) and generally expressed squeamishness and aversion towards the Russian,

towards the "native" people. The same is true in the case of soldiers' armories, and everywhere - all over Russia: make

inquiries, ask if a Jew, as a Jew, as a Yiddisher, is being abused in armories because of his faith, his customs. Nowhere is he

being abused, and that is also true of the people at large. On the contrary, I assure you that in armories, as elsewhere, the

Russian commoner perceives and understands only too well (besides, the Jews themselves do not conceal it) that the Jew

does not want to take meals with him, that he has an aversion toward him , seeking as much as possible to avoid him and

segregate himself from him. And yet, instead of feeling hurt, the Russian commoner calmly and clearly says: "such is his

religion; it is because of his faith that he does notr complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed.Let the Jew also show at least some brotherly feeling for the Russian peopl

However, at times, I was fancying: now, how would it be if in Russia there were not three million Jews, but three million

Russians, and there were eighty million Jews, - well into what would they convert the Russians and how would they treat

them? Would

{p. 645} they permit them to acquire equal rights? Would they permit them to worship freely in their midst? Wouldn't they

convert them into slaves ? Worse than that: wouldn't they skin them altogether ? Wouldn't they slaughter them to the last man,

to the point of complete extermination, as they used to do with alien peoples in ancient times, during their ancient history?

Nay, I assure you that in the Russian people there is no preconceived hatred of the Jew, but perhaps there is a dislike of him, and

especially in certain localities, maybe - a strong dislike. Oh, this cannot be avoided; this exists; but it arises not at all from the

fact that he is a Jew, not because of some racial or religious hate, but it comes from other causes of which not the native people but the Jew himself is guilty.

3

STATUS IN STATU. FORTY CENTURIES OF EXISTENCE

Hatred, and besides one caused by prejudice - this is what the Jews are accusing the native population of. However, if the point

concerning prejudices has been raised, what do you think: does the Jew have fewer prejudices against the Russian than the

latter against the Jew? Hasn't he more of them? - I have given you examples of the attitude of the Russian common people

toward the Jew. And here I have before me letters from Jews, and not from common ones, but from educated Jews. And so much

hatred in these letters against "the native population" ! And the main thing is: they write without realizing it themselves.

You see, in order to exist forty centuries on earth, i.e., virtually the entire historical period of mankind, and besides, in such a

close and unbroken unity; in order to lose so many times one's territory, one's political independence, laws, almost one's

religion,to lose, and again to unite each time, to regenerate in the former idea , though in a different guise, to create anew laws

and almost religion - nay, such a viable people, such an extraordinarily strong and energetic people, such an unprecedented

people in the world, could not have existed without status in statu which they have always and everywhere preserved at the time

of their most dreadful, thousand, long dispersions and persecutions. Speaking of status in statu , I am by no means seeking to

frame an accusation. Still, what is the meaning of this status in statu ? What is its eternal, immutable idea? Wherein is the

essence of this idea?



It would be too long and impossible to expound this in a brief article; besides, it would be impossible for the same reason that,

p. esp e e or y cen ur es, no a mes an seasons ave arr ve , an man n s as wor on s grea r e s s o

come. However, without fathoming the essence and depth of the subject, it is possible to outline, at least, certain symptoms of

that status in statu , - be it only externally. These symptoms are: alienation and estrangement in the matter of religious dogma;

the impossibility of fusion; belief that in the world there exists but one national entity - the Jew, while, even though other

entities exist, nevertheless it should be presumed that they are, as it were, nonexistent. "Step out of the family of nations, and

form your own entity, and thou shalt know that henceforth thou art the only one before God; exterminate the rest, or make

slaves of them, or exploit them. Have faith in the conquest of the whole world; adhere to the belief that everything will submit

to thee. Loathe strictly everything, and do not have intercourse with anyone in thy mode of living. And even when thou shaltr

complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed. Let the Jew also show at least some brotherly feeling for

the Russian people so as to encourage them. I know that even at present there are plenty of men among the Jewish people who

are seeking and craving for the elimination of the misunderstandings,

Such is the essence of that status in statu , and, in addition, there are, of course, inner and, perhaps, mysterious laws guarding

this idea.

You say, gentlemen - educated Jews and opponents - that all this is certainly nonsense, and that even if there be a status in statu

(i.e., there has been, but at present, according to them, only the dimmest traces of it remain), it is solely because persecution

has brought it about; religious persecution since the Middle Ages, and even earlier, has generated it, and that this status in

statu came into existence merely from the instinct of self-preservation. However, if it continues, especially in Russia, it is because the Jew has not yet been given equal rights with the native population.

But this is how I feel: should the Jew be given equal rights, under no circumstance would he renounce his status in statu .

Moreover, to attribute it to nothing but persecution and the instinct of self-preservation - is insufficient. Besides, there would not

have been enough tenacity in store for self-preservation during forty centuries; the people would have grown weary of preserving

themselves for so long a time. Even the strongest civilizations in the world have failed to survive half of the forty centuries,

losing their political strength and racial countenance. Here it is not only self-preservation that constitutes the main cause, but a

certain compelling and luring idea, something so universal and profound

p. a on , as s a e a ove, man n s per aps s una e o u er s as wor . a we are ere ea ng w

something of a pre-eminently religious character - there can be no doubt. That their Providence, under the former, initial

name of Jehovah, with his ideal and his covenant, continues to lead his people toward a firm goal - this much is clear.

Besides, I repeat, it is impossible to conceive a Jew without God. Moreover, I do not believe in the existence of atheists even

among the educated Jews: they all are of the same substance, and God only knows what the world has to expect from theeducated Jews! Even in my childhood I have read and heard a legend about Jews to the effect that they are supposed to be

undeviatingly awaiting the Messiah, all of them, both the lowest Yiddisher and the highest and most learned one - the

philosopher and the cabalist - rabbi; that they all believe that the Messiah will again unite them in Jerusalem and will bring

by his sword all nations to their feet; that r complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed. Let the Jew

also show at least some brotherly feeling for the Russian people so as to encourage them. I know that even at present there are

plenty of men among the Jewish people who are seeking and craving for the elimination of the misunderstandings, men who,

besides, are humane, and I shall not keep silent on this fact so as to conceal the truth. It is precisely in order

The ray of dawn begins to shine:

Our flute, our tabor and the cymbal

Our riches and our holy symbol

We will bring back to our old shrine,

To our old home - to Palestine.

All this - I repeat - I heard as a legend, but I believe that the substance of the matter unfailingly is there, in the form of an

instinctively irresistible tendency. But in order that such a substance of the matter might be preserved, it is, of course, necessary

that the strictest status in statu be preserved. And it is being preserved. Thus, not only persecution was and is its cause, but

another idea. ...



If, however, among the Jews there exists in reality such an inner rigid organization as unites them into something solid and

segregated, one almost may well give thought to the question whether equal rights with the native population should be granted

to them.

It goes without saying that everything required by humaneness and justice, everything called for by compassion and the

Christian law must be done for the Jews. But should they, in full armor of their organization and their segregation, their racial

and religious

{p. 648} detachment; in complete armor of their regulations and principles utterly opposed to that idea abiding by which the

whole European world, at least up to the present time, has been developing; - should they demand complete equalization in all

possible rights with the native population, wouldn't they then be granted something greater, something excessive, something

sovereign compared with the native population ?

t t s uncture, t e ews w , o course po nt to ot er a ens: now, t ese ave een grante equa , or a most equa , r g ts,

whereas the Jews have fewer rights than all other aliens; and this - because people are afraid of us, Jews: because we are

supposedly more harmful than all other aliens. And yet in what sense is the Jew harmful ? Even if there be bad qualities in the

Jewish people, this is solely because these are being fostered by the Russian people themselves - by Russian ignorance, by the

Russians' unfitness for independence, by their low economic development. The Russian people themselves demand a

mediator, a leader, an economic warden in business, a creditor; they themselves are inviting him and surrendering

themselves to him. On the contrary, look at things in Europe: there the nations are strong and independent in spirit; they are

peoples with strong national sentiment, with a long-standing habit and skill for work, and there they are not afraid to grant allrights to the Jew! Does one hear inr complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the par t of both sides is needed. Let the

Apparently, this is a strong line of reasoning; however, in this connection there arises in one's mind a notion - in parentheses,

namely: Thus, Jewry is thriving precisely there where the people are still ignorant, or not free, or economically backward. It is

there that Jewry has a champ libre! And instead of raising, by its influence, the level of education, instead of increasing

knowledge, generating economic fitness in the native population, - instead of this, the Jew, wherever he has settled, has still

more humiliated and debauched the people; there humaneness was still more debased and the educational level fell still lower;

there inescapable, inhuman misery, and with it despair, spread still more disgustingly. Ask the native population in our border

regions: What is propelling the Jew - has been propelling him for centuries? You will receive a unanimous answer:

mercilessness. "He has been prompted so many centuries only by pitilessness for us, only by the thirst for our sweat and blood."

And, in truth, the whole activity of the Jews in these border regions of ours consisted of rendering the native population as muchas possible inescapably dependent on them, taking adventage of the local laws. They always managed to be on friendly terms

p. w t t ose upon w om t e peop e were epen ent, an , certa n y, t s not or t em to comp a n, at east n t s respect,

about their restricted rights compared with the native population. They have received from us enough of such rights over the

native population. What, in the course of decades and centuries, has become of the Russian people where the Jews settled is

attested by the history of our border regions. What, then? - Point to any other tribe from among Russian aliens which could rival

the Jew by his dreadful influence in this connection! You will find no such tribe. In this respect the Jew preserves all his

originality as compared with other Russian aliens, and, of course, the reason therefor is that status in statu of his, the spirit of

which specifically breathes with pitilessness for everything that is not Jew, with disrespect for any people and tribe, for every

human creature who is not a Jew. And what kind of justification is it that in Western Europe the nations did not permit themser

complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed. Let the Jew also show at least some brotherly feeling for

the Russian people so as to encourage them. I know that even at present there are plenty of men among the Jewish people who

are seeking and craving for the elimination of the misunderstandings, men who, besides, are humane,

And if reference is made to Europe, to France, for example, - there too, hardly has their status in statu been harmless. Of course,

there, Christianity and its idea have been lowered and are sinking not because of the Jew's fault, but through their own fault;

nevertheless, it is impossible not to note also in Europe the great triumph of Jewry which has replaced many former ideas

with its own.



Oh, it goes without saying that man always, at all times, has been worshipping materialism and has been inclined to perceive and

understand liberty only in the sense of making his life secure through money hoarded by the exertion of every effort and

accumulated by all possible means. However, at no time in the past have these tendencies been raised so cynically and so

obviously to the level of a sublime principle as in our Nineteenth Century. "Everybody for himself, and only for himself, and

every intercourse with man solely for one's self" - such is the ethical tenet of the majority of present-day people,1 even not bad

people, but, on the contrary, laboring people who neither murder nor steal. And mercilessness for the lower masses, the decline

of brotherhood, exploitation of the poor by the rich, - oh, of course, all this existed

1 The fundamental idea of the bourgeoisie which, at the end of the last century, took the place of the former concept of a world

order, - an idea which has become the focal idea of the present century throughout the whole European world.

{p. 650} also before and always; however, it had not been raised to the level of supreme truth and of science - it had been

condemned by Christianity, whereas at present, on the contrary, it is being regarded as virtue.

us, t s not or not ng t at over t ere t e ews are re gn ng everyw ere over stoc -exc anges; t s not or not ng t at

they control capital, that they are the masters of credit, and it is not for nothing - I repeat - that they are also the masters of

international politics, and what is going to happen in the future is known to the Jews themselves: their reign, their

complete reign is approaching ! We are approaching the complete triumph of ideas before which sentiments of humanity, thirst

for truth, Christian and national feelings, and even those of national dignity, must bow. On the contrary, we are approaching

materialism, a blind, carnivorous craving for personal material welfare, a craving for personal accumulation of money by

any means - this is all that has been proclaimed as the supreme aim, as the reasonable thing, as liberty, in lieu of the Christianidea of salvation only through the closest moral and brotherly fellowship of men.

eop e w aug an say a s s no a roug a ou y e ews. course, no on y y em, u e ews ave

completely triumphed and thriven in Europe precisely at the time when these new principles have triumphed there to the

point of having been raised to the level of a moral principle, it is impossible not to infer that the Jews, too, have contributed

their influence to this condition. Our opponents point out that, on the contrary, the Jews are poor, poor even everywhere,

especially in Russia; that only the very summit of the Jews is rich - bankers and kings of stock-exchanges - while the rest,

virtually nine-tenths of the Jews, are literally beggars, running about for a piece of bread, offering commissions and anxiously

looking for an opportunity to snatch somewhere a penny for bread. Yes, this seems to be so, but what does this signify? Does it

not specifically mean that in the very toil of the Jews (i.e., at least, their overwhelming majority), in their very exploitation there

is somethir complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed. Let the Jew also show at least some brotherly

feeling for the Russian people so as to encourage them. I know that even at present there are plenty of men among the Jewish

people who are seeking and craving for the elimination of the misunderstandings, men who, besides, are humane, and I shall not

keep silent on this fact so as to conceal the truth. It is precisely in order that these useful and humane persons should not growdespondent and low-spirited, and with a view to wea kening, at least somewhat, their prejudices, thereby facilitating their first

steps, that I should favor a full extension of

{p. 651} about the whole and its idea; we are speaking about Judaism and the Jewish idea which is clasping the whole

world instead of Christianity which "did not succeed." ...

BUT LONG LIVE BROTHERHOOD

ut w at am ta ng a out an w at or r am an enemy o t e ews n ee , s t true, as a no e an e ucate ew s g r

writes me (of this I have no doubt - this can be perceived from the letter, from the ardent sentiments expressed in this letter), is it

true that I am - to use her words - an enemy of this "unfortunate" tribe which I am "so cruelly attacking on every

opportune occasion." "Your contempt for the Jewish tribe which 'thinks about nothing except itself,' etc., is obvious." Nay, I

protest against this obviousness, and besides, I deny the fact itself. On the contrary, I am saying and writing that "everything

required by humaneness and justice, everything called for by compassion and the Christian law, - all this must be done

for the Jews." These words were written by me above, but now I will add to them that despite all considerations already set

forth by me, I am decidedly favoring full extension of Jewish rights in formal legislation , and, if possible, fullest equality

with the native popr complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed. Let the Jew also show at least some

brotherly feeling for the Russian people so as to encourage them. I know



Of course, the following fantasy, for instance, comes to my mind: "Now, what if somehow, for some reason, our rural

commune should disintegrate, that commune which is protecting our poor native peasant against so many ills; what if,

straightway, the Jew, and his whole kehillah should fall upon that liberated peasant, - so inexperienced, so incapable of resisting

temptation, and who up to this time has been guarded precisely by the commune? - Why, of course: instantly, this would be his

end; his entire property, his whole strength, the very next day, would come under the power of the Jew, and there would

ensue such an era as could be compared not only with the era of serfdom but even with that of the Tartar yoke."

Despite all the "fantasies" and everything I have written above, however, I favor full and complete equalization of rights

because such is Christ's law, such is the Christian principle. But if so, what was the point of writing so many pages, and what

did I intend to express if I am so contradicting myself? - Specifically, the fact that I am not contradicting myself, and that from

the

{p. 652} Russian native side I see no difficulties in extending Jewish rights; I do, however, assert that these obstacles are

incomparably greater on the part of the Jews than on the part of the Russians, and that if up to the present the thing which one

wishes wholeheartedly has not come to pass, the blame therefor is infinitely less on the Russian than on the Jew himself.

Similarly what I was telling about the common Jew who refuses to maintain intercourse and share his meals with the Russians

who were not angry with him, who did not retaliate but, on the contrary, at once grasped the situation and forgave him, saying:

"this is because such is his religion," similarly this we often perceive in the intelligent Jew - a boundless and haughty prejudice

against the Russian.

,

were devoid of religion and understood nothing in their Christianity. This is too strongly put for a Jew, and there merely arises

this question: Does this highly educated Jew himself understand anything about Christianity? - But self-conceit and haughtiness

are qualities of the Jewish character, which to us Russians is very painful. Who, as between the two of us - the Russian or the

Jew - is more incapable of understanding the other ? - I swear, I would rather exonerate the Russian: at least, he has no

(positively no) religious hatred of the Jew. And who has more prejudices of other kinds ? Now, the Jews keep vociferating that

they have been oppressed and persecuted for so many centuries, that they are being oppressed and persecuted at present, and that

this much, at least should be taken into account by the Russian when analyzing the Jewish character. All right, we do take this

intor complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed. Let the Jew also show at least some brotherly

feeling for the Russian people so as to encourage them. I know that even at present there are plenty of men among the Jewish

people who are seeking and craving for the elimination of the misunderstandings, men who, besides, are humane, and I shall not

keep silent on this fact so as to conceal the truth. It is precisely in order that these useful and humane persons should not grow

despondent and low-spirited, and with a view to weakening, at least somewhat, their prejudices, thereby facilitating their first

steps, that I should favor a full extension of rights to the Jewish race, at least, as far as possible, specifically, in so far as the

Jewish people themselves prove their ability to accept and make use of these rights without detriment to the native population. Itwould even be possible to make an advance concession, to make more steps forward on the part of the Russian side. The only

question is: to what extent would th



{p. 652} be full moral unity of the tribes and no discrimination in their rights ! And for this purpose, in the first place, I implore

my opponents and my Jewish correspondents to be more indulgent and just toward us Russians. If their haughtiness, their

perpetual "sad squeamishness" toward the Russian race is merely a prejudice, an "historical excrescence," and is not concealed

in some much deeper mysteries of their law and organization, - let all this be dispelled as soon as possible, and let us come

together in one spirit, in complete brotherhood, for mutual assistance and for the great cause of serving our land, our state and

our fatherland ! Let the mutual accusations be mollified; let the customary exaggeration of these accusations, hindering the clear

understanding of things, disappear ! One can pledge for the Russian people: oh, they will accept the Jew in the fullest brotherhood, despite the difference in religion and with perfect respect for the historical fact of such a difference. Nevertheless,

for complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed. Let the Jew also show at least some brotherly feeling

for the Russian people so as to encourage them. I know that even at present there are plenty of men among the Jewish people

who are seeking and craving for the elimination of the misunderstandings, men who, besides, are humane, and I shall not keep

silent on this fact so as to conceal the truth. It is precisely in order that these useful and humane persons should not grow

despondent and low-spirited, and with a view to weakening, at least somewhat, their prejudices, thereby facilitating their first

steps, that I should favor a full extension of rights to the Jewish race, at least, as far as possible, specifically, in so far as the

Jewish people themselves prove their ability to accept and make use of these rights without detriment to the native

population. It would even be possible to make an advance concession, to make more steps forward on the part of the Russian

side. The only question is: to what extent would these new, good Jews succeed and how far are they themselves adapted to the

new and beautiful cause of genuine brotherly communion with men who are alien to them by religion and blood?

{end}

users.cyberone.com.au/myers/dostoievsky.html



DOSTOYEVSKİ VE YAHUDİLER

Dostoyevski hakkında yazan Yahudiler :

David I. Goldstein, "Dostoevsky and the Jews", Univ of Texas Press (March 1981), 231 pages, ISBN: 0292715285

Dostoyevski’nin bilinmeyen yüzü: İstanbul er ya da geç bizim olacak

Zaman, 2.5.2006

Rus ve dünya edebiyatının önemli isimlerinden, ‗Suç ve Ceza‘, ‗Budala‘, ‗Karamazov Kardeşler‘ ve ‗Delikanlı‘ kitaplarınınyazarı Fyodor Mihayloviç Dostoyevski‘nin (1821-1881) günlükleri ilk kez tam metin olarak Türkçede.

Yapı Kredi Yayınları tarafından yayımlanan ―Bir Yazarın Günlüğü‖nde, Dostoyevski‘nin ‗öteki‘ yüzüyle karşılayacak olan

Türk okurları, bu duruma bir hayli şaşıracağa benziyor.

ün ü, - sman ı- us avaşı n a ostoyevs ateş r av yan ısı o ara arşımıza çı ıyor. ün ü er n e―İstanbul er ya da geç bizim olacaktır‖ diyen Dostoyevski, günlüklerinin birkaç yerinde de Türkler için hakaretler içerensözler kullanıyor. Yazarın ‗Hasta Adam‘ ve ‗İstanbul bizim olmalıdır‘ söylemi, o yıllarda Rusya‘da bir slogan haline

dönüşmüş. ―Evet, İstanbul, Ruslar tarafından fethedilecektir. Türklerden bize sonsuza denk geçecektir. Kısacası, sadece bize

ait olmalıdır, sahip olduktan sonra biz bu kente Slavları ve sonra kimi istiyorsak onları sokacağız...‖ diyen Dostoyevski‘ninRus halkında Türklere karşı bir kin oluşturmak için de epey uğraş verdiği görülüyor. Yapıtlarında dış ayrıntılara pek yer

vermeyen yazarın, Türklerin, Bulgar ve Sırp kadın ve çocuklarına yaptığını iddia ettiği sözde işkencelere ayrıntılı bir biçimdeyer vermesi dikkat çekici. Dostoyevski‘nin kitapta geçen savaşla ilgili görüşleri de hayli ilginç. Savaşın değil, asıl uzun süreli

barışın insanlar için sorun olduğunu söyleyen yazara göre, savaş bazen zorunludur ve toplumu iyileştirici bir güce sahiptir.

―Bir Yazarın Günlüğü‖, bugüne kadar usta bir romancı olarak bildiğimiz Dostoyevski‘yi toplumsal-siyasal bir kişilik olarak

tanımamızı sağlıyor. Bir Yazarın Günlüğü‘nü 1873‘te Grajdanin dergisinde yayımlamaya başlayan yazar, bu yazılara üç yıl

ara verdikten sonra, 1876‘da, Bir Yazarın Günlüğü adı altında kendi dergisini çıkardı. Aylık yazılarla iki yıl düzenli olarak sürdürdüğü bu yayına sağlığının bozulması üzerine ara veren Dostoyevski, 1880‘de sadece bir sayı çıkardı. 1881‘de,Günlüğü yine her ayı kapsayacak biçimde yayınlamaya karar verdi; ancak, ocak sayısını çıkardıktan sonra hastalandı, şubat

ostoyevs n n önem n n top umsa ve s yasa o ay arını e e a ı ı u yazı arının çer n , m s ugün e günce nkoruyan konulardan oluşturuyor. Halkıyla bağını koparmış Rus aydınının eleştirisi; Rus halkının yüceltilmesi; bütün Slavların

birleştirilmesi ülküsü; Batılılaşma sorunu, Avrupa özenticiliği, kültür yozlaşması; anadil sorunu; adalet sistemi; kadın sorunu;

Hz. İsa inancını küçümsediğine ve Hıristiyan erdemleri dünyevi hesaplara feda ettiğine inandığı Katolik kilisesinin eleştirisi,edebi yazılarıyla ünlenen yazarın toplumsal ve siyasal olaylara bakışını ortaya koyuyor. Avrupa‘da bütün ülkelerintemellerinin oyulduğunu, Avrupa‘nın bir gün iz bırakmadan yıkılıp gideceği konusunda uzun uzun yazılar yazan

Dostoyevski‘nin, Avrupa‘nın yıkılıp gideceğine ve İstanbul‘un bir gün Rusların olacağına dair öngörülerinin tutmadığıgörülüyor. Yazarın günlüklerinde zaman zaman fantastik/duygu yüklü öyküler de yer alıyor. Günlüklerde özellikle ulusal

duygularla kaleme alınan yazılar o dönemde ilgiyle karşılanmış ve yazarı hatırı sayılır bir okur kitlesine ulaştırmıştı.

Dostoyevski‘nin günlüğüne Türkler kadar Yahudiler de şaşıracak; çünkü yazarın Yahudi sorununa yaklaşımı da günümüzünantisemitistlerinden pek de farklı değil. Yahudi yerine sık sık Rusça‘da Yahudileri küçümsemek için kullanılan, Türkçedekikarşılığı ―çıfıt‖ olan ―Jid‖ sözcüğünü kullanmış yazar.

www.zaman.com.tr/?hn=168999&bl=kultursanat&trh=20050501



Bir Yazarın Günlüğü (Dnevnik Pisatelya) 2 Cilt

Fyodor Dostoyevski, Bir Yazarın Günlüğü (Dnevnik Pisatelya) 2 Cilt, Türkçe, 1210 s. -- 2. Hamur -- Ciltsiz -- 14 x 21 cm,

İstanbul, Nisan 2005, 1. Basım, ISBN: 9750809254

Yapı Kredi Yayınları

Etiket Fiyatı : 55,56 YTL + KDVIDéEFIXE Fiyatı : 47,22 YTL + KDV 51,00 YTL (KDV Dahil)

www.ideefixe.com/kitap/tanim.asp?sid=WV5YJ0EBBY0YKN9EJ0R0

Dostoevsky as an anti-Semite

Jon Carver

Literary anti-Semitism is as old as Western culture itself. A full listing of writers who have expressed hostility toward Jews

and/or Judaism--from Shakespeare to T.S. Eliot, from Pushkin to Pasternak, etc.--would add up to a Who's Who of Westernliterature.1 Undoubtedly, Dostoevsky follows in this tradition.

It is disparaging, however, that as the true novelist of ideas and Christian love, Dostoevsky could harbor such ill will towards

the Jews. Does this not discredit everything he has written? This paper will address Dostoevsky's anti-Semitism through an

examination of Isay Fomitch Bumstein in The House of the Dead, the Messianic idea in The Devils, and 'the little demon' in

The Brothers Karamazov. Furthermore, this paper will question the moral implications of Dostoevsky's Christian message

given his anti-Semitic posture. It will suggest that while he was indeed an anti-Semite, one can continue to read Dostoevsky's

work without feeling that his message was a complete sham.2



Until The House of the Dead, Jews were practically absent from Dostoevsky's writings.3 But beginning with this book in

1862, the Jew and the Jewish question assume a place of growing importance in Dostoevsky's thought. The eight years of

military and penal servitude in Siberia expose Dostoevsky to both criminals and Jews alike. Unlike Gogol, who in his native

Ukraine had observed firsthand the hostility between the Ukrainians and Jews, Dostoevsky did not have any direct

experience with Jews, because there were few Jews living in St. Petersburg.4

It s n t e House o t e Dea t at Dostoevs y, or t e rst t me, ep cts a Jew s c aracter: Isay Fom tc Bumste n IV, 61).

Dostoevsky pays considerable attention to this character. Dostoevsky writes, "He was a jeweler by trade, always had more

than enough work from the town...and so escaped hard labor. Of course, he was a pawnbroker at the same time, and supplied

the whole prison with money at a percentage and on security" (IV, 61). While there is probably nothing malicious in

Dostoevsky's caricature of Bumstein as a money-lender, this representation reinforces the anti-Semitic notion that Jews are

deceitful and opportunistic. Moreover, in the Russian context, people who practiced business and finance (bankers, creditors,

Making Isay Fomitch a moneylender associates him with all the negative Jewish stereotypes in Russia at that time.

Dostoevsky creates the impression that Isay Fomitch is the only prisoner who engages in money-lending. As Goldstein

contends, "To claim that Isay Fomitch got out of the rigors of hard labor so that he could merrily go about plying his trade

leaves the reader incredulous."5 Dostoevsky's caricature of Isay Fomitch reinforces the image of the shrewd Jew who

Dostoevsky also paints a humorous picture of Isay Fomitch. As Goldstein states, "The caricature quality of the portrait is

potent, and the intention of the author is unmistakably clear: to laugh at the little Jew and provoke laughter at his expense."6

Dostoevsky reminds us that Isay Fomitch is a "skinny, feeble, puny man of around fifty...with a white body like a chicken's"

(IX, pg. 105). Immediately after drawing this image, Dostoevsky marshals a series of moral traits which stigmatize Isay

Fomitch and to a certain extent, the larger Jewish nation. He calls attention to Isay Fomitch as "a most comical mixture of

naiveté, stupidity, craft, impudence, good nature, timidity, boastfulness and insistence" (IX, pg. 106).

Is Dostoevsky being purposefully spiteful to Isay Fomitch because of his Jewishness or is this just another example of

Dostoevsky's xenophobia to all things non-Slavic? What is clear is that Dostoevsky's portrait of Isay Fomitch echoes the

bigotry-ridden atmosphere of Russia at the end of the second half of the nineteenth century. One cannot entirely dismiss the

hypothesis that Dostoevsky caricatured the Jew, Isay Fomitch, with an eye to the audience he hoped to reach.7

While the Jew and the Jewish question enter into Dostoevsky's thoughts in the 1860's, this decade is also the most prolific period in his literary career. In addition to writing Notes from the Underground, and The House of the Dead, Dostoevsky

completes Crime and Punishment, The Idiot and in 1871, he finishes The Devils. In addition, this decade is marked by

personal tragedy, gambling, and debts. Beginning in 1862, Dostoevsky makes the first of several sojourns to Europe and his

prolonged stay (from 1867-1871), no doubt, significantly influences his belief in the Great Russian Messianism.8

The Russian Messianic idea found its most virulent expression in The Devils, where, in a conversation with Stavrogin,

Reduce God to the attribute of nationality?...On the contrary, I elevate the nation to God...The people is the body of God.

Every nation is a nation only so long as it has its own particular God, excluding all other gods on earth without any possible

reconciliation, so long as it believes that by its own God it will conquer and drive all other gods off the face of the earth. At

least that's what all great nations have believed since the beginning of time, all those remarkable in any way, those standing

in the vanguard of humanity...The Jews lived solely in expectation of thetrue God, and they left this true God to the world...A nation which loses faith is no

longer a nation. But there is only one truth; consequently, only one nation can posses the true God...The sole "God bearing"

nation is the Russian nation...(Part II, Ch.I, sect. 7, pg. 265-266).



T s passage s mportant ecause t ac now e ges t e e t o t e Russ an Mess an c ea to Ju a c t oug t. Dostoevs y

infers that the Jews have 'passed the torch' to the Russian people as the 'sole God bearing nation'.9 Dostoevsky's anti-

Semitism is rooted in his belief in the uniqueness of Russia, and his conviction that Russia was predestined to resurrect all of

mankind.10 Dostoevsky felt that Russian Orthodoxy would emerge victorious over the decadent civilizations of the West.

The belief in the election of Russia as the nation-Messiah suggests that Dostoevsky would be implacably hostile toward

anyone or anything that challenged this belief. Let it be clear, Dostoevsky condemns not only the Jews, but also the Poles, the

Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church, the socialist idea, the West, atheism, and materialism. In fact, his contempt of the

Once Dostoevsky chose Russia to fulfill the Messianic idea, it was essential for him to discredit the people who were

originally the 'chosen nation'. As Goldstein notes, "He thus replaces true Messianism, which is universalist, by its antithesis--

a nationalistic, even chauvinistic Messianism."11 At this point, the Jews were no longer the object of laughter and ridicule

for Dostoevsky. Rather, they represented a dark and sinister force detrimental to the destiny of Russia's historical mission.12

Dostoevsky's answer to the Jewish question, as seen in The Brothers Karamazov, is to dispel them through malignant

Indeed, no assessment of Dostoevsky as an anti-Semite would be complete without a consideration of The Brothers

Karamazov. While the references to the Jews are minimal, those images are nonetheless indicative of the progression of As an ntro uct on to t e narrat ve, Dostoevs y eta s t e e o t e o Karamazov, Fyo or Pav ov c . Dostoevs y wr tes,

"Three or four years after his wife's death he had gone to the south of Russia and finally turned up in Odessa, where he spent

several years. He made the acquaintance at first, in his own words, 'of a lot of low Jews, Jewesses and Jewkins...'"(I, IV, pg.

16). Fyodor Pavlovich, "developed a peculiar faculty for making and hoarding money" (I, IV, pg. 16). There is a clear

association between Fyodor Pavlovich's dexterity in money matters and his association with the 'Jewkins'.13 Again,

Dostoevsky is associating the Jews with negative stereotypes. If nothing more, the derogatory name-calling highlights

Fyodor Pavlovich's association with the Jews, however, is not the catamount reference to them in The Brother Karamazov. In

Book eleven, Chapter three, Dostoevsky blatantly rejects the Jews and in so doing, calls to question his own integrity as a

writer. Alyosha, in his final meeting with Liza, finds the crazy girl in a state of extreme excitement. This 'little demon', so

despicable and revolting, ultimately discredits Alyosha (and Dostoevsky) in the eyes of the careful reader:

"Alyosha, is it true that at Easter the Jews steal a child and kill it?"

"I don't know."

"There's a book here in which I read about the trial of a Jew, who took a child of

four years old and cut off the fingers from both hands, and then crucified him on

the wall, hammered nails into him and crucified him, and afterwards, when he was

tried he said that the child died soon, within four hours...That is nice"

"Nice?"

"Nice, I sometimes imagine that it was I who crucified him. He would hang there

moaning and I would sit opposite him eating pineapple compote. I am awfully

fond of pineapple compote, Do you like it?" (XI, III, pg. 552).

How could Alyosha say, "I don't know" and listen calmly while Liza tells how she would eat pineapple compote while a four

year old boy is crucified to a wall?

This passage is important because in it, Dostoevsky simultaneously betrays Alyosha and his own artistic integrity. In the

words of Goldstein, "How could Dostoevsky have dared to put these words in the mouth of his Alyosha, Alyosha, theincarnation of charity, the symbol of Russia's spiritual regeneration.14 Alyosha's irrational statement is so uncharacteristic

that one cannot help but question this character and his role as a 'monk in this world'. As an artistic creation, Alyosha loses

his integrity. The careful reader justifiably reacts with skepticism while Alyosha preaches active love in this world. This "I

don't know" disgraces the Jewish nation, because it suggests that they did indeed sacrifice children during Easter rituals.

With all his authority as a writer, Dostoevsky endorses anti-Semitism. This scene illustrates the extent of Dostoevsky's hatred

against the Jewish people. He is blinded by his own idea of "Messianic Russia". Invariably, the exclusive love he bore for

Russia does not enable him to love all of mankind like his fallen character, Alyosha.



Given Dostoevsky's treatment of Isay Fomitch, the Great Russian Messianism, and Alyosha's bitter "I don't know", one must

admit that Dostoevsky was blindly prejudiced. In this interpretation, Dostoevsky's appeals for Christian love and sympathy

for those who suffer, ring false in the light of what seems to be his deep-rooted anti-Semitism.15 If Dostoevsky was an anti-

Semite than yes, his writings are ironic. However, Dostoevsky always insisted he was not an anti-Semite.16

With all the ambiguity in his texts, there is evidence which supports arguments for and against any anti-Semitic sentiments

Dostoevsky might have held. Joseph Frank, the renown Dostoevsky scholar states, "There is evidence here of something else besides the usual contempt or disdain, and it indicates that Dostoevsky was capable of both reactions at the same time."17 In

this sense, Dostoevsky is remarkably similar to Stavrogin and Svidrilagaev.

Dostoevsky does infuse his caricature of Isay Fomitch with a splash of warmth and goodwill. He even speaks kindly of this

"killingly funny man that everyone really seemed to love" (IV, 61). According to the Constance Garnett translation,

Dostoevsky does not refer to Isay as a Jewkin, but as a Jew, which suggests a certain amount of respect. How Dostoevsky

could have hated the Jews with so much passion is difficult to understand in light of his penetrating and complex insight into

The fact that Dostoevsky maintains he never was an anti-Semite is significant. Joseph Frank invents a new category for

Dostoevsky in the literary history of anti-Semitism; the category of guilty anti-Semite.18 Dostoevsky could never reconcile

himself inwardly to his own violation of God's commandments. The contradictions in his anti-Semitism, as evidenced above

through Isay Fomitch and Alyosha reflect that Dostoevsky struggled with himself about his opinion of the Jews.

In the final analysis, a world where good and evil exist simultaneously was perfectly acceptable for Dostoevsky. Stavrogin

and Svidrilagaev certainly are capable of desiring good and evil, and feeling pleasure from both. While Dostoevsky's anti-

Semitism is a fault, it should not detract from his overall Christian message. Like his characters, Dostoevsky also experiences

the battles of good and the evil in his own life. And like all of us, Dostoevsky is human and capable of contradiction.

1 Singer, David, An Anti-Semitic Genius. Book Review in The New Leader. May 18, 1981, v64, pg. 20.

2 Joseph Frank, "Foreword" to Dostoevsky and the Jews, by David Goldstein, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1981, pg.

3 Goldstein, David I., Dostoevsky and the Jews,. University of Texas Press, Austin, 1981, pg. 9.

4 Goldstein, pg. 5

5 Ibid., pg. 21.

6 Goldstein, pg. 18.

7 Ibid., pg. 30.


9 Ibid., pg. 55.

10 Ibid, pg. 50.


12 Ibid., pg. 51.



15 Joseph Frank, xi.

16 David Singer, pg. 21.

17 Joseph Frank, xii.

18 Ibid., pg. xiv.

Bibliography:

1. Dostoevsky, Fyodor, The Brothers Karamazov. The Garnnet Translation, revised by Ralph E. Matlaw. W.W. Norton &

Company, New York. 1976.

2.Dostoevsky, Fyodor, Devils. New translation by Michael R. Katz. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 1992.



3. Dostoevsky, Fyodor, The House of the Dead. The Garnet Translation. The MacMillan Company, New York, 1950.

4. Goldstein, David I. Dostoevsky and the Jews, with forward by Joseph Frank. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1981.

5. Singer, David, "An Anti-Semitic Genius." Book Review in The New Leader. May 18, 1991, volume 64.

© Prof. Thomas R. Beyer, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT

community.middlebury.edu/~beyer/courses/previous/ru351/studentpapers/Anti-semite.shtml

Lonely nights in Saint Petersburg

John Marks

NCELENEN K TAP : By Leonid Tsypkin, “SUMMER IN BADEN-BADEN”, Translated by Roger Keys and

Angela Keys, 146 pp. New York: A New Directions Book. $23.95.

Leon Tsyp n's Summer n Ba en Ba en rea s e a conversat on over ear n t e corner o a m y t ar. You ee

embar rassed for eavesdropping, but there's no question of stopping.

e nove , rs pu s e ere n , now ou n a paper ac e on, e s w a cou ave een an o an am ar s ory.

A man goes to the city where his beloved once lived and walks through the snow and the darkness in a trance. He mourns. He

is filled with awe and resentment. He pays visits to places where his beloved lived and died. He experiences regret and

ecstasy and imagines the sexual act repeatedly. But mostly he treats us—the readers---to an act of tormented empathy,

reconstructing a few key episodes in the life of this lost love. How many novels in the history of modern literature have done

the same, using words like a ouija board to summon dead passion? Lolita, Remembrance of Things Past and Mrs. Dalloway

But w e Tsyp n's s m wor as a certa n a n ty w t t ose masterp eces, ts overs are separate y t me an story n a

way that seems utterly unique to this book. The man in the snow and darkness is a Soviet Jew in the second half of theTwentieth Century. The beloved, dead for a hundred years, is the writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

*

, , .

prose runs in a dense and relentless current. Read, and you're caught. It feels risky to stop, as if the electricity might blow.

The book begins in motion. ―I was on a train,‖ writes Tyspkin, ―traveling by day, but it was winter-time---late December, the

very depths---and to add to it the train was heading north---to Leningrad---so it was quickly darkening on the other side of the

windows---bright lights of Moscow stations flashing into view and vanishing again behind me like the scattering of some

invisible hand---each snow-veiled suburban platform with its fleeting row of lamps melting into one fiery ribbon---the dull

drone of a station rushing past, as if the train were roaring over a bridge---the sound muffled by the double-glazed windows

with frames not quite hermetically sealed into fogged-up, half-frozen panes of glass---pierced even so by the station-lightsforcefully etching their line of fire –and beyond the sense of boundless snowy wastes---and the violent sway of the carriage

from side to side—pitching and rolling---especially in the end corridor---and outside, once complete darkness had fallen and

only the hazy whiteness of snow was visible and the suburban dachas had come to an end and in the window along with me

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0811215482/centropaorg-20





. .

not Crime and Punishment or one of the author's other great novels. It's the published diary of Anna Grigor'yevna

Dostoyevsky, the author's second wife, an account of the latter part of his life, those incredible years in which the writer

wrote his best-remembered works and became one of the defining figures of Nineteenth Century world literature. Joseph

Frank, author of a magisterial multi-volume biography-in-progress on Dostoyevsky, calls them the Miraculous Years, and

they begin roughly in 1865. Personally, for Dostoyevsky, they were years of struggle, with publishers, with money, with a

gambling addiction. But for the protagonist of Tsypkin's novel, they are something else again; the location in time of hisobsession. The diary in his hands has been borrowed from a relative, a tattered treasure that he has ―no intention of

returning‖. He has rebound the copy, and it is clear from the outset that he has read the book so many times that he knows it

by heart. The diary has become a kind of recitation in his mind, and as soon as it appears in Tsypkin's novel, we---along with

the reader, the lover—leap into mid April of 1867, traveling with the Dostoyevsky's, husband and wife, out of Saint

a as ne s one o e rs c ues a s ove a a r s o e an un appy one. e os oyevs y s r p w a e em o

Western Europe, to Baden-Baden as well as Basel and Geneva. In Baden-Baden, where most of the action of the book takes

place, Fyodor will madly gamble their money away, returning time and again to beg for his wife's valuables, which he can

deliver to a Jewish pawn shop for money to go back to the roulette tables. In the meantime, Anna will put up with his mood

changes and epileptic fits, his explosions in restaurants and his pleas for forgiveness. In this novel, Tsypkin's identification is

now with her, now with the author, stepping back sometimes to watch from a middle distance, then closing in again as the

two make love, described metronomically, unforgettably as swimming, ―rhythmically thrusting out their arms from the water

s mag na ve recons ruc on pu s emp as s on e s ay n a en- a en, u goes muc ur er, en er ng os oyevs y s

memories of the past, his time in prison camps, his humiliation by Saint Petersburg literary circles. Back in Baden-Baden,

Dostoyevsky's rival Turgenev makes a stunning appearance, as a kind mocking gargoyle overseeing the author's ruin. And

there are moments when the past seems to spring over the present and into some utopian or apocalyptic future, to the end of

time, one almost thinks, a religious vision of heights never finally reached. But how much of this has anything to do with

Dostoyevsky? We are never allowed to forget that this is a one-sided affair, and the narrator is guiding the depictions. He

wants us to see something very specific. Dostoyevsky seems to be insane and terrible, a burden to his wife, a disgrace among

gamblers. And yet the man on the train forgives everything, as if these lapses in character were minor offenses, easy to

forgive. They are nothing compared to the truly grave offense, the personal slight at the heart of the entire relationship, the

*

eon syp n e n arc , on s y-s x r ay. e me o s ea , s c ren a us pu s e

Summer in Baden-Baden in an émigré newspaper in New York, but in his own country, his work had not yet seen the light of

day. In a literary existence that contrasts sharply to that of Dostoyevksy, he lived and died in total obscurity. In her

introduction to the hardback edition of the novel, Susan Sontag writes, ―The reasons are not hard to fathom. To begin with,

its author was not by profession a writer. Leonid Tsypkin was a doctor---indeed, a distinguished medical researcher, who

published more than a hundred papers in scientific journals in the Soviet Union and abroad…Censorship and its

intimidations are only part of the story.‖ Sontag goes on to say that Tsypkin ―remained---out of pride, intractable gloom,

unwillingness to risk being rejected by the unofficial literary establishment---wholly outside the independent or underground

literary circles that flourished in Moscow in the 1960's and 1970's, the era when he was writing ‗for the drawer.' For literature

years o sequestere e ort resu te n a oo e Summer n Ba en-Ba en. It s a story y a man trappe ns e story

about a man who attempts to escape it, via literature. Except, of course, he doesn't. In this paradise of literature, there is a

really big snake.



syp n was een years o w en e ermans en ere ns n . s paren s an e escape , u re a ves per s e n

the ghetto. After the war, he became a successful doctor, married an economist, had a son. During Stalin's anti-semitic

purges, he managed to lie low, and after that, for a long time, his medical career proved a success. In his twenties, he started

to write. His literary work included two autobiographical novellas, but he never sent the manuscripts to publishers. In 1977,

his son and daughter-in-law received exit visas and left the Soviet Union. Around this time, he began working on Summer in

Baden-Baden. And it is one more fascination of the novel that Tyspkin, a Soviet Jew, is applying for an exit visa to leave

Russia at the same time that he writes about his love for one of its greatest writers; fascinating and also heartbreaking. For Tsypkin seems to be asking the same question of his country that he is asking of the author.

Why do you hate me?

*

, ,

Dostoeyevsky addresses ―the Jewish Question‖. He writes, ―it is very difficult to learn the forty centuries of history of a

people such as the Jews; but one initial thing I do know is that certainly no other people in the whole world have complained

so much about their fate, complained constantly, at their every step and every word, about their oppression, their suffering,

their martyrdom. One would think that it is not they who rule in Europe, not they who at least control the stock exchanges

there and, accordingly, the policy, the internal affairs, and the morality of the states.‖ The writer denies to outraged readers

that he hates the Jews, but explains, in an argument all too familiar in later decades, that the Jews are responsible for

whatever antipathy he may feel. For Dostoyevksy, the Jew's great sin is that he both wants to be Russian and yet wants not to

be, desires to be separate and above, or at the very least, separate and beside, an unforgivable sin to the author, compounded

by what he sees as Jewish exploitation of Russian peasantry. He goes so far as to blame the Jews for the continued

o e a r to ostoyev y, e s not muc n er to t e avs, w om e a so accuses o etray ng t e ea o reat uss a.

But there is no mistaking here the peculiar brand of Nineteenth Century Russian anti-Semitism that gave the world the

Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that notorious forgery professing to unravel a plot by Jews to control the planet.

Dostoyevsky, though not quite as virulent an anti-Semite as his contemporary in Germany, the composer Richard Wagner,

n ummer n a en- a en, s ecomes e un eara e ru a e ear o ngs. owar s e en o e s ory, e rea er

lover has arrived by night in St. Petersburg, then known as Leningrad, and is staying in an apartment with an old friend. On

one of her bookshelves, he finds a copy of The Writers Diary and goes to the essay, ―and it struck me as being strange to the

point of implausibility,‖ writes Tsypkin, ―that a man so sensitive in his novels to the sufferings of others, this jealous

defender of the insulted and the injured who fervently and even frenetically preached the right to exist of every earthly

creature and sang a passionate hymn to each little leaf and every blade of grass—that this man should have not come up with

even a single word in defense or justification of a people persecuted over several thousands of years---could he have been so

n en e narra or urns e ques on on s ea an as s w y exac y s a , g ven e ac o s apse, s n ness,

so many Jews have loved Dostoyevksy, have felt the same wild attraction to this man and his work. In a book packed with

reminiscence, physical detail, philosophy and travelogue, this section is quite a short, two or three pages, but it resonates

back through the entire novel and follows it to the end, as the narrator makes his way to the place where the author died, to

the hour in which he died, a last act of identification as Dostoyevky bleeds to death, as his wife sinks in grief to the floor. We

have come to the end of a cycle of longing. We arrive at the end with Tsypkin's question: why. But there is no sense that this

will be the last trip to Leningrad or the last posing of the question. On the contrary, the action in this novel feels like some

agonized middle ground, long after the first ritual enactment of unrequited love, and long before the last.

T e rea er, t e over, our narrator, w e ac on t e tra n aga n soon, ac on t e ne etween Moscow an Len ngra ,

one diary in his hand; in the not so distant future, he will walk again through the snow and the darkness of the beloved's city,

making his way to that other diary, which will stab him again with its unbearable fact, and guide him once more to the places

that he cannot comprehend---that he cannot live without.



www.centropa.org/coffeehouse.asp?viewstate=FULL&OldViewState=JMREVIEWS&BookReviewID=4

Dostoevsky and the Jews,

by David I. Goldstein and Steve Zipperstein

Commentary, Vol. 71, No. 6, June 1981,

An exuberant twenty-three-year-old Fyodor Dostoevsky related in a letter to his brother in 1844 the literary projects he

planned to undertake now that he had completed his degree at the St. Petersburg School of Engineering.

...In a well-known passage in The Brothers Karamazov, for instance, the hysterical Liza Khokhalakova asks Alyosha, the

chaste character who serves as Dostoevsky's emblem of Russia's spiritual redemption, whether it is true "that at Passover the

Yids steal and slaughter children...

...He posited a strange Manichean opposition between the Russian-Christian ideal and the Jewish ideal, an opposition which

suggests, though Goldstein does not raise this point, an iconoclastic and even heretical interpretation of the traditional

Christian view of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments......He took the trip within a year of the emancipation of Russia's serfs, an event which Dostoevsky, and nearly all Russia's

intellectuals, applauded, though they sensed that it might lead to a convergence between Russia and the rest of Europe, a

prospect which many had come to view with skepticism...

...But Dostoevsky came to feel that the Russian messianic ideal was challenged by a discredited yet mysteriously obdurate

opponentthe Jews...

...It was in The House of the Dead, a series of sketches published by Dostoevsky in 1860-62 after his liberation from prison

and compulsory military service, that he introduced his first Jewish character, the prisoner Isai Fomich Bumstein...

...Seeing Europe (for which, as he writes, "I had been dreaming...

...His preoccupation with the challenge posed by the Jews was vividly reflected in Dostoevsky's novels...

...Nor does Goldstein shed light on the intriguing discrepancy between Dosteovsky's rapturous odes to the Old Testament and

his condemnation of biblical Israel and perhaps even the God of biblical Israel...

...in vain for almost forty years") persuaded the increasingly conservative Dostoevsky that Russia must at all costs resist

going the way of the West, with its complacent bourgeoisie utterly indifferent to the misery surrounding it...

...Drawing on Russia's immense spiritual resources-still, for the most part, untainted by the decadent materialism that he

thought had overwhelmed Europe-Dostoevsky envisioned a Russia that would redeem the world from the despotism of

...Frank writes that Goldstein's book, which is both "valuable and indispensable," left him with an "unrelieved sense of

dismay" since it added up to "an implacable indictment" of Dostoevsky...

...Alyosha answers, "I don't know...

...On the whole, Dostoevsky and the Jews is a model of judicious scholarship...

...with Alexander Pushkin, whose Boris Godunov was greatly admired by Dostoevsky...

...Thus, he knowingly and will- fully incited his people . . . against the "people of the Book...

...The Jews were thus transformed in Dostoevsky's mind from contemptible to wickedly impregnable figures...

...DOSTOEVSKY'S earliest characterizations of Jews were drawn from the repertoire of highly stylized and unfavorable

descriptions that served nearly all Russian writers through much of the 19th century, "liberals" like SaltykovShchedrin and

Chekhov no less than "reactionaries" like Gogol......and with Gogol, whose Taras Bulba had introduced the character of Jew Yankel...

...Dostoevsky's first trip abroad in 1862 was a major turning point in his intellectual and artistic development and in his

attitude toward the Jews...

...Nevertheless he argues that Dostoevsky was less consistent and more tortured on the Jewish Question than Goldstein cares

...His physical appearance, his manner of speech, his almost monomaniacal greed, and even the way he showers are the

subjects of preposterous caricature...

...This is no doubt true, but it is not enough...



...Indeed, Goldstein shows how Dostoevsky's antipathy toward Jews, and his desire to impute to them the basest of motives,

necessitated that he traduce the artistic truth of several sections of his major novels...

...Frank sees this as indicative of a less than monolithic approach to the Jewish Question...

...As Goldstein writes: Alyosha's evasive reply is not justifiable on either human or artistic grounds . . . [and] . . . in betraying

Alyosha, Dostoevsky betrayed himself...

...He tells us only that Dostoevsky's anti-Semitism was, at the most fundamental level, the product of an "innate, almost

organic aversion for Jews," which reflected "a priori feelings of repugnance......Goldstein also does not explore the impact on Dostoevsky of Western and Central European anti-Semitic ideas (except in

the context of his friendship with the arch anti-Semite Pobedonostev), though Dostoevsky's prophecy of the future spiritual

reconciliation of all Aryan peoples in his famous "Pushkin Speech" (1880) suggests at least some influence from those

...Similarly, Goldstein's study persuasively demonstrates that, despite some apparent equivocations, Dostoevsky's attitude

toward the Jews, at least from the early 1860's until his death in 1881, was one of overpowering revulsion and fear...

...AN exuberant twenty-three-yearold Fyodor Dostoevsky related in a letter to his brother in 1844 the literary projects he

planned to undertake now that he had completed his degree at the St...

...What demonic force," asks Goldstein, "incited Dostoevsky to betray Alyosha, the pure, virtuous, the godlike, his Alyosha,

who, in other circumstances, responded with a ringing No to the question: would you be willing to build the future happiness

of mankind on the tears of a single baby...

...The Jew Yankel, the only one of the three plays that Dostoevsky apparently began to STEVE ZIPPERsTEIN, a new

contributor, teaches' Jewish history at Cornell and is at work on a study of Odessa Jewry in the 19thcentury.76/COMMENTARY JUNE 1981 sophical meanderings that Dostoevsky (through no fault of his own) has frequently

...Driven by a blind hatred against a people, ostracized and execrated in the country of their adoption-the only homeland they

knew- Dostoevsky, humanist and Christ- ian, in the twilight of his life, did not shrink from endorsing, with all the authority

he com- manded as both man and writer, an ignominious myth and odious lie...

...Goldstein says nothing, for instance, about the degree to which Dostoevsky's beliefs may be traced to the profoundly

religious training he received in his parents' home, a training which, as Joseph Frank has demonstrated in Dostoevsky: The

Seeds of Revolt, 1821-1849, explains much about the tenacity of Dostoevsky's religious attachments...

...Frank points in particular to the last section of Dostoevsky's lengthy article on Jews in "The Diary of a Writer," where

Dostoevsky quotes favorably and with some sympathy from a letter written to him by a young Jewish correspondent and even

speaks haltingly of the possibility of some future reconciliation between Christian and Jew...

...None was ever completed-the young writer soon turned from drama to fiction-but the three titles foreshadowed interests

that would prove to be lifelong and intense: a fascination with Schiller, who had treated the theme of Maria Stuart in his

...Yet, as is well known, Wagner too, in his notorious essay "Jewishness in Music," a sweeping condemnation of the impact

of Jews on modern cultural life, made a special exception for the Jewish-born writer Ludwig B6rne, a disclaimer which in no

way could be said to qualify the general thrust of his essay...

...Though they complained incessantly of persecution at the hands of others, the Jews constituted the most potent threat to the

triumph of those ideas which Dostoevsky held dear, still intent as they had been since the days of Moses to impose their will

...Though he admits that Dostoevsky was unquestionably anti-Semitic, he contrasts Dostoevsky's willingness to entertain one

or two isolated exceptions to his general evaluation of the Jews with Richard Wagner's wholesale, indivisible contempt for

...The reader does indeed put down this study with an "unrelieved sense of dismay," tempered perhaps by a recognition of the

truth of Dostoevsky's own insight that "the greatest artists could be the worst scoundrels and that there was nothing

incompatible between the two...

...Though modeled on a certain Isaac Bumstein, who served a sentence at the Omsk prison at the same time as Dostoevsky,

Isai is a familiar amalgam of unflattering yet curiously discordant characteristics...

...He wrote that he was contemplating the writing of three plays, Maria Stuart, Boris Godunov, and The Jew Yankel...

...If these omissions and lapses onBOOKS IN REVIEW/77 Goldstein's part are regrettable, the one thoroughly disappointing

feature of the volume is the foreword by Joseph Frank, one of the leading experts on Dostoevsky in the United States...

...Little can be said to exonerate him, and what little Frank does muster is decidedly unconvincing...

...Already in Dostoevsky's first feuilletons the term zhidi, the Russian equivalent of "kikes" which Dosteovsky preferred to

the neutral evrei, is frequently linked to "moneylenders," "creditors," and "slanderers," and this at a time when it is unlikely

that Dostoevsky had ever so much as seen a Jew...

...Isai emerges as the only comical figure in a work of otherwise harrowing intensity...



...The hapless Bumstein is abused by the author in every conceivable way, described as being at once stupid, shrewd, lazy,

tireless, cowardly, and insolent...

...WHAT Goldstein's study does not tell us is the source of this "blind hatred...

www.commentarymagazine.com/Summaries/V71I6P77-1.htm

Dershowitz, Dostoyevsky, and the Devil

In the final chapter of his compelling study of attitudes towards present day Israel, Alan Dershowitz mentions one widely

held view among Israel's critics, who like to say that the current situation in the Middle East is "the Israelis' fault", or

"Sharon's fault". He shows how this type of thinking has its roots in the past, when blaming outbreaks of anti-Semitism on the

victims was a common response among European and Russian intellectuals. In his Writer's Diary - the blog to outblog all

blogs - the Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky published a notorious article of 1879 in which he claimed that "It's all the

Jews' fault", and declared that the hatred of Jews "must have stemmed from something" - "the Jew himself is guilty".

As Dershowitz points out, "Dostoyevsky's views of the worldwide Jewish conspiracy are not much different from the views

expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf or in the Czarist forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." For Dershowitz, as for

Joseph Frank, there are two Dostoyevskys, and that his fame "is based on his fiction writings and not on his nonfiction

rantings." (p. 233) Yet there are also anti-Semitic passages in Dostoyevsky's fiction. Book XI of The Brothers Karamazov

contains the following conversation between the crazy Liza and Alyosha:

...Alyosha, is it true that the Jews steal little children at Passover and kill them with knives?'

'I do not know.' 'Well, I have a book in which I read about a trial somewhere, where a Jew had first cut off all the fingers of both hands

belonging to a child of four years old, and then crucified him against a wall, hammered in nails and crucified him, and then

at his trial he said that the boy died quickly, within four hours. That was quick! He said that the boy had groaned and

groaned and that he had stood feating his eyes on him. That is good!'

'Good?'

'Yes, good. I sometimes think that I myself crucified him. He hung on the wall, groaning, and I sat down opposite him and

ate pineapple compote. I'm very fond of pineapple compote. Are you?'

e two ostoyevs ys approac to t s s per aps t e most generous an org v ng one, ut t a so expresses t e

bewilderment of many people who, like Dershowitz, cannot understand how it's possible that "a man of Dostoyevsky's

brilliance and insight in so many areas could have harbored such primitive fantasies about the Jews." After all, Dostoyevsky's

fame rests above all on his reputation as a preacher of Christian love and human brotherhood. In his introduction to David

Goldstein's Dostoevsky and the Jews, Dostoyevsky's biographer Joseph Frank goes out of his way to create a special category

which can be applied to Dostoyevsky, that of "guilty anti-Semite". Doatoyevsky himself claimed that he was never an anti-

Semite, and this leads Frank to suggest that the novelist was split: "There is evidence here of something else besides the usual

contempt or disdain, and it indicates that Dostoevsky was capable of both reactions at the same time."

As one critic has emphasized, Dostoyevsky's hostility to Jews was only one of a whole series of hates, which included "thePoles, the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church, the socialist idea, the West, atheism, and materialism. In fact, his

contempt for the Roman Catholic Church is unparalleled in literature."

The following words of Shatov in The Possessed give us some idea of how Dostoyevsky saw the world:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Frank%2C%20Joseph/103-7486919-8120614





http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0292715285/qid=1086771160/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-7486919-8120614?v=glance&s=books&n=507846








http://community.middlebury.edu/~beyer/courses/previous/ru351/studentpapers/Anti-semite.shtml







































































































































































































































































"Reduce God to the attribute of nationality?...On the contrary, I elevate the nation to God...The people is the body of God.

Every nation is a nation only so long as it has its own particular God, excluding all other gods on earth without any

ossible reconciliation, so long as it believes that by its own God it will conquer and drive all other gods off the face of the

earth. At least that's what all great nations have believed since the beginning of time, all those remarkable in any way,

those standing in the vanguard of humanity...The Jews lived solely in expectation of the true God, and they left this true

God to the world...A nation which loses faith is no longer a nation. But there is only one truth; consequently, only one

While acknowledging the debt owed by Russian Messianism to the Messianism of Judaic thought, Dostoyevsky believed that

Russian Orthodoxy would eventually conquer the decadent civilizations of the West, and he was implacably hostile to

anything or anyone that would stand in the way of this conquest.

In confronting Dostoyevsky's anti-Semitism, it seems that we are forced to choose. If his anti-Semitism was seriously felt and

intended, then his writings, including the great works of fiction for which he is famous, are ironic. If, on the other hand, it

was the expression of a fundamental split in his character, of which he was aware, and ironically aware, it may be that in the

end it was not anti-Semitism at all, but rather an attempt to overcome the culturally-determined anti-Semitism of his

upbringing and background in favour of those "who left this true God to the world." It could even be that were Dostoyevsky

alive today, he would be in the forefront of those who defend the state of Israel, and see it as an upholder of virtues and

For myse , I am scept ca . T e presence o ant -Sem t sm n terature - rom C aucer an S a espeare an Mar owe t roug

Smollett, Voltaire, Dickens and Thackeray to Eliot and Pound - is all too perceptible, and Dostoyevsky does not constitute an

exception, but rather a depressing conformity to the rule. As far as his being a proponent of Christian and brotherly love is

concerned, I think one needs to reflect that Dostoyevsky was profoundly affected by the years he spent in prison, in the penal

colony in Siberia to which he was exiled. The Christianity at which he ultimately arrived was far from being a simple or

straightforward creed. It is not by accident that the Devil is the most important character in his novel The Brothers

Karamazov . And, as the author wrote at the very end of his life, in the notebook for 1880-81:

e evi . syc o ogica an etai e critica exp anation o van yo orovic an t e appearance o t e evi . van

Fyodorovich is deep, this is not the contemporary atheists, who demonstrate by their unbelief only the narrowness of their

world-outlook and the dimness of their dim-witted abilities... Nihilism appeared among us because we are all nihilists. We

were merely frightened by the new, original form of its manifestation. (All to a man Fyodor Pavloviches.) ...Conscience

without God is a horror, it may lose its way to the point of utter immorality... The Inquisitor is only immoral because in his

heart, in his conscience there has managed to accommodate itself the idea of the necessity of burning human beings... The

Inquistor and the chapter about children. In view of these chapters you could take a scholarly, yet not so haughty approach

to me where philosophy is concerned, though philosophy is not my speciality. Not even in Europe is there such a power of

atheistic expressions, not has there been. Soat the very least, separate and beside, an unforgivable sin to the author,

halldor2.blogspot.com/2004/06/dershowitz-dostoyevsky-and-devil.html

Crimes and Punishments

By JONATHAN ROSEN

New York Times, Published: March 3, 2002

NCELENEN K TAP : By Leonid Tsypkin, “SUMMER IN BADEN-BADEN”, Translated by Roger Keys and

Angela Keys, 146 pp. New York: A New Directions Book. $23.95.

Isaac Bashevis Singer once recalled that as a boy in Warsaw he read a translation of ''Crime and Punishment'' and came to the

conclusion that Dostoyevsky was a Yiddish writer. It may seem odd that a Jewish boy could appropriate an anti-Semitic

novelist for his own, but great literature has strange, identity-bending powers. No doubt there were other Jews who read

Dostoyevsky in Russian and decided that they themselves must be Christian.



Leon Tsyp n's extraor nary nove , ''Summer n Ba en-Ba en,'' grows n part out o t e we r ness o a Jew s wr ter's

obsession with Dostoyevsky. The book is haunted by the meaning and nature of unrequited literary love -- unrequited not

simply because books do not love us back or because Dostoyevsky is dead and gone but because, were he alive, the Russian

master might well have viewed Tsypkin as one of those Dostoyevskyan characters who, in Tsypkin's words, ''are not even

fully portrayed but simply mentioned as little Jews or some other term implying the lowest and basest qualities of the human

character.'' And behind this painful fact, a larger crisis drives Tsypkin's book: the predicament of Jews in love not merelywith a writer who despised them but with a language, a literature and a society that has never truly been able to accommodate

Tsypkin was a Soviet Jewish physician who died in 1982 and who -- despite seeing none of his fiction published in his

lifetime -- turns out to have been a magnificent writer. ''Summer in Baden-Baden'' was literally inspired by Dostoyevsky's

life: the novel is, in part, a recreation of Dostoyevsky's tumultuous stint in Europe, beginning in the spring of 1867 and

lasting for four productive if chaotic years. (The manuscript was originally smuggled out of the Soviet Union by a journalist

friend of Tsypkin's, and came to the attention of a German publisher; the first English translation appeared in 1987 in

This short book manages to touch on most of Dostoyevsky's career -- his years in a czarist prison when he was a young man,

his run-ins with critics and fellow writers like Turgenev and Goncharov and, most movingly, his death in St. Petersburg in

1881, described in splendid and stirring detail. But most of the action takes place in the summer of 1867, a time when

Dostoyevsky was tormented by creditors, grinding poverty, an urge to gamble, his own overweening ambition and a widearray of imaginary demons. He is simultaneously submerged and buoyed by his love for his second wife, Anna Grigoryevna,

an 18-year-old stenographer who had taken down ''The Gambler'' in her own peculiar shorthand.

Tsypkin describes in riveting detail the couple's days in Baden-Baden -- Dostoyevsky feverishly gambling, pawning his

wife's belongings, losing everything, begging for forgiveness on his knees and starting the whole cycle again. All the while

his wife struggles to keep afloat, emotionally and financially, clinging to and warding off the enigmatic, tormented man who,

for all his abuse and equally taxing remorse, she is mysteriously in love with.

Anna Grigoryevna is central to the novel because the narrator -- unnamed but in many ways Tsypkin himself -- begins his

book in the Soviet Union, riding a train from Moscow to Leningrad while reading Anna Grigoryevna's diary of her early

years with Dostoyevsky. The diary is a sort of portal to the past for the narrator, who begins to refer to Leningrad as St.

Petersburg, the name it bore when Dostoyevsky lived there. He is making a pilgrimage to see the building where

But e s a so go ng to stay n t e Len ngra apartment o an o am y r en , G a Ya ov evna, w ose us an , Mo sey

Ernstovich, was a doctor who had studied in Germany ''before the Revolution, as all Jews did who wanted to receive higher

education.'' Gilda, whom the narrator calls Gilya, is lovingly described, as is the book-filled apartment with its crowd of

elderly tenants. We are suddenly in the world of Soviet Jews, whose surnames and patronymics have a Hebraic ring -- the

narrator half expects Gilya to ''jump up and begin talking, or rather, shouting in Yiddish, as her parents used to do in the

place near Kiev where she herself was born.'' He loves hearing Gilya's stories, about Moisey's arrest and miraculous release

during the Great Terror, about the Leningrad blockade, when frozen corpses were dragged through the streets on toboggans.

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E2DD123EF930A35750C0A9649C8B63

* * *

There is a gentle air of understated suffering in the lives of these Soviet Jews, to which we might add Tsypkin's own, having

learned in the introduction that his grandmother was murdered by Nazis in the ghetto in Minsk, that his father was arrested

during the Great Terror and attempted suicide in prison and that Tsypkin himself, despite a distinguished career as a medical

researcher, lost his job in 1977 when his son emigrated to America. ''Summer in Baden-Baden'' was composed during a time



T at n g t n G ya's apartment, t e narrator n s on t e s e a prerevo ut onary copy o Dostoyevs y's ''D ary o a Wr ter''

and reads with ''a pounding heart'' an article called ''The Jewish Question,'' which turns out to be nothing but a litany of anti-

Semitic accusations -- about the destruction of Russia by Jews and about a global Jewish conspiracy involving gold and

jewels sent to Palestine. ''It struck me as being strange to the point of implausibility,'' Tsypkin writes, ''that a man so sensitive

in his novels to the sufferings of others, this jealous defender of the insulted and the injured who fervently and even

frenetically preached the right to exist of every earthly creature and sang a passionate hymn to each little leaf and every blade

of grass -- that this man should not have come up with even a single word in the defense or justification of a people

He then wonders about the strange fascination Dostoyevsky has held for Jews, noting that Russian Jews have a virtual

monopoly on Dostoyevsky studies and speculating that their devoted dissections of his work might be a ''cannibalistic act

performed on the leader of an enemy tribe.'' He also wonders, less flatteringly, if it might not be ''the desire to hide behind his

back, as if using him as a safe-conduct -- something like adopting Christianity or daubing a cross on your door during a

One of the things that makes this book so remarkable is that alongside all this speculation is an intimate, minute and loving --

if unsentimental -- portrait of Dostoyevsky and his wife. This dual motion is what gives the book its tension and power.

Susan Sontag, in her excellent introduction, suggests that the two stories -the love of Anna Grigoryevna for the impossible

Dostoyevsky, and the literary devotion of Tsypkin to a writer who ''despised me and my kind'' echo each other. While that

seems true to an extent, ''Summer in Baden-Baden'' seems to be about something more complicated than love.

Tsypkin puts on the great writer's life like a bearskin, making the novelist move and dance with such persuasive force that

when he slips off his heavy costume and appears before the reader at intervals in the book as a modern Soviet Jew

reimagining the past, the sense of doubleness and deception is disconcerting and mysteriously moving. In the Dostoyevsky

Museum, housed in the apartment where the writer died, the narrator notes casually the ''museum employees, young men and

women with educated faces, making you think instinctively that they must be of Jewish origin.'' The ''you'' who thinks that

''Summer in Baden-Baden'' participates in the power of Russian literature even as it revises it, assimilates it and even

assimilates Dostoyevsky himself into Tsypkin's world, where intelligence and introspection and rationality are not antithetical

to invention but are vital literary elements, instruments of the imagination. Tsypkin's stream-of-consciousness prose style is

associative, inclusive, allusive, detached and yet humane.

Tsypkin grapples with Dostoyevsky in this brilliant novel the way Dostoyevsky grappled with a God who, as Ivan

Karamazov points out, allows the suffering of children. ''Summer in Baden-Baden'' is simultaneously an act of literary

homage and revenge. Tsypkin, who describes Anna Grigoryevna's diary as sitting on his desk ''like the Bible,'' has found the

same solution to the problem of Dostoyevsky that the scribes of the Hebrew Scriptures found for an unpredictable and

Jonathan Rosen' s most recent book i s ''The Talmud and the In ternet: A Journey Between Wor lds.''

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E2DD123EF930A35750C0A9649C8B63&sec=&pagewanted=2

The Jewish Question

by Stojgniev O'Donnell

"That [Dostoevsky] should not have come up with even a single word in the defense or justification of a people persecuted

over several thousands of years - could he have been so blind? - or was he perhaps blinded by hatred?

and he did not even refer to the Jews as a people, but as a tribe as though they were a group of natives from the Polynesian

Islands or somewhere



and to this tribe I belonged and the many friends and acquaintances of mine with whom I had discussed the subtlest problems

of Russian literature.and the many other Jewish literary critics who have gained what amounts to a monopoly in the study of

Dostoyevsky." Leonid Tsypkin, Summer in Baden-Baden, 1982, trans. Roger and Angela Keys (London, 1987), 116.

There could be no more appropriate place to begin a discussion of the Jews than with a reference to Russian novelist Fedor

Dostoevsky and his attitude toward the Jews. Dostoevsky in his writings displayed little admiration for the Jews. In referring

to the Jews, he employed the Russian word zhid, which in modern Russian is interpreted as an ethnic slur (although in other Slavic languages, it is the sole word for Jew). Dostoevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov contains a reference to alleged

murder by Jews of Christian children and ritual use of their blood, called blood libel by the Jews.

e op c a an s ews an e rama c grow o ew s power an n uence n mer ca n e wen e cen ury. s

Jewish influence and its perceptions by non-Jews will have dramatic significance in coming years. I must confess that I find

Jews a troubling topic, in part because previously I have observed that some individual Jews feel there is something "not

right" in my own feelings towards Jews. With assurance I know that, as I write these words, what I say here will be dismissed

and rejected by many Jews who read it. I can regret that, but I cannot prevent it. The best I can offer is to follow my own

conscience in approaching the topic of the Jews. Tsypkin asks, not entirely rhetorically, if Dostoevsky was blinded by hatred

towards the Jews. Periodically, I pause to consider my own reactions to Jews and their actions, to consider if I am not blinded

by some type of irrationality. Such reflection leads always to the same three conclusions: (1) There is something greater and

more substantial to the Jr complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed. Let the Jew also show at

least some brotherly feeling for the Russian people so as to encourage them. I know that even at present there are plenty of

men among the Jewish people who are seeking and craving for the elimination of the misunderstandings, men who, besides,

are humane, and I shall not keep silent on this fact so as to conceal the truth. It is precisely in order that these useful and

humane persons should not grow despondent and low-spirited, and with a view to weakening, at least somewhat, their

W at oes t mean or someone to suggest t at Dostoevs y, a wr ter an t n er o cons era e mora ns g t, t e wor 's

greatest novelist for some readers, was blind to truth? Was not the ascertainment of truths one of the tasks of Dostoevsky's

life as a writer and as a human being? Taking Tsypkin's question above at face value and considering also his general respect

for Dostoevsky's literary work, I would rework his question in this manner: Did it happen that Dostoevsky was guided in his

life by some irrational hatred of the Jews, all the while he otherwise pursued in other matters of life a rational search for

truth? Such a proposition is, of course, irrational. How could it be that Dostoevsky demonstrated such insight in all realms of

life except that relating to the Jews? And what of Dostoevsky's obligation to "come up with even a single word in the defense

or justification of a people persecuted."? Was Dostoevsky, who wrote bluntly of his characters and their moral imperfections,

As a e ev ng C r st an, I approac t e top c o t e Jews w t trep at on, consc ous t at C r st, H s Mot er an t e rst

disciples came out of the milieu of ethno-religious Judaism. He who despises the Jews must surely despise some aspect of

Christ, the first Christians, and Christianity. Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn views the Jews, at times critically, as a

catalyst for all humanity. I am inclined to agree with such an interpretation. If we study the history of Jews and Christians, we

see that, indeed, the Jews often present the ideal historical moment for the Christian to practice his faith. Too often, however,

Christians have failed this test. Russian philosopher Vladimir Solov'ev wrote in 1884: "The Jews have always treated us in

accordance with the Jewish faith, though we, the Christians, have yet to learn to treat the Jews in the Christian fashion."

Many-faceted are the contradictions of Jewishness, so much so that one hardly knows where to begin a conversation on the

topic. I am most interested in the meaning of Jewish history. Studying the natural processes of assimilation in which ethnic

groups have been formed and then eventually, with the passage of time, subsumed within other ethnic groups more recentlyarisen, one comes to the realization that the Jews have managed to continue as an ethnic group many centuries longer than

The Jews themselves disagree on the meaning of their history. There are different interpretations of the meaning of Jewish

death and suffering during the Second World War, for example. Some religious Jews view the Jewish tragedies of that period

as divine chastisement. Some non-religious Jews see those events as a mark of Jewish singularity, yet all the while refusing -

strangely, in the view of the religious believer - to acknowledge a religious basis for that singularity. Whatever the meaning,

it seems certain to me that a divine hand intervenes in the midst of every Jewish generation. It is inconceivable to deny that



One won ers a out n v ua Naz s, ot erw se n some cases exemp ary at ers, us an s an oca c t zens, w o ace t e

moral dilemma of whether or not they could themselves torture or murder another human being because he was a Jew. One

recalls the biblical tale of Isaac and Jacob and Isaac's unwavering obedience to God. Many Christians were thus tested and

failed, though perhaps under entirely different circumstances, one such individual might have lived out what would have

been considered a normal, decent life. In such a case, was it the Jew or the human shortcomings of the Nazi that precipitated

the latter's damnation? Perhaps the sincere Christian should heed the frequent criticism that comes from the Jews and should

view, accordingly, the Jews as an eternal witness, an eternal reminder of the moral failings of humanity.

Yet n searc ng or t e trut o t e Jew s quest on, we must cons er t e mora o gat on o t e Jew towar s t e non-Jew.

Discussion of the conflict between Jews and non-Jews very often revolves around Jewish criticism of the specific actions or

expressions of a non-Jew. That criticism typically is a response to what is labeled "anti-Semitism," a term that in my mind

has little intellectual validity. Despite the prefix, "Anti-Semitism" is a concept without an opposite. Some have suggested that

the unhyphenated "antisemitism" is the more correct form, since "anti-Semitism" implies mistakenly that it exists in

opposition to "Semitism." There is little logic in any discussion of "anti-Semitism."

To speak of "anti-Semitism" is to insinuate that only one side in this dispute has morality, objectivity, "decency," and truth.

In such a one-sided debate, all the prerogatives of truth and morality belong to the side opposed to "anti-Semitism." In my

own experience, I have seen the label "anti-Semite" applied to anyone who criticizes Jews, even when that person is honest

and acts with the most sincere motives. In academe and the media, those who are branded "anti-Semites" are blackballed andrefused employment. Use of such language in its own right is a political act and I propose that "anti-Semitism" and its

derivatives be avoided by those who seek an objective discussion of Jewish issues.

Discourse on the Jewish question typically revolves around an act or expression of "anti-Semitism," to which voices of

"morality" and "decency" respond. Yet in introducing the quote from Tsypkin above, I choose to begin my discussion by

letting the Jewish side make the first move, so to speak. For a discussion of the Jewish question cannot be limited solely to

Jewish responses to the non-Jew, but must also consider the Jew's role and responsibility in that discourse. The Jewish

question consists of much more than simple immoral behavior by individual non-Jews.

W at s t e root o t e mo ern con ct etween Jews an non-Jews? I am not a Jew an I cannot now t e ee ngs an

intuitions of Jews, though with curiosity often I have observed these first-hand. My interpretation of the Jewish view of the

conflict is as follows. Jews, even the majority that does not practice the Jewish religion, tend to view this conflict in moral

terms. The positions taken by the non-Jewish side in the conflict are, in Jewish eyes, typically viewed as immoral, irrational.The criticism of Dostoevsky above is often leveled at all non-Jews: non-Jews fail, in various ways, in their obligations

towards the Jews. A Christian must agree that such a criticism is sometimes valid, though all sides should also come to terms

with the fact that there is a hierarchy of moral issues for Christians and that there are sincere, devout Christians who will not

define the practice of their religion primarily by fulfillment of a Christian obligation towards Jews, which varies according to

I etect anot er Jew s sens ty n t e Jew s react on towar s non-Jews. Some Jews oppose very rm y any re erence y

non-Jews to stereotyped Jewish behavior and attitudes. At times, I am left with the impression that Jews are less interested in

reaching the objective truths of the Jewish question than they are in insuring the well being of their own community, even if

that involves obfuscation of the truth. As I interpret the actions and expressions of Jews, it seems to me that the Jews believe

their historical role as the Chosen People absolves them from any obligation of self-criticism. The solidarity of the Jewish

community in working towards common goals is remarkable, and it is unrivalled in any other ethnic community in history.

Observing the behavior of the Jews I have known, I believe almost every situation in the Jew's life is met with the question

What is the reaction of the non-Jew towards the Jew? There is one very common and immoral stance that characterizes much

of the historical interaction between the Jew and the non-Jew. This involves a base envy, one of the ugliest of human sins.

Envy results from the contrast, visible in every field and every endeavor, between the material successes and rewards of the

Jew, on the one hand, and the personal inadequacies of individual Jews, on the other. Such a contrast riles the sense of order

and fairness in some non-Jews, especially in those of a baser, simpler nature.



Jews have taken pains to emphasize what they believe is the religious nature of anti-Jewish feeling among Christians, though

anti-Jewish expressions actually precede Christianity. Of course, it has been advantageous for Jews to emphasize religious

prejudice among their critics, rather than to focus on political, cultural, or economic factors. This is one of the causes of the

widespread Jewish hatred for the Catholic Church. As a believing Christian, I do not see religious prejudice on the part of

Christians as a significant element of the Jewish question. I take offense at what I interpret as a distortion of history by those

Jews who blame Christianity for the moral failings of individuals with a Christian background.

I we ac now e ge t e mora a ngs n env ous n v ua non-Jews, an t e Jew can accept my e e t at t e essence o

the Jewish question is not religious prejudice on the part of Christians, are there still, then, other aspects of the historical

conflict that deserve our attention? I believe there are. I do not view Dostoevsky as a bad example to follow in interacting

with the Jews. Dostoevsky in his writings always pursued what he believed to be truth. There can be no higher goal for any

person. While I know that the Jews are at times a controversial topic, one that history demonstrates can transform an

otherwise decent human being into a monster, I seek always to be honest in my own feelings and perceptions that relate to

It wou e s onest or me to eny t at my own mpress ons o t e n v ua Jews I ave nown n my e are

predominately negative. Such a statement for some Jews, unfortunately, already disqualifies me, in their eyes, as an objective

voice in this discussion. Yet my desire to know the truth of the Jewish question is stronger than any feeling of moral

obligation that I ".come up with even a single word in the defense or justification of a people persecuted." I am troubled by

any moral obligation that would demand an obfuscation of the truth. Unfortunately, I have observed that some Jews feel theyhave an obligation to silence all criticism directed at Jews as individuals and as a group. What kind of world will we create

when Dostoevsky is not to be allowed to follow his conscience and describe bluntly life as he sees it?

My contacts w t et n c Jews ate to ourt gra e, to Nanette, a qu et espectac e g r w ose name an ace I st reca .

Since adulthood I worked closely with Jews in business and in academe. Only a small fraction of the Jews I have known

practiced Judaism. Most were Jews in a complex ethno-cultural-political sense. These non-religious Jews constantly

redefined their Jewishness according to the situation of the moment. Of the Jews I have known personally, I respected most

the elderly professor who was a member of my dissertation committee, a teacher of Hebrew and a devout practitioner of the

Jewish religion. (Perhaps it is worth mentioning, in regard to the makeup of contemporary American universities, that of the

five members of my dissertation committee, one was the aforementioned religious Jew and two were non-practicing Jews. A

For non-Jews, t e Jews are puzz ng n so many respects. No ot er nat on on eart ex ts suc et nocentr sm. W t t e r

vast supplies of energy and intelligence, Jews as a group are like a show of fireworks, unstoppable, inevitably burningthemselves out to the last spark and flame. As I learned in academe, criticism of Jews in America and other parts of the

Western world today is frowned upon, if not effectively prohibited. Unless one can speak with some accuracy about

Jewishness, it is foolish to raise the subject at all, since the Jews are formidable opponents of all in whom they see even a hint

of determined opposition to them. Never in my life have I encountered such resistance, such emotional hostility as when I

s a re ate a persona anec ote w c a ows me to ntro uce t e controvers a top c o stereotypes, an a so concerns

general questions of truth. I have observed that some non-religious Jews are reluctant to reveal their ethnicity to non-Jews, no

doubt a relic of centuries of oppression passed down from generation to generation. In order to conceal their ethnicity, some

Jews are willing to concoct elaborate subterfuges. It offends me and insults my intelligence when a person whom I know very

well to be Jewish indicates or suggests that he is not. I had such an experience one summer during a foreign study program

when my Jewish roommate made an effort to convince me that he celebrated Christmas. I was at that time a doctoral student

and my roommate was an undergraduate. It really was of no significance to me what holidays, if any, the student celebrated.By chance, I later overhead his conversation with his Jewish colleague in which he expressed considerable bitterness towards

Christianity, non-Jews, and tr complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed. Let the Jew also show



Is t proper to repeat suc an anec ote? A ter a , I ave mp e t at t e act ons o one n v ua some ow represent t e

behavior of millions of individuals of like ethnicity. We cannot talk about Jews without some reference to the historical

Jewish stereotypes that are both despised and denied by Jews. Americans have been educated since the 1960s to believe that

there is no truth in the traditional ethnic stereotypes. But this is ludicrous. In the stereotypes that apply to my own ethnic

background, I recognize some unpleasant truths, but I cannot deny that these truths apply broadly to a wide population that

shares a common ethnicity and cultural heritage. In speaking about Jewish stereotypes, I acknowledge that there are always

exceptions, some of them remarkable. Yet I have found that my own generalizations formed over years of contact with Jews

e no on ru es o ay n mer ca a s mproper an mpo e o cr c ze ews. s ea as een promo e y e soc a

engineers who, since the 1960s, have argued that historical truth should be subordinated to efforts to attain ethnic and racial

harmony in America. In the twenty-first century "nice" people do not criticize Jews, just as they do not attribute to them any

characteristics of the ethnic or racial stereotype. A powerful tool used in the advancement of this idea is film and television.

Not only is it almost impossible to find a Jewish character in American film or television that exhibits negative

characteristics, but the evil of "anti-Semitism" was a periodic theme in American films in the twentieth century. One recalls

the criticism of Dostoevsky above, that he might have attempted a little social engineering in his novels on behalf of

oppressed Jews. This phenomenon has been observed for many years in the American entertainment industry and news

media. Again, the moral question clashes wir complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed. Let the

Jew also show at least some brotherly feeling for the Russian people so as to encourage them. I know that even at present

there are plenty of men among the Jewish people who are seeking and craving for the elimination of the misunderstandings,

A common criticism of the Jews as a collective is that they promote social turmoil. Like each of the issues of the conflict,

there are two sides to be argued. With their dynamic intelligence and abilities, Jews as a group naturally become leaders in

any new political and cultural movement. This is clearly a phenomenon based on individual talents, not the workings of a

conspiracy. Yet is it proper to ask that the Jews pause to consider the reaction their involvement in these movements

produces upon non-Jews? As Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz has described himself, I consider myself an anti-modernist,

opposed to the ugliness and dehumanization of modernity. And we must admit that modernity has a Jewish face, whether it is

T ere s anot er trou ng ssue ra se n t e Tsyp n quote a ove. Tsyp n re ers to mse an to ".t e many ot er Jew s

literary critics who have gained what amounts to a monopoly in the study of Dostoyevsky." Based on Tsypkin's own

reservations towards Dostoevsky, one is justified to ask if the non-Jewish public can expect true scholarship and objective

analysis from a community of scholars that, according to Tsypkin, is almost exclusively Jewish. My interest in this question

is not entirely neutral, since I was denied academic employment in a field that not only is dominated in America by Jews, but

that also increasingly defines itself in terms of Jewish topics and Jewish perspectives. The issue of Jewish bias in academe

and in the news media is, however, an essential part of the Jewish question, something that relates to its moral equation.

In gra uate sc oo I was mpresse w t t e s s o Jew s stu ents w o, g ven a wr t ng ass gnment, qu c y were a e to

visit the library, consult all the best reference works on the subject, distill the information from those works, and produce a

paper. Typically, the Jewish student is capable of assimilating and convincingly disseminating a great deal of information

within a short period of time. Part of the success of those Jewish graduate students was in their familiarity with existing

resources. But I found also that much of what my Jewish colleagues produced in graduate school was, in my opinion, shallow

and lacking in originality. For their efficiency and in their display of energy, something substantial nearly always was

sacrificed. Again, I reference a stereotype, one often proven true in my experiences over the years.

Jews ex t a constant pus or a compet t ve e ge. I o not comp ete y un erstan t at Jew s r ve. Per aps t comes romancestral fear of ethnic persecution, or perhaps it has its roots in the Jewish ethnocentrism. Throughout history, it has

produced tensions between the Jews and their host societies. From one perspective, all people can understand the Jewish

mother who pushes her son to become a lawyer or doctor. On the other hand, we must recognize that it is pathological to use

such an achievement as a measurement against which all Jewish sons are to be judged. Can one wonder, in good faith, if the

Nazi movement might have been stopped had there been fewer Jewish lawyers and professionals in interwar Germany? One

suspects that the true root of the Jewish problem is in Jewish ethnocentrism and in the Jewish masquerade in which the Jew

becomes so emotionally involved that he is unable to discern all non-Jewish reaction to Jewish ethnocentrism.



o return to my o servat ons on t e prepon erance o ew s sc o ars n my own aca em c e , must a m t t at n

something suffocating and inbred in the networks that develop among Jewish scholars. The Jewish presence in academe leads

to a tendency for Jewish professors and department heads to count sympathy towards the Jews and Jewish interests as a

significant criterion for selecting new employees. In the end, Jews are unable to prevent the disastrous effects of their own

ethnocentrism, which inevitably produces conflicts with non-Jews. Yet, as I understand the Jewish perspective, Jews believe

that non-Jews have a moral obligation not to interfere in any way in the affairs of the Jews, even when such Jewish behavior

produces what non-Jews interpret as negative influences in their own community. Considering the immense power andinfluence wielded in America by Jews, America, Jewish and non-Jewish, must determine how to balance these two

obligations: the moral obligation of the Christian towards the Jer complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both

I must con ess, na y, to a conv ct on t at sure y w r ng own upon my person Jew s wrat . T s matter oes not

directly concern the Jewish question as a current issue, although it relates to Dostoevsky and the question of historical truth. I

question something that, for the Jews, is considered to be beyond questioning, beyond the realm of discussion by rational

people, that is, blood libel. I find it hard to believe that there is no truth in any of the accusations of child murder leveled

against Jews over the centuries. Jews refer to these alleged crimes, which have been written about for over two thousand

years, as blood libel, implying that, as a blatant libel, there could never be any consideration of the truth of such claims. One

persuasive argument against the truth of the accusations is that religious prescriptions prohibit the ritual use of blood by

, ,

the truth of any of those charges and also from the Jewish label of blood libel. It is a topic on which a remarkable solidarity prevails among the Jews. Yet it is puzzling that the charge occurred so many times over long centuries and throughout such a

wide geographical territory. While the Jews ridicule conspiracy advocates who blame them for elaborate plans of Jewish

political and economic domination, one must consider if the accusations of child murder against the Jews would not represent

an even vaster and more complicated conspiracy. To categorically reject all such accusations is to accept an anti-Jewish

conspiracy more sinister than even the wildest paranoia of the most determined enemies of the Jews. Of course, if one

believes that anti-Jewish feeling is a historical, almost naturally motivated force in the world, then perhaps it does not seem

surprising that similar charges ar complete brotherhood - brotherhood on the part of both sides is needed. Let the Jew also

show at least some brotherly feeling for the Russian people so as to encourage them. I know that even at present there are

plenty of men among the Jewish people who are seeking and craving for the elimination of the misunderstandings, men who,

besides, are humane, and I shall not keep silent on this fact so as to conceal the truth. It is precisely in order that these useful

and humane persons should not grow despondent and low-spirited, and with a view to weakening, at least somewhat, their

prejudices, thereby facilitating their first steps, that I should favor a full extension of rights to the Jewish race, at least, as far as possible, specifically, in so far as the Jewish people themselves prove their ability to accept and make use of these rights

without detriment to the native population. It would even be possible to make an advance concession, to make more steps

forward on the part of the Russian side. The only question is: to what extent would these new, good Jews succeed and how

far are they themselves adapted to the new and beautiful cause of genuine brotherly communion with men who are alien to

In the final analysis, I am left, still, with the same convictions: (1) The history of the Jews and the successes of individual

Jews are the product of divine providence. (2) The Jews represent a moral test for the non-Jew. In noting the contrast

between the rewards granted the Jews and personal shortcomings of individual Jews, the Christian must always act morally.

(3) While the Christian is obligated to show deference to the Jews, this does not mean that he may obfuscate the truth.

Dostoevsky was not obligated by any moral or social responsibility to alter his artistic vision of the Jews.

As a stu ent o story, I e eve t at t e e av or o Jews n Amer ca, part cu ar y t e r sregar or o ect ve, stor catruth, will result in unfortunate consequences. For all their horror of Nazism and the suffering of the Jews during the Second

World War, there has not come from the Jews any proposal of how that tragedy might have been averted, of what steps Jews

themselves might have taken to change the course of their history. Instead, one senses Jewish conviction in the inevitability

of Jewish suffering and in the inevitability of an immoral response on the part of the non-Jew. The Christian, however,

cannot accept such a conviction that ignores the teachings of Christianity and suggests that the Christian faith cannot



In goo a t , I put t e o ow ng quest on to Jews, espec a y to re g ous Jews, s nce I suspect t at I, as a e ev ng C r st an,

share something in common with them. Does the historical role of the Jews absolve them of any moral obligation to attempt

to understand the non-Jew's reaction to the Jew? Or do the Jew and the non-Jew live in two different worlds, the Jew put here

as the non-Jew's ultimate moral test, to follow always his own conscience and tradition, free of any responsibility in his

relation to the non-Jew? And is the non-Jew always to face alone the constant moral dilemma of how to react to the Jew and

to his ethnocentrism? Should any formulation of moral duties and obligations lead to an end to these ancient antagonisms,

surely rational people on both sides of the dispute would embrace such an idea. Yet so long as Jews believe that historicaltruths relating to their relations with non-Jews have little importance, there is scant chance of averting future conflicts.

www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/jewishq.htm



















Documents

Dostoyevski Ve Yahudiler (David I. Goldstein, 1981)