Disraeli's Invective 

Disraeli's Invective

I had to go to the university library and photocopy this; it's not easy to find. Before Disraeli became an MP (in the 1830s) he engaged in an exchange of invective in the newspapers with Daniel O'Connell, a leader of the Irish Catholics.

There is a fairly full account in the huge old biography of Disraeli by Monypenny and Buckle. Now that I check again, Blake has not a bad account--not really capturing all the intellectual bite.

O'Connell had read a summary--almost certainly inaccurate--of a speech by Disraeli. He believed Disraeli had referred to him as an "incendiary and a traitor." O'Connell was being mentioned a lot because he was suddenly co-operating with the Whigs--against whom he had earlier said some harsh things. So naturally in defending himself against Disraeli, he mentioned that Disraeli had changed from running as a Radical to running as a Tory.

O'Connell:

[blockquote]Now, my answer to this piece of gratuitous impertinence is, that he is an egregious liar. He is a liar both in action and words. What! shall such a vile creature be tolerated in England? [snip] He is a living lie; and the British Empire is degraded by tolerating a miscreant of his abominable description. The language is harsh, I must confess; but it is no more than deserved, and if I should apologise for using it, it is because I can find no harsher epithet in the English language by which to convey the utter abhorrence which I entertain for such a reptile. [To become a Conservative] he possesses all the necessary requisites of perfidy, selfishness, depravity, want of principle, & c., which would qualify him for the change.[/blockquote]

Then, a paragraph quoted by Blake:

His name shows that he is of Jewish origin. I do not use it as a term of reproach; there are many most respectable Jews. But there are, as in every other people, some of the lowest and most disgusting grade of moral turpitude; and of those I look upon Mr. Disraeli as the worst. He has just the qualities of the impenitent thief on the Cross, and I verily believe, if Mr. Disraeli's family herald were to be examined and his genealogy traced, the same personage would be discovered to be the heir at law of the exalted individual to whom I allude. I forgive Mr. Disraeli now, and as the lineal descendant of the blasphemous robber, who ended his career beside the Founder of the Christian Faith, I leave the gentleman to the enjoyment of his infamous distinction and family honours.


Disraeli tried to get O'Connell's son to fight a duel--since O'Connell himself had vowed never to do so again, after he had killed a man.

Part of Disraeli's response has been fairly widely quoted. "I admire your scurrilous allusions to my origin. It is quite clear that the 'hereditary bondsman' has already forgotten the clank of his fetter. I know the tactics of your Church; it clamours for toleration, and it labours for supremacy. I see that you are quite prepared to persecute."

(Later, in the House of Commons, Disraeli again replied to O'Connell: "Yes, I am a Jew," Disraeli replied, "and when the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.")

He was just warming up:

With regard to your taunts as to my want of success in my election contests, permit me to remind you that I had nothing to appeal to but the good sense of the people. No threatening skeletons canvassed for me; a death's-head and cross-bones were not blazoned on my banners. My pecuniary resources, too, were limited; I am not one of those public beggars that we see swarming with their obtrusive boxes in the chapels of your creed, nor am I in possession of a princely revenue wrung from a starving race of fanatical slaves.


Then, writing to the son, Disraeli confirmed that he had intended to insult the father: "I shall take every opportunity of holding your father's name up to public contempt. And I fervently pray that you, or some one of his blood, may attempt to avenge the unextinguishable hatred with which I shall pursue his existence."

Gelernter (in a piece in the Weekly Standard I discussed earlier) only mentions this episode in order to point out that the Duke of Wellington found Disraeli's conduct to be "gentlemanly"--i.e., I guess, Disraeli was willing to stick up for his reputation, and fight a duel. (The duel was stopped by the authorities).

It sometimes seems that if some of these people from the past showed up today, they would make most of us look pale or insubstantial, almost as if they were the real human beings, and they could see through us. I'm reminded of Bloom's essay on the Merchant of Venice (and I want to see the new movie version): Jews and Christians can stop hating each other, but probably only if they stop being Jews and Christians.

Yet there is obviously something crazy here; the quickness to fight a duel over one's name is like the inner-city gang bangers of today. And on the political front: was Disraeli showing himself to be a good Tory by attacking Irish Roman Catholics in general---all of them---in such bitter terms? Was it always good for the mystic chords of memory in England to go and fight genocidal wars in Ireland, or keep up the rhetoric in favour of doing so?

Return to Main Page

Comments

Add Comment




Search This Site


Syndicate this blog site

Powered by BlogEasy


Free Blog Hosting