I'm at a loss
> to know how to deal with the story "The Treasure and the Law" in   
> Puck of Pook's Hill.  This is where the great Jewish elder saves the  
>  Magna Carta by stealing the King's gold from Pevensy.
>
>  I assume that Kipling meant to be very inclusive in giving such an   
> important role to a Jewish leader - but it seems like it could be   
> read as just appalling anti-Semitism.

Dear all in Kipling land,

(This is my first foray onto your list, so forgive me if I'm not quite  
on track.)

It seems to me that 'The Treasure and the Law', as well as being the  
fourth of the Pevensey Castle stories, and thus part of a continuous  
narrative of identity and integration (this sounds a bit pretentious,  
but it's a useful short-hand term, as the concept of integration is  
key to the story's plot), is also a short story which uses  
anti-Semitism without being anti-Semitic itself. I have done a lot of  
work on anti-Semitism in John Buchan's fiction, and it seems to me  
that in our own time we are far too prone to unthinking knee-jerk  
reactions at the sight of a Jew in a story. Careful consideration of  
the text and its meaning can reveal a lot about our own insecurities  
as well as what was 'really' meant by the writer in his/her own time.

Kadmiel is never depicted in a negative light: he is sarcastic,  
mocking, derisory, bitter, but he is not portrayed as if he is a  
monster, or anything other, or less, than a proud man. He is a  
'long-striding old man': these are terms that infer nobility and  
respect in Kipling's lexicon. Kadmiel is sponsored by Puck, in the  
sense that Puck invites him to meet the children and tell his story,  
which ought to tell us that Puck (and presumably also Kipling, if  
narrative voice and authorial voice can be conflated here) regard him  
as important, admirable, necessary for an explanation of English  
history. The children react to him in an impulsive way (staring at his  
teeth, wondering about Jews being spat upon) which is Kipling's way of  
showing us what an Edwardian view of medieval anti-Semitism was like.  
The children are not anti-Semitic, they merely reflect, in an innocent  
and literal way, that which they have been taught, and this reflects  
blame on our, though really Kipling's, society. The final point which  
ought to convince all readers that Kadmiel is an honourable man, and  
thus not an anti-Semitic portrait, is that he will not keep even a  
grain of the gold dust, that he will have no part of this money which  
could prevent the revised line in Magna Carta (and thus improve the  
legal standing of all men) from being accepted by the king.

Whether Elias and Ada can be regarded as anti-Semitic portraits is a  
moot point. I don't think so: it's worth discussion. I think we do  
Kipling a too-easy injustice to claim this story as anti-Semitic.

(With respect, and without wishing to sound bossy, I think Ms Simonson  
needs to go back and reread the story, because the two factual errors  
in her original question make me doubt that she has read it properly.)

Kate Macdonald


-- 
Dr Kate Macdonald
Department of English
University of Ghent
Rozier 44
9000 Ghent
Belgium

+32 9 264 7876
+32 485 313891