Both Lital Levy and Adi Nester’s research projects revolve around the complexities of a negotiated, modern Jewish identity in the Diaspora. Levy traces the post-life of British Jewish writer Grace Aguilar’s The Vale of Cedars by examining the universal and particular elements of its subsequent translations into important vernacular Jewish languages, such as German, Hebrew, Yiddish and Judeo-Arabic.[1] Each translator had local, specific, ideological versions of Jewish modernity which they aspired to communicate to their respective linguistic and national audiences. Though not the first Hebrew translation of The Vale of Cedars, Abraham Friedberg’s 1875 translation became the textual basis for subsequent translations. Whereas Aguilar’s text could be considered in part as an appeal to her fellow British Jewish women to retain their Jewish identity as they were confronted with pressure to convert to Christianity from British Protestant society, it was also an appeal to the British gentile audience, itself, to respect the culturally assimilated Jewish population. This cultural assimilation can perhaps be seen as an outgrowth of the Jewish Enlightenment, with which Levy is concerned. Without removing the female character, Friedberg and subsequent translators replaced the Jewish female protagonist with one who was male. Levy argues that protecting feminine virtues and asserting Jewish masculinity were important elements for the male translators’ own interpretations of Enlightenment. Writing in vernacular Jewish languages, these translators did not have to appeal to gentile audiences, enabling a significantly more “Jewish” text than might have initially been feasible in the British context.

In her examination of the life and literary career of German (Jewish) essayist, poet, and translator Rudolf Borchardt, Nester attempts to comprehend the significance of Jewishness for the studied author. Though of Jewish descent, Borchardt’s family had converted to Protestantism. Despite Borchardt’s Jewish heritage, he held nationalist and authoritarian political views. Recognized as being Jewish by the German Jewish population and German antisemites alike, he often had to defend his body of work, which he saw as representative of his perceived place in leading high German culture. According to Borchardt, the only way for the Jewish population to integrate into German society was through conversion to Christianity, rejecting any notion that one could privately be Jewish and consider themselves to be German. Here, we see the limitations of Jewish Enlightenment in an increasingly nationalistic and right-wing society.

Levy’s case study presents an image of Jewishness which is international, though the particularities of each linguistic and cultural context are crucial to internal community dynamics. However, through the translations, each linguistic community’s notion of Jewishness is strengthened through the ideological particularities the translator imparts to their respective audience. I admittedly find Nester’s case study problematic. What seems to be a literary analysis comes off as an attempt to psychologize Borchardt. Jewish identity, and any identity in the modern world, are not only self-defined, but defined in relation to others. Whose definition of Jewishness are we considering? That of the antisemitic National Socialists? That of the broadly defined German Jewish community?  Or that of Borchardt, himself? Self-definition should be prioritized, but given the historical context, that of the would-be perpetrators of the Holocaust, cannot be ignored, even if this author’s emphasis is deemed anachronistic.

[1] I include German as a vernacular Jewish language due to the birth of the Jewish Enlightenment in Germany, which was led by culturally assimilated Jews.