CHAPTER 1

Antisemitism, Anti-Catholicism,and Anticlericalism

In 1902, the historian and Catholic political commentator AnatoleLeroy-Beaulieu (1842–1912) published the first systematic comparisonbetween antisemitism, anticlericalism, and anti-Protestantism. Beforethis time, authors in Germany and France who had related antisemitismand anticlericalism to each other had done so largely through polemics:Catholic antisemites often claimed that their political positions werea reaction to Jewish anticlericalism, while Jewish critics of the CatholicChurch frequently argued that they were merely defending themselvesagainst Catholic opposition to Jewish emancipation. AlthoughLeroy-Beaulieu's Doctrines de haine [Doctrines of Hatred] repeatedthese arguments, it also added what one scholar has called a structuralistexplanation of these three forms of prejudice. According to Leroy-Beaulieu,a number of common threads connected all three discourses:Proponents of each type of hatred similarly expressed their positionsin terms of economic rivalry, religious antipathy, and racial prejudiceas well as in the form of fantasies about the political intrigues of theirimagined enemy.

Offering a critique of interventionist secularism and "tyrannical statism,"Leroy-Beaulieu argued that all three doctrines of hatred resultedfrom the pressures of the modern nation-state. In each case, representativesof a particular group demanded the unity of the nation, which,they claimed, was threatened by Jews, Protestants, or the Catholicclergy in turn. Yet, in Leroy-Beaulieu's estimation, it was not a particulargroup but rather the ideologies of antisemitism, anticlericalism, andanti-Protestantism that ultimately divided the nation. Leroy-Beaulieu'sinterpretation was unusual in his day but has since become a mainstayof the historiography on the European culture wars of the nineteenthcentury. Most scholars now favor the view that the nations of modernEurope were divided primarily by their most militant unifiers.

For most of the twentieth century, Leroy-Beaulieu's Doctrines dehaine had little influence, despite the fact that its author is considered bymany to be one of the greatest fin-de-siècle intellectuals and philosemites.Indeed, already before the Dreyfus affair, in 1893, Leroy-Beaulieuhad opposed antisemites by writing a passionate and sophisticatedapology of the Jews in a work entitled Israël chez les nations [Israelamong the Nations]. A Catholic liberal from the upper middle classwho taught at the prestigious École libre des sciences politiques, Leroy-Beaulieuwas a rare voice of dissent in a period when many saw Catholicism,monarchism, and antisemitism as complementary politicalcommitments. Given his unusual position, many centrist republicanswelcomed Leroy-Beaulieu's intervention into the study of comparativemarginalization as a noble endeavor yet soon forgot his work. Jewishactivists and journals of the day also enthusiastically supported him butdid so selectively: They applauded his opposition to antisemitism butignored his arguments about anticlericalism. This disjointed reading ofLeroy-Beaulieu's oeuvre continues to inform current scholarship, eventhough historians interested in anti-Protestantism and the genealogy ofFrench laïcité have recently revived his notion of doctrines of hatred.In general, the extensive scholarship on antisemitism has been less concernedwith comparisons to the stigmatization and exclusion of othergroups and more interested in establishing a singular narrative beginningwith the history of Christian anti-Judaism. As a result, no studyhas picked up where Leroy-Beaulieu left off in 1902.

The dearth of comparative approaches is remarkable considering thatGermany and France both gave rise to modern antisemitism and constitutedfocal points in the conflicts between liberals and Catholics. A vastliterature on the history of antisemitism in both countries has exploredhow modern antisemites depicted Jews as members of an alien Orientalrace whose attempts to gain wealth and social status weakened theposition of their Christian neighbors. In tandem with this literature,a growing body of scholarship has pointed to the ways that liberals inthe same countries portrayed Catholicism as backwards and similarlycast Jesuits as saboteurs who planned to subjugate the world and underminethe nation. While these two literatures have not developed inisolation from each other, few works have tried to explore the parallelsand entanglements between these different forms of othering.

Given the striking similarities between anti-Catholicism and antisemitism,it seems worthwhile to return to the comparative approachpioneered by Leroy-Beaulieu and to ask: Were different "doctrines ofhatred" in fact connected during their formative phases? In which contextsdid polemics against different groups reinforce each other, andin which contexts did they depart? This chapter pursues these questionsby comparing antisemitic and anti-Catholic polemics in modernGermany and France, charting the emergence of polemical secularistpolitics through this double lens. By suggesting ways of rethinking therelationship between the claims different actors made against Jews andthe Catholic Church in modern France and Germany, this chapter alsooffers a logical starting point for understanding the complex positionJews inhabited within the nineteenth-century European culture warsbetween liberal secularists and Catholics. Jews and Catholics alike hada fraught relationship with polemics that defined what secular citizenshipand modern...