*/
David Wurtzel believes the cast deftly balances the personal with the political and imitate without mimicking the historical figures.
“The promise” is the Balfour Declaration of November 1917 which said that the British Government “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”. It lies at the heart of Ben Brown’s fine play, performed in the round at the Orange Tree. For much of the action, the floor is covered by a map of the Ottoman Empire. Not the least of the many historical ironies which run through the production is the sight of British ministers, sitting in London, carving up that Empire before the First World War has actually been won.
The first scene is set in an Edwardian garden in the early days of World War I. An unusual triangle links Venetia Stanley (a beautiful Miranda Colchester), and the two men who are in love with her: the rich, Jewish and politically ambitious Edwin Montagu (a poignant Nicholas Asbury) and the Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith (Christopher Ravenscroft, with a permanent lightness of touch). Asquith apparently takes his passion no further than holding Venetia’s hands but he writes to her daily even as he ostensibly presides over the War Cabinet. Montagu offers marriage but on condition that Venetia officially converts to Judaism, thus complying with the condition of his father’s will. Venetia for her part does not seem to be in love with either one of them. There is a splendid scene in which the most liberal rabbi in London explains monotheism to the freethinking Venetia.
The second half
The compelling personal drama of the first half gives way to more political debate and historical dimension in the second half. Politics, we learn, is both personal and thinks in the short term. Lloyd George (by then Prime Minister) favours a British mandate in Palestine in order to keep the French (still our war allies) far away from the Suez Canal. The Foreign Secretary, Balfour, has been pro-Zionist for several years. Lord Curzon points out that he is the only one around the table who has actually been to Palestine. He assures everyone that it is a barren land and inhospitable to large Jewish immigration. The great dividing line is between the two assimilated Jews in the Cabinet, Herbert Samuel (now a Zionist) and Montagu.
Mongatu believes that Jews in any event should be “a religion, not a race”. If the national home for Jews is in Palestine, why give them equal rights anywhere else? Three million oppressed Russian Jews might find a better life in the Middle East, but what about the six million left behind in Europe? The words “six million”—the number who would later be murdered by the Nazis—hung like a pall over the auditorium.
A triumphant note
The play ends on a triumphant note: Samuel and Balfour opening the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Offstage one hears the clamour of Arab voices. The indigenous majority (then outnumbering Jews by six to one) had been represented by no one at the British Cabinet table. The large cast deftly balances the personal with the political and imitate without mimicking the historical figures. Patrick Brennan has great fun as Lloyd George, easily outmanoeuvring the lovesick Asquith. Sam Dastor played convincingly three roles: the arrogant, aristocratic Curzon, the worldly liberal rabbi and an obedient Arab servant.
The first scene is set in an Edwardian garden in the early days of World War I. An unusual triangle links Venetia Stanley (a beautiful Miranda Colchester), and the two men who are in love with her: the rich, Jewish and politically ambitious Edwin Montagu (a poignant Nicholas Asbury) and the Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith (Christopher Ravenscroft, with a permanent lightness of touch). Asquith apparently takes his passion no further than holding Venetia’s hands but he writes to her daily even as he ostensibly presides over the War Cabinet. Montagu offers marriage but on condition that Venetia officially converts to Judaism, thus complying with the condition of his father’s will. Venetia for her part does not seem to be in love with either one of them. There is a splendid scene in which the most liberal rabbi in London explains monotheism to the freethinking Venetia.
The second half
The compelling personal drama of the first half gives way to more political debate and historical dimension in the second half. Politics, we learn, is both personal and thinks in the short term. Lloyd George (by then Prime Minister) favours a British mandate in Palestine in order to keep the French (still our war allies) far away from the Suez Canal. The Foreign Secretary, Balfour, has been pro-Zionist for several years. Lord Curzon points out that he is the only one around the table who has actually been to Palestine. He assures everyone that it is a barren land and inhospitable to large Jewish immigration. The great dividing line is between the two assimilated Jews in the Cabinet, Herbert Samuel (now a Zionist) and Montagu.
Mongatu believes that Jews in any event should be “a religion, not a race”. If the national home for Jews is in Palestine, why give them equal rights anywhere else? Three million oppressed Russian Jews might find a better life in the Middle East, but what about the six million left behind in Europe? The words “six million”—the number who would later be murdered by the Nazis—hung like a pall over the auditorium.
A triumphant note
The play ends on a triumphant note: Samuel and Balfour opening the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Offstage one hears the clamour of Arab voices. The indigenous majority (then outnumbering Jews by six to one) had been represented by no one at the British Cabinet table. The large cast deftly balances the personal with the political and imitate without mimicking the historical figures. Patrick Brennan has great fun as Lloyd George, easily outmanoeuvring the lovesick Asquith. Sam Dastor played convincingly three roles: the arrogant, aristocratic Curzon, the worldly liberal rabbi and an obedient Arab servant.
David Wurtzel believes the cast deftly balances the personal with the political and imitate without mimicking the historical figures.
“The promise” is the Balfour Declaration of November 1917 which said that the British Government “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”. It lies at the heart of Ben Brown’s fine play, performed in the round at the Orange Tree. For much of the action, the floor is covered by a map of the Ottoman Empire. Not the least of the many historical ironies which run through the production is the sight of British ministers, sitting in London, carving up that Empire before the First World War has actually been won.
Making a move from the Bar to a career in governance: Maria Brookes outlines three good reasons to switch and how to do it
Inés Rivera explains how speech recognition can help barristers create accurate documentation faster
What should barristers be doing on the personal finance front ahead of the end of the tax year on 5 April? Julian Morgan of Fleet Street Wealth answers your questions
Are you ready to embark on this arduous but potentially rewarding journey? Julie Gottlieb of Sherwood PSF Consulting provides a self-examination checklist, hints and tips to help you prepare for a future application
Unlocking your aged debt to augment cash flow in one easy step… By Philip N Bristow of Vector Professions Finance
The Westminster Commission on Miscarriages of Justice, set up to revisit the work of the CCRC after 25 years of operation, identified serious issues that risk miscarriages of justice remaining unidentified or unremedied. By Edward Garnier QC Michelle Nelson QC
Unsparing in his criticism, the former Attorney General reflects on recent events in government and his own experience of being chief legal adviser. Interview by Anthony Inglese CB
Making a move from the Bar to a career in governance: Maria Brookes outlines three good reasons to switch and how to do it
Sports coaches will be caught by a change in the law that addresses the disparity in treatment for 16- to 17-year-olds, writes Cameron Brown QC
Dissent and protest are a healthy safety valve for every democracy, write Sailesh Mehta and Caroline Baker, yet recent events have put the proposals around policing public protest under the spotlight and many do not like what they see