For most historians, Benjamin Disraeli remains one of just a handful of enduringly beguiling figures who occupied the British political stage in the nineteenth century. Few of his contemporaries, with the exception of his great rival W. E. Gladstone, have been subjected to the same persistent level of historiographical investigation. In recent years, in particular, historians have focused on a previously bypassed matter: Disraeli's Jewishness, what it meant to him, and how it shaped his relationship with himself and the wider world. Adam Kirsch's 2009 study in Schocken's Jewish Encounters series, Benjamin Disraeli, is especially worthy of mention in this regard.

In his study, Miloš Ković analyzes what he regards as a largely underresearched dimension of Disraeli's worldview, his attitude toward the so-called Eastern Question, or how the European great powers attempted to exert their influence over parts of the disintegrating Ottoman Empire. Taking an entirely chronological route, the study begins with an account of the young Disraeli's grand tour to Constantinople and the Holy Land in the late 1820s, showing how, among other things, this shaped his literary endeavors in later decades. Next, the author provides a description of Disraeli's advance into the political world and the taking of ministerial office. A greater proportion of the study is devoted to various prime ministerial forays in the Eastern European crises of the late 1870s, during which, running counter to wider opinion in Britain, Disraeli supported an Ottoman Empire that was held responsible for persecuting its Christian minority. This position brought major conflict within his cabinet and drew harsh criticism from William Gladstone, and the popular response illustrated how, notwithstanding a lifelong adherence to Christianity, Disraeli remained “the Jew” in the British imagination. It was not meant kindly.

No doubt the Eastern Question, and Britain's attitude toward it, merits some historiographical investigation, even though nineteenth-century diplomatic history has long been unfashionable. It is hard not to appreciate the resonance within the wider European context of the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, the rise of nationalism, and the meddlesome activities of various imperial powers in the region. These key themes would appear sufficient justification to examine the role of Disraeli, his motivations and legacies. That he was a major player cannot be contested. Unfortunately, this wider context, and Disraeli's place within it, is almost entirely absent from Ković's study, and, as a consequence, not least as this is largely an uncritical assessment, most of what is presented is biographical. There is no explanation as to why the study is necessary and what it might reveal beyond the realm of Disraeli's own prejudices. Given that the study originally formed the basis of a doctoral thesis in Serbian, one might have, for instance, expected a consideration of how Disraeli's interventions were regarded in Southeast Europe.

These limitations are particularly apparent in relation to the study's sources. Inevitably, given the subject's own wide interests, they are varied and include Disraeli's novels; political records, especially Hansard; and, according to the author, previously unused material taken from Disraeli's correspondence, such as his daily reports to Queen Victoria. There is, however, a striking omission, not least as there is regular reference to British public opinion and the press. Hardly any newspapers or periodicals feature in the footnotes, and, on the occasions that The Times or the Daily News make an appearance, it is usually in the form of a reference taken from a secondary account. The absence of a detailed examination of the British press, the many thousands of words written on Disraeli, both laudatory and condemnatory, renders Ković's assessment of public opinion unimpressive. This is especially odd when considering the controversy Disraeli's policies generated in the late 1870s, especially after the anti-Christian “atrocities” meted out by Ottoman soldiery during the 1876 Bulgarian April Uprising.

Additionally, there are historiographical lacuna, and much of the secondary material is drawn from older studies of Disraeli's life. Chapter 1 discusses Disraeli's ancestry, the role of his father in shaping his early attitudes, and there is reference to the recent examinations of his Jewish identity (which was always important for him, although its parameters were defined by him in racial as opposed to religious terms). But these important matters are not taken up in the remainder of the study. Indeed, the issue of Disraeli's Jewishness and also his Christian outlook are largely sidestepped. The author devotes only three paragraphs to an analysis of his “Jewish motives” in regard to the Eastern Question (146–47), but this seems hardly sufficient, not least as a consequence of the divisions Disraeli's Eastern European policies produced within Anglo-Jewish society.

Ultimately, Ković argues that British diplomatic activity in Southeastern Europe was shaped by the “unusual character” of Benjamin Disraeli. One is left wondering, however, why this was the case—and what, more precisely, was so unusual about his character. For, unfortunately, although the emphasis in this study is on biographical detail, Disraeli's remarkable career—and character—rarely shine through.