Brexit and Internal Security Political

and Legal Concerns on the Future UK

EU Relationship Helena Carrapico
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/brexit-and-internal-security-political-and-legal-concern
s-on-the-future-uk-eu-relationship-helena-carrapico/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

EU agencies legal and political limits to the

transformation of the EU administration 1st Edition
Chamon

https://textbookfull.com/product/eu-agencies-legal-and-political-
limits-to-the-transformation-of-the-eu-administration-1st-
edition-chamon/

EU US Cooperation on Internal Security Building a

Transatlantic Regime 1st Edition Dimitrios Anagnostakis

https://textbookfull.com/product/eu-us-cooperation-on-internal-
security-building-a-transatlantic-regime-1st-edition-dimitrios-
anagnostakis/

EU Borders and Shifting Internal Security: Technology,

Externalization and Accountability 1st Edition Raphael
Bossong

https://textbookfull.com/product/eu-borders-and-shifting-
internal-security-technology-externalization-and-
accountability-1st-edition-raphael-bossong/

The Economics of UK-EU Relations: From the Treaty of

Rome to the Vote for Brexit 1st Edition Nauro F. Campos

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-economics-of-uk-eu-
relations-from-the-treaty-of-rome-to-the-vote-for-brexit-1st-
edition-nauro-f-campos/
Internal Combustion Engines and Powertrain Systems for
Future Transport 2019-Proceedings of the International
Conference on Internal Combustion Engines and
Powertrain Systems for Future Transport, (ICEPSFT
2019), December 11-12, 2019, Birmingham, UK 1st Edition
https://textbookfull.com/product/internal-combustion-engines-and-
powertrain-systems-for-future-transport-2019-proceedings-of-the-
Imeche (Editor)
international-conference-on-internal-combustion-engines-and-
powertrain-systems-for-future-transport-ic/

Financial Compliance: Issues, Concerns and Future

Directions Maria Krambia-Kapardis

https://textbookfull.com/product/financial-compliance-issues-
concerns-and-future-directions-maria-krambia-kapardis/

Racial and Religious Hate Crime: The UK From 1945 to

Brexit Wendy Laverick

https://textbookfull.com/product/racial-and-religious-hate-crime-
the-uk-from-1945-to-brexit-wendy-laverick/

Brexit and Democracy: The Role of Parliaments in the UK

and the European Union Thomas Christiansen

https://textbookfull.com/product/brexit-and-democracy-the-role-
of-parliaments-in-the-uk-and-the-european-union-thomas-
christiansen/

Legal Risks in EU Law Interdisciplinary Studies on

Legal Risk Management and Better Regulation in Europe
1st Edition Emilia Miš■eni■

https://textbookfull.com/product/legal-risks-in-eu-law-
interdisciplinary-studies-on-legal-risk-management-and-better-
regulation-in-europe-1st-edition-emilia-miscenic/
PALGRAVE STUDIES IN EUROPEAN UNION POLITICS
SERIES EDITORS:
MICHELLE EGAN · NEILL NUGENT · WILLIAM E. PATERSON

Brexit and Internal

Security
Political and Legal Concerns
on the Future UK-EU
Relationship

Helena Carrapico · Antonia Niehuss

Chloé Berthélémy
Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics

Series Editors
Michelle Egan
American University
Washington, USA

Neill Nugent
Manchester Metropolitan University
Manchester, UK

William E. Paterson
Aston University
Birmingham, UK
Following on the sustained success of the acclaimed European Union
Series, which essentially publishes research-based textbooks, Palgrave
Studies in European Union Politics publishes cutting edge research-driven
monographs. The remit of the series is broadly defined, both in terms of
subject and academic discipline. All topics of significance concerning the
nature and operation of the European Union potentially fall within the
scope of the series. The series is multidisciplinary to reflect the growing
importance of the EU as a political, economic and social phenomenon.

Editorial Board:
Laurie Buonanno (SUNY Buffalo State, USA)
Kenneth Dyson (Cardiff University, UK)
Claudio Radaelli (University College London, UK)
Mark Rhinard (Stockholm University, Sweden)
Ariadna Ripoll Servent (University of Bamberg, Germany)
Frank Schimmelfennig (ETH Zurich, Switzerland)
Claudia Sternberg (University College London, UK)
Nathalie Tocci (Istituto Affari Internazionali, Italy)

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14629
 Helena Carrapico · Antonia Niehuss
Chloé Berthélémy

Brexit and Internal

Security
Political and Legal Concerns on the Future
UK-EU Relationship

With contributions by Arantza Gomez Arana, Raphael Bossong, Sophie Carr,

Elaine Fahey, Benjamin Farrand, Massimo Fichera, Daniela Irrera,
Anita Lavorgna, Alex MacKenzie, Camino Mortera-Martinez,
Giacomo Orsini, Maria Grazia Porcedda, Steffen Rieger,
Ariadna Ripoll Servent, Christof Roos,
Anna Sergi, Florian Trauner, Gijs de Vries,
Tim J Wilson, and Sarah Wolff
Helena Carrapico Chloé Berthélémy
Department of Politics and Sciences Po Lille
International Relations Lille, France
Aston University
Birmingham, UK

Antonia Niehuss
School of International Relations
University of St Andrews
St Andrews, UK

Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics

ISBN 978-3-030-04193-9 ISBN 978-3-030-04194-6 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04194-6

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018962045

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG, part of Springer Nature 2019
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: Magic Lens/Shutterstock

This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Acknowledgements

The following book is the result of two projects, whose funders we

would like to thank. The first project, which was financed by the ‘UK
in a Changing Europe’ initiative of the Economic and Social Research
Council and which began shortly before the UK’s referendum on exiting
the European Union, addressed the potential consequences of Brexit for
the UK and EU’s internal security. The authors were particularly con-
cerned by the fact that internal security had scarcely been discussed in the
debate running up to the referendum in June 2016 and wanted to draw
academics and policy-makers’ attention to this area. This first project
allowed for the development of a second project, funded by the British
Academy, which focused on the development of a future UK-EU secu-
rity relationship, its negotiation and the transition/implementation phase
from membership to third country status. We are therefore sincerely
grateful to both the ‘UK in a Changing Europe’ initiative and to the
British Academy for their invaluable support of the present publication.
Furthermore, the authors would like to thank the academic commu-
nity working on EU and UK justice and home affairs; this book was very
much a collective journey. As part of the projects mentioned above, the
authors were able to organise a number of workshops that aimed to reach
out to the academic and policy communities, and the general public.
The present book is the result of academic discussions among UK- and
non-UK-based experts in internal security, feedback on the fears and con-
cerns of the younger UK-based population, and questions and insights
from policy-makers. In this context, we would like to express our most

v
vi    Acknowledgements

sincere thanks to the academics and practitioners who took part in the
workshops: Ana Aliverti, Arantza Gomez Arana, Alex Balch, Ian Bond,
Raphael Bossong, Caroline Chatwin, Justin Clements, Jon Coaffee,
Anne-Lynn Dudenhoefer, Martin Elvins, Lord Jay of Ewelme, Elaine
Fahey, Ben Farrand, Maria Fletcher, Jamie Gaskarth, Cristina Greco,
Marion Greziller, Line Haidar, Ester Herlin Karnell, Christian Kaunert,
Anita Lavorgna, Alex MacKenzie, Camino Mortera-Martinez, Giacomo
Orsini, Stefania Paladini, Maria Grazia Porcedda, Mohammed Rahman,
Christof Roos, Patrycja Rozbicka, Stephen Rozee, Anna Sergi, Balazs
Szent-Ivanyi, Ed Turner, Matilde Ventrella, Ben Wagner, David Wall,
Auke Willems, Aaron Winter, Uwe Wunderlich and Lucia Zedner.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the Aston Centre for
Europe for providing the necessary structure and support for the devel-
opment of both projects. Last but not least, we would also like to say a
special thanks to Alex MacKenzie for his dedication to this project and
insightful comments, and to Fraser Logan for the excellent linguistic
revision of the book.
We hope that this book can contribute to the academic discussions
on the future UK-EU relationship, as well as inform the development of
future policy positions.
 Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 The Current UK-EU Internal Security Arrangements 7

3 The Consequences of Brexit for the UK and for the Area

of Freedom, Security and Justice 15

4 Emerging EU and UK Negotiation Positions 41

5 Political and Legal Considerations Regarding

the Negotiation of the Future UK-EU
Security Relationship 51

6 Sectoral Views on Brexit and Future UK-EU Internal

Security Relations 71

7 Sectoral Views on Police and Judicial Cooperation 85

8 Sectoral Views on Migration and Border Cooperation 123

vii
viii    Contents

9 Conclusion—Priorities and Considerations for the

Future UK-EU Security Relationship 145

References 149

Index 175
 Notes on Contributors

Arantza Gomez Arana is a Lecturer in Security and Criminology at

Birmingham City University. Dr. Gomez Arana has published extensively
on European Union External Relations. In particular, her research has
discussed Latin America and Mediterranean relations with the European
Union. She is also a member of the Centre for Brexit Studies at BCU
and is currently writing a book on Brexit and Gibraltar.
Chloé Berthélémy holds a Master’s Degree from Aston University and
Sciences Po Lille in European affairs with a particular focus on European
internal security, notably cybersecurity policies. She has been working
as a research assistant for projects funded by the ESRC and the British
Academy on Brexit and internal security since 2016.
Raphael Bossong is a researcher at the German Institute for International
and Security Affairs, where he focuses on EU Justice and Home Affairs.
His recent publications include Theorising EU Internal Security (OUP)
and EU Borders and Shifting Internal Security (Springer). He holds a
Ph.D. from the London School of Economics.
Sophie Carr is the Associate Head of Department for Applied Sciences
at Northumbria University and a member of the Northumbria Centre
for Evidence and Criminal Justice Studies (NCECJS). Her research
focuses on the application and understanding of expert evidence within
the criminal justice system. Prior to joining Northumbria University,
Sophie was a Senior Forensic Scientist with the Wetherby Laboratory of

ix
x    Notes on Contributors

the Forensic Science Service. Her role was that of a scene attending sci-
entist with expertise in the analysis and interpretation of body fluids and
DNA, including blood pattern analysis.
Helena Carrapico is a Senior Lecturer in Politics and International
Relations at Aston University and a co-director of the Aston Centre for
Europe. Her research focuses on European Union Justice and Home
Affairs governance, namely organised crime and cybercrime policies. She
has published extensively on European internal security topics in journals
such as the Journal of Common Market Studies, European Foreign Affairs
Review, Crime, Law and Social Change, European Security and Global
Crime.
Elaine Fahey is Professor of Law and Associate Dean (International)
at the Institute for the Study of European Law (ISEL), the City Law
School, City, University of London. Her research interests span the rela-
tionship between EU law and global governance, transatlantic relations,
the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, and the study of law
beyond the State and are the subject of over 60 publications including
books, articles, edited volumes and special issues, including a mono-
graph, The Global Reach of EU Law (Routledge, 2016).
Benjamin Farrand is Associate Professor in Law at the University of
Warwick. His research focuses on the dynamics of law-making in areas of
political uncertainty and technological change, with a particular emphasis
on online intellectual property enforcement, cybersecurity and network
governance. He has recently published an article in European Politics and
Society on the EU’s approach to combating the sale of counterfeit goods
online, as well as an article on intellectual property law post-Brexit in the
Journal of Common Market Studies.
Massimo Fichera is Adjunct Professor in EU Law at the Faculty of
Law of the University of Helsinki and Academy of Finland Research
Fellow. His research and teaching interests lie in the area of constitu-
tional theory and EU Law, in particular the interplay between EU and
international law. He is also interested in the discipline of comparative
constitutional law and the notion of transnational law. He holds a Ph.D.
in Law (University of Edinburgh, UK) and a Master’s in International
Affairs (ISPI, Milan, Italy). He has published extensively in the above
mentioned areas of research, including a monograph, The Foundations of
the EU as a Polity (Edward Elgar, 2018).
 Notes on Contributors    xi

Daniela Irrera is an Associate Professor of International Relations at the

University of Catania. She currently serves as President of the European
Peace Research Association (EuPRA) and is a member of the Steering
Committees of the ECPR Standing Group on International Relations
and ECPR Standing Group on Organized Crime. She is also on the edi-
torial committee of EuropeNow and is a Book Review Co-Editor at the
Journal of Contemporary European Studies, and one of the editors of the
Palgrave Handbook on Global Counterterrorism Policies. She has pub-
lished extensively in the field of International Relations and EU politics,
dealing with global terrorism, transnational organised crime, civil society
and humanitarian affairs.
Anita Lavorgna is a Lecturer in Criminology within the Department
of Sociology, Social Policy & Criminology at the University of
Southampton (UK). She is currently leading research projects on
Internet-facilitated wildlife trafficking and health frauds. Her research
focuses on cybercrimes (especially Internet-facilitated trafficking activ-
ities), organised crime and the propagation of fake/fraudulent health
information online.
Alex MacKenzie is a Lecturer in International Politics in the Department
of Politics at the University of Liverpool, UK. His research interests
revolve around the EU’s global role in counterterrorism. He has pub-
lished widely on the EU as a counterterrorism actor, the EU-US security
relationship and the role of EU institutions in counterterrorism.
Camino Mortera-Martinez is a Research fellow and Brussels rep-
resentative at the Centre for European Reform, a think tank based in
London. She is responsible for the CER’s work on EU justice and home
affairs. She holds a Master’s degree in law from the University of Oviedo
(Spain), an Exchange diploma in legal studies from Cardiff University
(UK) and a Master of Arts in European political studies from the College
of Europe in Bruges (Belgium). She is a regular contributor to news-
papers and media in Europe and the US and has given evidence to the
British Parliament on matters of Brexit and EU security and migration
policies.
Antonia Niehuss is a Ph.D. candidate in International Relations at
the University of St Andrews and specialises in Critical Security Studies,
more specifically gender and terrorism. She has, throughout her stud-
ies at the University of Konstanz, Aston University and the University
xii    Notes on Contributors

of Bamberg, continuously worked on European security and has been

working as a research assistant for projects funded by the ESRC and the
British Academy on Brexit and internal security since 2016.
Giacomo Orsini is a Postdoctoral Researcher in the LIMA Project at
the Institute for the Analysis of Change in Contemporary and Historical
Societies (IACS), Louvain School of Political and Social Sciences,
Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium. Focusing on border man-
agement, migration and contemporary governance systems, he has con-
ducted fieldwork research in several European borderlands. He also
teaches international migrations at the Université Libre de Bruxelles and
collaborates with the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
Maria Grazia Porcedda is a postdoctoral Research Fellow at the
School of Law, University of Leeds, where she is a member of the
EPSRC-funded CRITiCaL project. Maria Grazia’s research and pub-
lications focus on EU law and technology, particularly data protection
and cyber security matters. She is a member of EDEN (Europol Data
Experts Network) and, until Spring 2018, of the EUISS Task force on
Cyber Capacity Building. She holds a Ph.D. in Law from the European
University Institute. Her early work was awarded grants and prizes by
the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei and the Italian Association of
Information Security (CLUSIT).
Steffen Rieger holds two M.A. degrees in Political Science from Aston
University Birmingham and the University of Bamberg, with a focus
on internal security in the European Union. After an internship at the
German Institute for International and Security Affairs, he now is a
Probationary Commissioner at the Federal Police in Germany.
Ariadna Ripoll Servent Ariadna Ripoll Servent has been Assistant
Professor of Political Science and European Integration since 2013. She
is also visiting professor at the College of Europe in Bruges, where she
teaches a course on the European Parliament. Her research focuses on
European integration, EU institutions and EU internal security poli-
cies (particularly asylum, immigration and data protection). Among her
recent publications are the ‘Routledge Handbook of Justice and Home
Affairs Research’ (co-edited with Florian Trauner) and ‘The European
Parliament’ (published by Macmillan International Higher Education).
 Notes on Contributors    xiii

Christof Roos is Junior Professor of European and Global Governance

at Europa-Universität Flensburg and associate researcher at the Institute
for European Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. His work focuses
on EU integration in Justice and Home Affairs, EU immigration and
asylum policy, and freedom of movement.
Anna Sergi is Lecturer in Criminology and Deputy Director of
the Centre for Criminology at the University of Essex, UK. She is an
International Visiting Fellow at the University of Melbourne, Australia
and Chair of the Early Career Researchers Network of the British Society
of Criminology.
Florian Trauner is Research Professor at the Institute for European
Studies of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Visiting Professor at the
College of Europe. His research interests concern the field of European
integration, notably migration and asylum policies, the role of EU
institutions and European foreign policy. He recently co-edited The
Routledge Handbook of Justice and Home Affairs Research.
Gijs de Vries is a Visiting Senior Fellow at the European Institute of the
London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). He was State
Secretary of the Interior in the government of The Netherlands. He was
the Dutch government’s representative in the Convention on the Future
of the European Union. From 2004 to 2007, he served as the European
Union’s first Counter-Terrorism Coordinator.
Tim J Wilson is Professor of Criminal Justice Policy at Northumbria
University Law School and a member of the Northumbria Centre for
Evidence and Criminal Justice Studies (NCECJS). His academic interests
and internationally funded research cover how criminal justice systems
respond to rapid scientific and technological development; international
criminal justice cooperation in response to increasingly globalised threats
to society; and epistemic and ethical issues at the interface of science, law
and politics. More recently, he has been called to give oral evidence on
the implications of Brexit for criminal justice to the Commons Justice
Committee in 2017 and the House of Lords EU Home Affairs Sub-
Committee in 2018.
Sarah Wolff is Director of the Centre for European Research and
Senior Lecturer in Public Policy at Queen Mary, University of London.
She is also Senior Research Associate Fellow at the Netherlands Institute
xiv    Notes on Contributors

for International Relations (Clingendael). Her research interests con-

cern Justice and Home Affairs, EU migration and border management
policies, particularly in relation to the Middle East and North Africa as
well as the role of religion and secularism in EU foreign policy. Her most
recent research project deals with the situation in Calais.
 Abbreviations

ACIST Anti-Counterfeiting Intelligence Support Tool

ACRIS Anti-Counterfeiting Rapid Intelligence System
AFSJ Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
API Application Programming Interface
CCTV Closed-Circuit Television
CEAS Common European Asylum System
CEPOL European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training
CETA EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade
Agreement
CFD Common Framework Decision
CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union
CSDP Common Security and Defence Policy
CTA Common Travel Area
CTG Counterterrorism Group
DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid
DRD Data Retention Directive
EAW European Arrest Warrant
EC3 European Cybercrime Centre
ECHR European Court of Human Rights
ECR European Conservatives and Reformists
ECRIS European Criminal Records Information System
EEA European Economic Area
EFTA European Free Trade Association
ENISA European Union Agency for Network and Information
Security

xv
xvi    Abbreviations

ENSFI European Network of Forensic Science Institutes

EP European Parliament
EPPO European Public Prosecutor Office
ESCN European Strategic Communications Network
EU European Union
EUIPO European Union Intellectual Property Office
Eurodac European Dactyloscopy
Eurojust European Union’s Judicial Cooperation Unit
Europol European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation
FADO False and Authentic Documents Online
FIUs Financial Intelligence Units
Frontex European Border and Coast Guard Agency
G8 Group of Eight
GDPR General Data Protection Directive
GNS European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency
HM Government Her Majesty’s Government
IntCen European Union Intelligence and Situation Centre
Interpol International Criminal Police Organization
J-CAT Joint Cybercrime Action Task Force
JHA Justice and Home Affairs
JITs Joint Investigation Teams
LIBE European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice
and Home Affairs
MENA Middle East and North Africa
MEP Member of European Parliament
MP Member of Parliament
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations
NIS Network and Information System
OCTA Organised Crime Threat Assessment
OLAF European Anti-Fraud Office
PNR Passenger Name Record
RAN Radicalisation Awareness Network
SIENA Secure Information Exchange Network Application
SIGINT Signals Intelligence
SIS Schengen Information System
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
TFTP Terrorism Financing and Tracking Programme
TFTP Trivial File Transfer Protocol
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
 Abbreviations    xvii

USA/US United States of America

VCRS Victim Crisis Response Team
VIS Visa Information System
WA Withdrawal Agreement
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Abstract This book explores the viability of future UK-EU

internal security arrangements, including their impact on the UK’s secu-
rity and international standing, by departing from the current relation-
ship between the two parties, discussing on-going negotiations, and
addressing the main political and legal concerns arising from different
possible arrangements. As the UK prepares to leave the EU, it is faced
with having to develop new forms of cooperation with its neighbours to
fight ever more transnational security threats, as well as new strategies
to maintain its leading role as an international security actor. As out-
lined in this introductory chapter, the book has three main objectives:
to contribute to the general knowledge on the risks and opportunities
associated with the disentanglement of the UK from European internal
security cooperation; to clarify some of the debates currently taking place
within the context of the negotiations; and to inform the policy discus-
sions which form the basis of proposed cooperation models, and which
are likely to shape the future UK-EU security relationship significantly.

Keywords European union · Brexit · Area of Freedom, Security and

Justice · Political and legal consequences

Internal security—including the fight against terrorism, organised crime

and cybercrime—has traditionally been one of the main concerns of the
British public. In April 2017, YouGov conducted a survey which revealed

© The Author(s) 2019 1

H. Carrapico et al., Brexit and Internal Security,
Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04194-6_1
2 H. CARRAPICO ET AL.

that 90% of the population believes that terrorist attacks are very likely
to take place in the United Kingdom (UK), while 73% believes that the
threat of terrorism is rapidly increasing (Smith 2017). Compared to other
European countries, the UK also has one of the highest proportions of
respondents indicating that they do not consider their country to be a safe
place to live, expressing concerns related to terrorism, organised crime,
border insecurity and cybercrime (European Commission 2017). From a
historical perspective, there has been a clear increase in anxiety, in rela-
tion to security issues, over the past 10 years; though the UK population
has always had one of the highest levels of concern for insecurity among
European Union (EU) countries (European Commission 2011, 2009).
Surprisingly, however, such concerns were seldom reflected in the
debate running up to the EU exit referendum in June 2016. While the
Remain Campaign focused on the negative consequences of Brexit for the
UK’s economy, the Leave Campaign argued that the UK’s membership
of the EU had led to a deterioration of the country’s sovereignty and to
an inability to control UK borders, which was in turn presented as result-
ing in a reduced pool of available jobs and an overburdening of public
services (in particular the National Health Service). With the exception
of brief references by Nigel Farage and Ian Duncan Smith to the link
between free movement and the possibility of further terrorist attacks,
internal security was rarely mentioned (The Guardian 2016). It was, in
any case, far from being the object of serious or in-depth discussion.
This situation began to change, however, in January 2017 with
Theresa May’s Lancaster House Speech, followed by the UK govern-
ment’s White Paper in February and the issuing of the letter triggering
Article 50 in March. Although the objective of these three documents
was to present the UK general negotiation stances and to project a vision
of future UK-EU relations, they also served to highlight that security
would potentially be a contentious topic in Brexit negotiations. Whereas
the Lancaster House Speech referred to Britain’s willingness to continue
to assist EU counterterrorism efforts through its intelligence capabili-
ties (Prime Minister’s Office 2017a), the underlying tone of the letter
triggering Article 50 was far less diplomatic. In fact, the letter warned
the EU that a potential failure to reach an agreement would have seri-
ous consequences for security cooperation, and in particular for the EU’s
fight against cross-border crime and terrorism (Prime Minister’s Office
2017b). This growing debate enabled the emergence of more detailed
arguments, namely those of current and former security professionals.
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

These included the views of, for instance, former Europol Director Rob
Wainwright, according to whom Brexit will potentially leave the UK in
a less secure position as a result of more restricted access to EU intelli-
gence databases (Wright 2018); and Sir Richard Dearlove, former head
of MI6, who argues that the EU intelligence community has more to
lose from Brexit than the UK does as, in his view, most EU security
arrangements have little operational impact (Reuters 2016).
If the security debate had, until then, been characterised by limited
visibility in terms of the wider public, the terrorist attacks that took place
between March and June 20171 brought about a repositioning of the topic
(Warrell 2017). By further politicising it, these events triggered a multipli-
cation of Brexit and security references among pre-2017 General Election
discourses. Suddenly, police cuts, counterterrorism strategies, cyber
threats, intelligence sharing with the EU, nuclear weapons, and the causes
of terrorism were some of the main concerns being raised in the context
of future Brexit negotiations. Despite an increase in the visibility of these
issues, namely in the context of political party leaders’ debates and inter-
views,2 security proposals for Brexit negotiations remained essentially vague.
In fact, despite attempts on the UK side to concretise a negotiation posi-
tion in this area, namely through the production of position papers, a great
deal of ambiguity remains with regards to what the future UK-EU secu-
rity relationship will look like, what kind and degree of cooperation can be
achieved, and how long this new relationship would take to emerge. For
the moment, the only certainty is that at the end of December 2020 (on
the basis of an expected transition/implementation phase), the cooperation
mechanisms and instruments of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
(AFSJ) will no longer be available to the UK, following its exit from the EU
in March 2019.3 This end point will mark the conclusion of several dec-
ades of European internal security integration for the UK—a process that,
although not straightforward, has come to benefit both Britain and the EU.

1 We are referring specifically to the Westminster attack on 22 March 2017, the

Manchester Arena bombing on 22 May, and the London Bridge attack on 3 June.
2 The interviews of Theresa May and of Jeremy Corbyn by Jeremy Paxman, on the 29th

of May 2017, on SkyNews, and the BBC leaders’ debate on the 31st of May illustrate how
security became more prominent among political concerns in the later stages of the General
election campaigns.
3 The date of December 2020 is based on the draft Withdrawal Agreement, as stated in

Art. 121, and on the fact that so far (August 2018) no extension to the transition has been
requested by the negotiating parties.
4 H. CARRAPICO ET AL.

Even though the present book originated in a willingness to address

a gap in public debates, the increased awareness of the importance of
security issues in the context of Brexit negotiations enabled it to also
become an instrument for exploring and responding to rapidly emerg-
ing technical policy concerns and questions. As such, this volume has a
very large target audience, ranging from policy-makers and academics
to members of the public interested in Brexit and security matters. It is,
above all, a view of the progress achieved and the challenges remaining
in current negotiations, as seen through the eyes of some of the leading
academics in this field. The objectives of the book are: firstly, to contrib-
ute to the general knowledge on the risks and opportunities associated
with the disentanglement of the UK from European internal security
cooperation; secondly, to clarify some of the debates currently taking
place within the context of the negotiations; thirdly, to inform the policy
discussions which form the basis of proposed cooperation models, and
which are likely to shape the future UK-EU security relationship signif-
icantly; and fourthly, to contribute to the growing academic literature
on the future of the AFSJ, specifically the consequences of differentiated
disintegration.
The book is composed of two main sections. The first gives a com-
prehensive overview of the current internal security relationship
between the UK and the EU, the possible consequences of Brexit in this
area, the negotiation positions of both parties, and the most important
current debates. More specifically, the book begins by contextualising,
in Chapter 2, the UK-EU relationship in the area of internal security,
based on the analysis of the UK’s negotiated arrangements in this area
and its historical evolution. The potential impact of Brexit on the UK’s
internal security, as well as the EU’s AFSJ, is outlined in Chapter 3,
focussing specifically on police and judicial cooperation, and migration,
asylum and border issues. Chapter 4 discusses the emerging EU and
UK negotiation positions and explores their strengths and limitations,
as well as the responses they have triggered. Finally, Chapter 5 high-
lights the main political and legal considerations that play into the cur-
rent negotiations, by focusing on transitional arrangements, alternative
models to UK-EU membership, enforcement and dispute resolution,
and the maintenance of the UK’s influential position within European
security.
Section two is composed of specialised sectoral views from a large
number of experts on internal security, which further expand the points
developed in the first section. As the relationship between the UK and
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

the other EU Member States in the area of internal security has devel-
oped for years, leaving the EU does not simply mean leaving a few pieces
of legislation behind: a complex network of cooperation will have to be
transformed, which will hopefully have the best outcome for EU and UK
citizens in mind. Based on various disciplinary perspectives—including
International Relations, Law and Criminology—the sectoral views of the
second section of the book firstly offer detailed assessments of the dif-
ferent parts of this cooperation, and secondly reflect not only the pos-
sible direct consequences, but also the possible indirect consequences
of Brexit in these areas, while highlighting issues that will play into the
negotiations and offering guidance to both sides of the negotiation table.
Chapter 6 opens the second section of the book by focusing on differ-
ent aspects of the future UK-EU security relationship, as developed by
Massimo Fichera, Ariadna Ripoll Servent, Camino Mortera-Martinez
and Elaine Fahey. Chapter 7 explores the future cooperation between the
UK and the EU in the area of police and judicial cooperation, as seen
through the eyes of Gijs de Vries, Raphael Bossong, Steffen Rieger, Alex
MacKenzie, Anna Sergi, Florian Trauner, Ben Farrand, Anita Lavorgna,
Maria Grazia Porcedda, Tim J Wilson and Sophie Carr. Finally, Chapter 8
provides detailed accounts of the challenges related to migration and
border control with contributions from Arantza Gomez Arana, Daniela
Irrera, Giacomo Orsini, Christof Roos and Sarah Wolff.
In the conclusion, the authors draw on the expertise of all of the con-
tributors to propose priorities and considerations for the UK and the EU
to take into account when shaping their future security relationship.

References
European Commission. 2009. Awareness of Key Policies in the Area of Freedom,
Security and Justice-Analytical Report. Eurobarometer Survey, January.
European Commission. 2011. Internal Security—Report, Special Eurobarometer
371, November.
European Commission. 2017. European Attitudes Towards Security—Special
Eurobarometer 464b Report. Directorate-General for Migration and Home
Affairs and Directorate-General for Communication, December.
Prime Minister’s Office. 2017a. The Government’s Negotiating Objectives for
Exiting the EU: PM Speech. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/gov-
ernment/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exit-
ing-the-eu-pm-speech. Last accessed 31 May 2018.
Prime Minister’s Office. 2017b. Prime Minister’s Letter to Donal Tusk Triggering
Article 50. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/
6 H. CARRAPICO ET AL.

prime-ministers-letter-to-donald-tusk-triggering-article-50. Last accessed 31

May 2018.
Reuters. 2016. EU Exit Could Make Britain Safer—Former MI6 Spy Chief, 24
March. Available from: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-se-
curity/eu-exit-could-make-britain-safer-former-mi6-spy-chief-idUKKCN-
0WQ0NE. Last accessed 31 May 2018.
Smith, M. 2017. Nine in Ten Brits Think Further Terror Attacks Are Likely,
YouGov Survey, 24 March. Available from: https://yougov.co.uk/
news/2017/03/24/nine-ten-brits-think-further-terror-attacks-are-li/. Last
accessed 31 May 2018.
The Guardian. 2016. Nigel Farage Defends Linking Brussels Attacks and EU
Migration Rules. Available from: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-poli-
tics-35879670. Last accessed 31 May 2018.
Warrell, H. 2017. Terror Attacks Shaped UK Election But Failed to Lift May.
Financial Times, 8 June. Available from: https://www.voanews.com/a/ter-
ror-attacks-may-drive-security-issues-upcoming-brexit-talks/3889359.html.
Last accessed 15 May 2018.
Wright, R. 2018. Europol Head Warns of Security Impediments After Brexit.
Financial Times, 7 March. Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/
b74ec3d0-2213-11e8-9a70-08f715791301. Last accessed 31 May 2018.
 CHAPTER 2

The Current UK-EU Internal Security

Arrangements

Abstract This chapter shows that internal security has evolved into one
of the most dynamic and prioritised policy fields of the EU. The UK’s
unique opt-in and opt-out arrangements with the EU in this field have
enabled it to selectively participate in measures which it perceives to
be in its national interest, contributing to the field’s complex differen-
tiated integration. However, the UK has deeply shaped the AFSJ, with
the UK’s involvement having benefitted both the UK and the EU, lead-
ing to Brexit potentially having a deep impact on the internal security of
both parties.

Keywords Brexit · UK-EU relationship · Selective participation ·

Differentiated integration · Opt-ins and Opt-outs · Sovereignty

Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) has become, over the past 15 years, one
of the most dynamic policy areas of European integration, having grown
exponentially in terms of policy content and institutional structures
(Monar 1999). It has also developed into one of the most important
political priorities of the European Union (Treaty of Lisbon 2007). This
policy area covers matters that are traditionally associated to national
Home Affairs and Justice ministries, such as border controls, asylum,
immigration, judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters, and police
cooperation.

© The Author(s) 2019 7

H. Carrapico et al., Brexit and Internal Security,
Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04194-6_2
8 H. CARRAPICO ET AL.

The Development of the Area of Freedom,

Security and Justice
The institutionalization of JHA began to accelerate when early inter-
governmental developments were subsumed into the European struc-
ture, with the Treaty of Maastricht’s introduction of the Third Pillar
and the identification of areas of common interest in the field of JHA.
These areas of common interest emerged in particular out of the per-
ceived need to protect the developing Internal Market against crimi-
nal abuse, and from the understanding that national law enforcement
bodies were in a position of disadvantage in relation to organised crime
groups, which were free to profit from the disappearance of inter-
nal borders (Uçarer 2016). Thus, the development of EU Justice and
Home Affairs rests on a neo-functionalist logic, which assumed that
the best way to achieve the completion of the Internal market was
through the creation of European synergies in the area of police and
judicial cooperation (Monar 2006). JHA then evolved in the direc-
tion of further integration, with the coming into force of the Treaty
of Amsterdam and the creation of the AFSJ: parts of the Third Pillar
were communitarized, and the Schengen acquis was incorporated into
the EU’s legal order. More recently, the Lisbon Treaty eliminated the
Pillar structure and attempted to streamline the decision-making pro-
cess in JHA by expanding qualified majority voting. The evolution of
JHA has allowed for the emergence of a ‘space of protection’ (Boin
et al. 2006), characterised by a shared willingness to provide individuals
living in the EU with effective access to justice, improved safeguards
against crime and terrorism, and the right to circulate freely within
Schengen. Examples of measures which have contributed to the devel-
opment of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice include, among
others: Europol—the EU’s law enforcement agency—, Eurojust—the
EU’s judicial cooperation agency—, the European Arrest Warrant—a
legal instrument that aims at harmonising and expediting extradition—,
and the Schengen Information System—a database that enables the
exchange of information on individuals and property for the purpose of
border management and law enforcement.
 2 THE CURRENT UK-EU INTERNAL SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS 9

The Rationale Behind Selective Participation

in Justice and Home Affairs

Despite the impressive development of this area, however, not all

Member States take full part in its activities. The United Kingdom,
Ireland and Denmark have chosen not to engage fully in the integration
process of JHA, by opting-out from specific parts of the acquis commu-
nautaire. The argument presented by these countries is that they wish to
maintain control over matters of key importance to their national sov-
ereignty, in particular immigration, asylum, and security policies (Adler-
Nissen 2009). In the case of the United Kingdom, the government feels
that the current European arrangements in this area do not favour its
national interests, which have been constructed around the protection of
its common law system and unique geographical characteristics (Home
Office 2013a). As argued by Geddes, the United Kingdom has focused
its attention on external border controls, rather than internal security
measures (2013), unlike other Member States which request, for exam-
ple, that all national and non- national residents be registered with the
local police.
Decisions like those of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark
have led to a ‘differentiated integration’ (Adler-Nissen 2009), or ‘var-
iable geometry’ (Usher 1997) in the area of JHA, which goes back
to the partial communitarisation of the Third Pillar introduced by
the Treaty of Amsterdam. The period ranging between the entry into
force of the Treaty of Maastricht and that of the Treaty of Amsterdam
was characterised by an intergovernmental approach to JHA, which
allowed for Third Pillar matters to be decided unanimously and for
Member States to safeguard their national interests. With the intro-
duction of the Treaty of Amsterdam, however, immigration and asylum
matters were transferred from the Third to the First Pillar, leading to
a change in the decision-making process for these areas. The prospect
of replacing the unanimity rule with qualified majority voting quickly
led specific Member States to raise concerns about loss of sovereignty
in the area of internal security, and to submit requests for derogations
and opt-outs.
10 H. CARRAPICO ET AL.

The UK’s Opt-In and Opt-Out Arrangements

The UK has negotiated three opt-outs in the field of JHA: the first two
(Protocols 19 and 21) were introduced with the Treaty of Amsterdam
and the third one (Protocol 36) came about with the Treaty of Lisbon.
The Amsterdam derogations allow the UK to opt in to measures relating
to migration and asylum and to opt out from the Schengen legislation.
The more recent derogation constitutes a mass opt-out from all pre-Lis-
bon measures relating to police and judicial cooperation in criminal mat-
ters. This sub-section of this chapter analyses these opt-outs in further
detail.
Protocol 21, the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and
Ireland in Respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice exempts
the UK from the application of measures comprised in Title V of Part
Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which
covers visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to the free
movement of persons. Although the United Kingdom is under no
obligation to adopt the measures in Title V of the Treaty, the proto-
col enables it to opt in to any individual measures which it might con-
sider capable of enhancing its security. This legal arrangement allows
the UK to feel that it is protecting its border security interests, while at
the same time being free to join the remaining EU members in more
advanced integration measures of its choice in the area of immigration
and asylum. In practice, the Protocol allows the UK to opt into a given
measure within three months of it being presented to the Council.
If the opt-in takes place within this time frame, the UK is given the
possibility to participate in its negotiation. If the opt-in is agreed at
a subsequent stage, the UK is still free to adopt and implement the
measure, but it is no longer allowed to influence its negotiation. Until
now, the United Kingdom has made use of this opt-in right to partici-
pate in measures mainly related to asylum and illegal migration, having
chosen not to opt into measures on legal migration and border control
(Home Office 2013b).
Protocol 19, the Protocol on the Schengen Acquis Integrated into the
Framework of the European Union clarifies the conditions of the appli-
cation of the Schengen Agreement, which aims to abolish checks at the
internal borders of the EU. By setting the provisions for all Member
States taking part in Schengen, the Protocol also refers to the conditions
applicable to the United Kingdom. Namely, it clarifies that, although
 2 THE CURRENT UK-EU INTERNAL SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS 11

Britain does not generally participate in Schengen, it is able to request

an opt in to specific provisions in this acquis (Article 4 of Protocol 19).
After opting in to a given measure, Britain is considered to be included
in subsequent related measures, unless it asks the Council for an opt
out from those new measures (Article 5 of Protocol 19). On this basis,
the UK has chosen not to take part in border control provisions but
has opted in to police and judicial cooperation measures. According to
the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, these opt-ins have been
key in helping the country fight organised crime and terrorism by facil-
itating information exchange with other Member States (2015). As
will be further detailed in Chapter 3, these police and judicial cooper-
ation measures include instruments such as the Schengen Information
System, Europol, Eurodac and Eurojust. Whereas Protocol 21 allows the
UK to opt in to legislation solely based on its own decision, Protocol
19 requires all Member States to unanimously decide on whether the
UK can take part in the measure it has asked to opt into. Such a sys-
tem has generally worked to the UK’s advantage, though at times it was
not allowed to take part in instruments which it considered as beneficial
(as was the case with Frontex) (Kaunert et al. 2014).
This form of selective participation was further expanded by the
Treaty of Lisbon, when the UK was faced with the prospect of numer-
ous JHA measures becoming subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of
Justice, following a five-year transitional period starting from the entry
into force of the treaty. During treaty negotiations, the UK requested for
the Protocol On Transitional Provisions (Protocol 36) to include the pos-
sibility of obtaining a block opt-out from pre-Lisbon measures regarding
police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (around 130 meas-
ures) (see Fichera, this volume, Chapter 6). The proposal to activate this
opt-out was presented in October 2012, opening the door to a period of
national debate. Numerous actors, including practitioners and the House
of Lords EU Select Committee, responded to this political decision by
discussing a vast array of evidence on the consequences of a mass opt-
out,1 eventually pushing the Government to partly backtrack by opting
back into 35 of those measures (including, for instance, Europol and
the European Arrest Warrant). What is particularly interesting about the

1 For the complete set of evidence and for the video recording of the discussions, please

visit http://www.parliament.uk/2014opt-out.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
along, they shouted, “We are the servants of Jacob; who can resist
us?”
A second body followed, under the second angel; then a third
phalanx, under the third angel.
Esau, trembling, exclaimed, “I am the brother of Jacob. It is twenty
years since I saw him, and you maltreat me as I am on my way to
meet him!”
One of the angels answered, “If Jacob, the servant of God, had not
been thy brother, we would have destroyed thee and all thy men.”
The fourth body passing, under the command of the fourth angel,
completed the humiliation of Esau.
However, Jacob, who knew not what assistance had been rendered
him by Heaven, prepared for Esau, to appease him, rich presents.
He sent him four hundred and forty sheep, thirty asses, thirty camels,
fifty oxen, in ten troops, each conducted by a faithful servant charged
to deliver his troop as a gift from Jacob to his brother Esau.
This consoled and pleased Esau, who, as soon as he saw Jacob
again, was, by the grace of God, placed in a better mind, and the
brethren met, and parted with fraternal love.[384]
Now let us take another version of the story of this meeting.
It came to pass that Jacob spent one night alone beyond Jabbok,
and an angel contended with him, having taken on him the body and
likeness of a man. This angel was Michael, and the subject of their
contention was this:—The angel said to Jacob, “Hast thou not
promised to give the tenth of all that is thine to the Lord?” And Jacob
said, “I have promised.”
Then the angel said, “Behold thou hast ten sons and one daughter;
nevertheless thou hast not tithed them.”
Immediately Jacob set apart the four first-born of the four mothers,
and there remained eight. And he began to number from Simeon,
and Levi came up for the tenth.
Then Michael answered and said, “Lord of the world, this is Thy lot.”
So Levi became the consecrated one to the Lord.
On account of this ready compliance with his oath, Michael was
unable to hurt him, but he remained striving with Jacob, till the first
ray of sunlight rose above the eastern hills.
And he said, “Let me go, for the column of the morning ascendeth,
and the hour cometh when the angels on high offer praise to the
Lord of the world: and I am one of the angels of praise; but from the
day that the world was created, my time to praise hath not come till
now.”
And he said, “I will not let thee go, until thou bless me.”
Now Michael had received commandment not to leave Jacob till the
patriarch suffered him; and as it began to dawn, the hosts of heaven,
who desired to begin their morning hymn, came down to Michael and
bade him rise up to the throne of God and lead the chant; but he
said, “I cannot, unless Jacob suffer me to depart.”[385]
Thus did God prove Jacob, as He had proved Abraham, whether he
would give to Him his son, when He asked him of the patriarch.
But, according to certain Rabbinic authorities, it was not Michael who
wrestled with Jacob, but it was Sammael the Evil One, or Satan. For
Sammael is the angel of Edom, as Michael is the angel of Israel; and
Sammael went before Esau, hoping to destroy Jacob in the night.
Sammael, says the Jalkut Rubeni, met Jacob, who had the stature of
the first man, and strove with him; but he could not do him an injury,
for Abraham stood on his right hand, and Isaac on his left. And when
Sammael would part from him, Jacob would not suffer it, till the Evil
One had given him the blessing which Jacob had purchased from
Esau. And from that day Sammael took from Jacob his great
strength, and made him to halt upon his thigh.[386]
But when Michael appeared before God—we must now suppose the
man who strove with Jacob to have been the angel—God said to him
in anger, “Thou hast injured My priest!”
Michael answered, “I am Thy priest.”
“Yea,” said the Most High, “thou art My priest in heaven, but Jacob is
My priest on earth. Why hast thou lamed him?”
Then Michael answered, “I wrestled with him, and let him overcome
me, to Thy honour, O Lord; that, seeing he had overcome an angel
of God, he might have courage to go boldly to meet Esau.”
But this was no excuse for having lamed him. Therefore Michael said
to Raphael, “Oh, angel of healing! come to my aid.” So Raphael
descended to earth, and touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh, and it
was restored as before.
But God said to Michael, “For this that thou hast done, thou shalt be
the guardian of Israel as long as the world lasteth.”[387]
Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for he said, “I have seen
the angel of the Lord face to face, and my soul is saved.” And the
sun rose upon him before its time, as, when he went out from Beer-
sheba, it had set before its time.[388]
And Jacob lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, Esau came,
and with him four hundred men of war. And he divided the children
unto Leah, and to Rachel, and to the two concubines, and placed the
concubines and their sons foremost; for he said, “If Esau come to
destroy the children, and ill-treat the women, he will do it with them,
and meanwhile we can prepare to fight; and Leah and her children
after, and Rachel and Joseph after them.”[389] And he himself went
over before them, praying and asking mercy before the Lord, and he
bowed upon the earth seven times, until he met with his brother; but
it was not to Esau that he bowed, though Esau supposed he did, but
to the Lord God Most High.[390]
And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell upon his
neck and bit him, but by the mercy of God the neck of Jacob became
marble, and Esau broke his teeth upon it; therefore it is said in the
Book of Genesis that he fell on his neck, and kissed him; and they
wept.[391] But the Targumim apparently do not acknowledge that the
neck of Jacob became marble, for the Targum of Palestine explains
their weeping thus: “Esau wept on account of the pain of his teeth,
which were shaken; but Jacob wept because of the pain of his neck;”
and the Targum of Jerusalem, “Esau wept for the crushing of his
teeth, and Jacob wept for the tenderness of his neck.”
“The Lord God prospered Jacob,” and he had one hundred and two
times ten thousand and seven thousand (i.e. a thousand times a
thousand, seven thousand and two hundred) sheep, and six hundred
thousand dogs; but some Rabbis say the sheep were quite
innumerable, but when Jacob counted his sheep-dogs he found that
he had twelve hundred thousand of them; others, however, reduce
the number one-half. They say, one dog went with each flock, but
those who say that there were twelve hundred thousand dogs, count
two to each flock.[392]
Jacob, says the Rabbi Samuel, could recite the whole of the Psalter.
[393]
Of course this must have been in the spirit of prophecy, as the
Psalms were not written, with the exception of Psalm civ., which had
been composed by Adam.
Adam, after his fall, had been given by God six commandments, but
Noah was given a seventh—to this effect, that he was not to eat a
limb or portion of any living animal. Abraham was given an eighth,
the commandment of circumcision; and Jacob was communicated a
ninth, through the mouth of an adder, that he was not to eat the
serpent.[394]
If we may trust the Book of Jasher, the affair of Shechem, the son of
Hamor, was as follows:—The men of the city were not all
circumcised, only some of them, so as to blind the eyes of the sons
of Jacob, and throw them off their guard; and Shechem and Hamor
had privately concerted to fall upon Jacob and his sons and butcher
them; but Simeon and Levi were warned of their intention by a
servant of Dinah, and took the initiative.[395] But this is a clumsy
attempt to throw the blame off the shoulders of the ancestors of the
Jewish nation upon those of their Gentile enemies.
Jacob, say the Rabbis, would have had no daughters at all in his
family, but only sons, had he not called himself El-elohe-Israel (Israel
is God).[396] Therefore God was angry with him, for making himself
equal with God, and in punishment he afflicted him with a giddy
daughter.[397]
Esau, say the Mussulmans, had no prophets in his family except
Job. All the prophets rose from the family of Jacob; and when Esau
saw that the gift of prophecy was not in his family, he went out of the
land, for he would not live near his brother.[398]
The father of the Israelites, from the land of Canaan which he
inhabited, could smell the clothes of Joseph when he was in Egypt,
being a prophet; and thus he knew that his son was alive. He was
asked how it was that he divined nothing when his beloved son was
cast into the pit by his brothers, and sold to the Ishmaelites. He
replied that the prophetic power is sudden, like a lightning flash,
piercing sometimes to the height of heaven; it is not permanent in its
intensity, but leaves at times those favoured with it in such darkness
that they do not know what is at their feet.[399]
The Arabs say that Jacob, much afflicted with sciatica, was healed
by abstaining from the meat he most loved, and that was the flesh of
the camel. At Jerusalem, say the Arabs, is preserved the stone on
which Jacob laid his head when he slept on his way to Haran.
The custom of saying “God bless you!” when a person sneezes,
dates from Jacob. The Rabbis say that, before the time that Jacob
lived, men sneezed once, and that was the end of them—the shock
slew them; but the patriarch, by his intercession, obtained a
relaxation of this law, subject to the condition that, in all nations, a
sneeze should be consecrated by a sacred aspiration.
 XXVIII.
JOSEPH.

Joseph’s story is too attractive not to have interested intensely the

Oriental nations in any way connected with him, and therefore to
have become a prey to legend and myth.
Joseph, say the Mussulmans, was from his childhood the best loved
son of his father Jacob; but the old man not only loved him, but
yearned after the sight of him, for he was deprived of the custody of
Joseph from an early age. Joseph had been sent to his aunt, the
sister of Isaac, and she loved the child so dearly, that she could not
endure the thought of parting with him. Therefore she took the family
girdle, which she as the eldest retained as an heirloom, the girdle
which Abraham had worn when he prepared to sacrifice his son, and
she strapped it round Joseph’s waist.
Then she drew him before the judge, and accused him of theft, and
claimed that he should be made over to her as a slave to expiate his
theft. And it was done so. Thus the child Joseph grew up in her
house, and it was not till after her death that he returned to his father
Jacob.
One morning Joseph related to his father a dream that he had
dreamt; he said that he and his brothers had planted twigs in the
earth, but all the twigs of his brothers had withered, whereas his own
twig had brought forth leaves, and flourished.
Jacob was so immersed in thought over the dream, that he allowed a
poor man who came begging to go away unrelieved, because
unnoticed.[400] And this act of forgetfulness brought upon him some
trouble, as we shall see.
One morning Joseph related to him another dream; he saw the sun,
the moon, and the stars bow down before him. Jacob could no
longer doubt the significance of these dreams, which showed him
how great Joseph would be, but he cautioned him on no account to
let his brothers know about them, lest they should envy him.
He was so beautiful that he was called the Moon of Canaan, and he
had on one of his shoulders a luminous point like a star, a token that
the spirit of prophecy rested upon him. The brothers of Joseph,
however, heard of the dreams, and they were greatly enraged, and
they said, “Joseph and Benjamin are more loved of their father than
we ten; let us kill Joseph, or drive him out of the country, and when
we have done this, we will repent at our leisure, and God will forgive
us.”[401]
One day the brothers went to feed their father’s flock in Shechem.
Then Israel said to Joseph, “Do not thy brethren feed in Shechem? I
am afraid lest the Hivite come upon them and smite them, and repay
on me what Simeon and Levi did to Shechem and Hamor, because
of Dinah their sister. I will send thee to them to caution them to go
elsewhere.”
And he said, “I am ready.” So Joseph arose, and went to Shechem;
and Gabriel, in the likeness of a man, found him wandering in the
field. And he said to him, “Thy brethren have journeyed hence. I
heard of them, when I was in the presence of God, behind the veil,
and that, from this day, the bondage of Egypt begins.”[402]
When Joseph came in sight, the brothers conspired to slay him, but
Judah said, “Slay not Joseph, for to slay is a crime; but cast him into
a well, on the way that the caravans pass, that he may be found by a
caravan, and be drawn out.” Joseph was then aged seventeen.
His brethren fell on him and stripped him, and were about to cast him
into the well which was by the wayside to Jerusalem, when he said,
“O my brothers, wherewith shall I cover my nakedness in this pit?”
They replied, “Bid the sun, the moon, and the stars, which adored
thee, bring thee clothes to cover thy nakedness.”
Having thus mocked him, they let him down into the well. There was
much water in it; and a stone had fallen into it; on this Joseph stood,
and was above the surface of the water.[403] Not so, say the Rabbis, it
was dry, but it was full of scorpions and adders.[404]
Judah, according to the Mussulman account, had not consented to
this, he being absent; and when he had learned what had been
done, he took food and let it down into the well, and told Joseph to
be of good cheer, his brothers’ anger would turn away, and then he
would bring him back to them. But the Jews say that Reuben was
absent, as he was fasting on a mountain, because he had incurred
his father’s anger, and was in disgrace, and he hoped, by restoring
Joseph to Israel, to recover his father’s favour.
The sons of Jacob then slew a lamb and dipped the garment of
Joseph in the blood, and brought it to their father, and said, “We left
Joseph in charge of our clothes, and a wolf has fallen upon him, and
has devoured him.”
But Jacob looked at the garment and said, “I see that it is bloody, but
I see no rents; the wolf was merciful to my son Joseph, for he ate
him and left his garment whole!”[405]
Then Jacob went to commune with God, and the spirit of prophecy
came upon him, and he said, “No wolf, no enemy has slain him, but
a bad woman is against him.”[406]
Now Joseph was three days and three nights in the pit, but it was not
dark, for the angel Gabriel hung in it a precious stone to give him
light.[407]
The brethren of Joseph, seeing that their father mistrusted them,
said to him, “We will go and catch the wolf that slew Joseph.”
He said, “Go, and do so.”
So they went and chased and caught a monstrous wolf, and they
brought him to their father and said, “This is the beast whereof we
spoke to thee, that it had slain Joseph.”
But God opened the mouth of the wolf, and he said, “Son of Isaac,
believe not the words of thy envious sons. I am a wolf out of a
foreign land: I one morning lost my young one when I woke up, and I
have been straying in all directions to find it; is it likely that I,
mourning over the loss of a wild cub, should attack and kill a young
prophet?”
Jacob released the wolf out of the hands of his sons, and he
dismissed his sons, for he abhorred the sight of their faces; only
Benjamin, the brother of Joseph, and the youngest child of Rachel,
did he retain near him.[408]
On the third morning, a party of Arabs passed near the well, and
were thirsty. Now the chief of these Arabs was Melek-ben-Dohar; the
second, who accompanied Melek, was an Indian, a freed man of
Melek, and his name was Buschra.
Melek reached the well carrying a bucket and a rope, and let down
the bucket into the well. Then Joseph put his hand on it, and,
however much Melek and Buschra pulled, they could not raise the
bucket. Then Melek looked down into the pit, and exclaimed: “O
Buschra, the bucket was heavy because a young man has hold of it.”
Now the face of Joseph illumined the well like a lamp: Buschra and
Melek tried to raise Joseph, but they could not.
Then Melek asked, “What is thy name, and whence art thou?”
Joseph answered, “I am a young man of Canaan; my brothers have
cast me into this cistern, but I am not guilty.”
Melek said to his companions, “If we tell the rest of the caravan that
we have drawn this youth out of the well, they will demand a share in
the price he will fetch. Now I can sell this youth for a large sum in
Egypt. I will therefore tell my comrades that I have bought him from
some people who were at the well. Do thou say the same thing, and
we will share the money between us.”
Next day, being the fourth day, the brethren, finding that their father’s
face was turned against them, went to the cistern to draw forth
Joseph, and when they found him not, they went to the caravan, and
they saw Joseph among the Arabs.
Then they asked, “Whose is this lad?”
Melek-ben-Dohar replied, “He is mine.”
They answered, “He belongs to us; he ran away from us.”
Melek replied, “Well, I will give you money for him.”[409]
So he bought him for twenty pieces of silver; thus each of the
brothers obtained two drachmæ, and therewith they bought shoes.
[410]
To this the prophet Amos refers in two places (ii. 6; viii. 6), and in
the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, which is received as
canonical by the Armenian Church, Zebulun relates the same
circumstance, that the brethren supplied themselves with sandals
from the money which they got by the sale of Joseph.
Joseph went along with the Ishmaelites till they passed his mother’s
tomb; then his grief overcame him, and he burst forth into bitter tears
and cried, “O mother, mother! I am an outcast and a slave, I the child
of the wife Jacob loved. When thou wast dying, thou didst show me
to my father, and bade him look on me, and be comforted for my
loss. O mother, mother! hast thou no thought of thy son? Awake and
see the miserable condition of thy child; shake off thy sleep; be my
defence against my brethren, and comfort my father. Awake and
stand up to judge my quarrel, awake and plead my cause with God!
awake and look upon the desolation of the soul of my father who
cherished thee, and who for fourteen years served a hard bondage
for his beloved Rachel! Console him, I pray thee, and, by the voice
that he loves, soothe the grief of his last days.”
It was moonlight, and the caravan was resting.
A low voice issued from the tomb. “My son! my son Joseph! my
child! I have heard the voice of thy crying. I know all thou hast
suffered, my son, and my grief is as deep as the sea. But put thy
trust in God, who is the help of thy countenance and thy God! Rise,
my child, and have patience. If thou knewest the future, thou wouldst
be comforted.”[411]
One of the chiefs of the caravan, wearied with the cries of Joseph,
came to drive him from the tomb, but suddenly a dark and
threatening cloud appeared in the sky over his head, and he
desisted in fear.
In the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Benjamin says that a man
struck Joseph as he lagged on the way, whereupon a lion fell upon
the man and slew him.
The sun was about to set, when the caravan entered Heliopolis, the
chief city of Egypt, which was then under the government of Rajjan,
an Amalekite. Joseph’s face shone brighter than the mid-day sun;
and as this new light from the east shone in the city, and cast the
shadows towards the declining sun, all the women and damsels ran
out upon the terraces or to the windows to see.
Next day he was placed for sale before the palace of the king. All the
wealthy ladies of Heliopolis sent their husbands or relations to bid for
the beautiful youth, but he was purchased by Potiphar, the king’s
treasurer,[412] who was childless, and designed making Joseph his
adopted son and heir.
Zuleika,[413] Potiphar’s wife, received him with great friendliness,
gave him new clothes and a garden-house in which to live, as he
would not sit down to eat with the Egyptians. He was occupied in
tending the fruit and the flowers in Potiphar’s garden; and from her
window Zuleika watched him.
Thus Joseph served as gardener to Potiphar for six years.
A graceful Arab legend of this period of Joseph’s life deserves not to
be omitted.
One day an Ishmaelite passed the gate of Potiphar’s garden, leading
a camel. As the beast approached Joseph, who was standing at the
door, it bowed, refused to follow its master, and turning to Joseph,
fell before him, and shed tears over his feet.
Joseph recognized the camel as having once belonged to his father,
and he remembered having often given it bread. He questioned the
Ishmaelite, who acknowledged he had purchased the beast from
Israel.
Now Joseph loved Zuleika as much as she loved him, but he did not
venture to hope that he was precious to his mistress.
One day when a great feast of the gods was observed, all the
household had gone to the temple, save Zuleika, who pretended to
be ill, and Joseph, who worshipped the One true God. Zuleika
prepared a table with wine and fruit and sweet cakes, and invited
Joseph to eat with her.
He was rejoiced, and his heart beat with passion; and when he took
the goblet of wine she offered him, he looked into her eyes, and saw
that she loved him. Then, says the Rabbi Ishmael in the Midrash, the
form of his father Jacob appeared in the window or doorway, and
thus addressed him: “Joseph! hereafter the names of thy brothers
engraven on gems shall adorn the breastplate of the High Priest, and
shall thine be absent from among them?” Then Joseph dug his ten
fingers into the ground, and so conquered himself.[414]
The Mussulmans say also that Joseph was brought to his senses by
seeing the vision of his father in the door biting his finger
reproachfully at him.[415]
When Potiphar returned home, Zuleika brought false accusations
against Joseph, but a babe who was in its cradle, in the room,—the
child was a relation of Zuleika,—lifted up its voice in protest, and
said, “Potiphar, if you want to know the truth, examine the torn
portion of the garment. If it is from the front of the dress, then know
that Zuleika was struggling to thrust Joseph from approaching her; if
from the back, know that she was pursuing him.”
Potiphar obeyed the voice of the sucking child, and found that his
wife had spoken falsely, and that Joseph was innocent.[416]
Now one of the neighbours had seen all that took place, for she was
sick, and had not attended the feast, so the whole affair was soon a
matter of gossip throughout the town. Then Zuleika invited all the
ladies who had blamed her to a great feast in her house; and
towards the close of the banquet, when the fruit and wine were
brought in, an orange and a knife were placed before each lady; and
at the same moment Joseph was brought into the room. The ladies,
in their astonishment, cut their fingers in mistake for the oranges, for
their eyes were fixed upon him, and they were amazed at his beauty;
and the table was deluged with blood.
“This,” said Zuleika, “is the youth on whose account you blame me. It
is true that I loved him, but his virtue has opposed me; and now love
is turned to hate, and I shall cast him into prison.”[417]
She was as good as her word, and thus it fell out that Joseph was
placed in the king’s prison. But God would not suffer the innocent to
be punished. He illumined his cell with a celestial light, made a
fountain spring up in the midst of it, and a fruit-bearing tree to grow
before the door.[418]
Joseph was five years in prison, and then the King of the Greeks,
who was warring against Egypt, sent an ambassador to Rajjan
desiring peace. But his true purpose was to throw him off his guard,
that he might with treachery destroy him. The ambassador sought
the advice of an old Greek woman who had long lived in Egypt. She
said, “I know of only one way of accomplishing what you desire, and
that is to bribe the butler or the baker of the king to poison him; but it
would be better to put the drug in the wine than in the bread.”
The ambassador then bribed the chief baker with much gold, and he
promised to put poison in Pharaoh’s meat. After that he told the old
woman that one of the two she had named to him had been
persuaded to destroy the king.
Then the ambassador returned, and when he was gone, the woman
disclosed all to Pharaoh, and she said, “Either the butler or the baker
has taken a bribe to poison thee, O king.” Thereupon the king cast
both into prison, till it should be made manifest which was guilty.
Now the name of the baker was Mohlib, and that of the butler was
Kamra.
After they had been in prison some time, they had dreams; and they
told their dreams to Joseph.
The chief butler said, “I saw in my dream, and, behold, a vine was
before me. And in the vine were three branches; and as it sprouted it
brought forth buds, and immediately they ripened into clusters, and
became grapes. And I saw till they gave the cup of Pharaoh into my
hand, and I took the grapes and squeezed them into Pharaoh’s cup,
and I gave the cup into Pharaoh’s hand.”
And Joseph said to him, “This is the interpretation of the dream. The
three branches are the three Fathers of the world, Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, whose children are to be enslaved in Egypt in clay and
brickwork, and in all labours of the face of the field; but afterward
shall they be delivered by the hand of three shepherds. As for the
cup thou didst give into Pharaoh’s hand, it is the vial of the wrath of
God, which Pharaoh is to drink at the last. But thou, the chief butler,
shalt receive a good reward: the three branches to thee are three
days until thy liberation.”
Joseph, leaving his higher trust in God, now turned and reposed it in
man, for he added, “Be thou mindful of me when it shall be well with
thee, and obtain my release from this prison-house.”
And the chief baker, seeing that Joseph had interpreted well, began
to speak with an impatient tongue, and said to Joseph, “I also saw in
my dream, and, behold, three baskets of hot loaves were upon my
head; and in the upper basket of all, delicious meat for Pharaoh,
made by the confectioner; and the birds ate them from the basket
upon my head.”
Joseph answered, “This is its interpretation. The three baskets are
the three enslavements with which the house of Israel are to be
enslaved. But thou, the chief baker, shalt receive an evil award. At
the end of three days, Pharaoh shall take away thy head from thy
body, and will hang thee upon a gibbet, and the birds shall eat thy
flesh from off thee.”
And it fell out as Joseph had foretold. But, because Joseph had
withdrawn from putting his trust in God, and had laid it on man,
therefore he was forgotten by the butler and left in prison for two
years more.[419]
Joseph had now been seven years in prison, and this is why he had
been so long there. Potiphar’s wife persuaded her friends to bring
against Joseph the same accusation that she had laid against him,
and their husbands complained to Pharaoh; so he was kept in prison
that he might not cause strife and evil in the city.[420]
When the seven years were elapsed, one day the butler came to the
prison and bade Joseph follow him, as the King had been troubled
with a dream, and desired to have it explained. But Joseph refused
to leave till his innocence was proclaimed. He named to the butler
the ladies who had attended the banquet of Zuleika, and before
whom she had confessed that she loved him, and besought that they
might be called as witnesses before the king. Pharaoh agreed; the
ladies, when interrogated, related all that had been said, and Zuleika
herself confessed the truth.
Then Pharaoh sent and fetched Joseph out of prison, and gave him
his liberty.
“I dreamed,” said the king, when Joseph stood before his throne,
“that seven lean cows ate seven fat cows, and that seven empty
husks ate seven full ears of corn. What is the interpretation of this
dream?”
“God will give thee seven fruitful years, and then seven years of
famine,” answered Joseph. “Therefore must thou gather together all
the superfluity in the first seven years to sustain the starving people
in the seven years of dearth.”[421]
The king was so well pleased with this interpretation, that he made
Joseph his chief treasurer in Potiphar’s room. Joseph went through
all the land, and purchased corn, which, on account of the good
harvests, was at a very low price.
One day as he rode out of the town to view his magazines, he
observed a beggar-woman whose whole appearance was most woe-
begone, but bespoke her having seen better days. Joseph
approached her with compassion, and held out to her a handful of
gold. She hesitated about taking it, and said, sobbing, “Great prophet
of God! I am not worthy to receive this at thy hand, though it was my
love for thee which was the first step on the ladder on which thou
mountedst to thy present exaltation.” And Joseph saw that the poor
beggar-woman was Zuleika, wife of Potiphar.
He asked about her husband, and learned that shortly after he had
been deposed from office, he had died of distress of mind and body.
“Thou hast thought evil of me,” she said, “but I have great excuses,
thou wast so beautiful; and moreover I was young, and only a wife in
name, for I am as I left my mother’s womb, a maiden, with the seal of
God upon me.”
Then Joseph was filled with joy. He extended his hands to her, and
he brought her to the king’s palace, and she was treated there with
care, as a sister, till she recovered her bloom and joy, and then
Joseph took her to be his wife.[422] And by her he had two sons
before the seven years of dearth began, during which the Egyptians
gave first their gold, then their apparel, and all their moveable goods;
then their land, then their slaves, and last of all themselves, their
wives and children, as bondsmen, that they might have food.
But not only did Egypt suffer, the adjoining lands were also afflicted
with scarcity. There was no corn in Canaan, and Jacob sent his ten
sons into Egypt to buy corn, retaining Benjamin at home. He
cautioned his sons not to create mistrust by their numbers, nor
cause the evil eye to light on them, and advised them to enter the
city of Pharaoh by different gates, for it had ten.
But Joseph expected that his brothers would be coming to Egypt,
and therefore he bade the gatekeepers every day bring him the
names of those who had entered the city. One day one porter gave
him the name of Reuben, son of Jacob; and so on to the tenth,
Asher, son of Jacob. Joseph at once gave orders for every
storehouse to be closed with the exception of one, and gave the
keepers of the open magazine the names of his brothers, and said to
them, “When these people arrive take them prisoners, and bring
them before me.”
And when they appeared before him, he charged them with being
spies: “For,” said he, “if ye were true men, ye would have come in
together; but ye entered by different gates, and that shows that ye
are set upon evil.”[423]
When, to excuse themselves, they told their family history, he bade
them go and bring Benjamin down to him, and, to secure their return,
he kept Simeon in prison as hostage.
When Joseph wanted to imprison Simeon, his brothers desired to
assist him by force, but Simeon refused their assistance. Joseph
ordered seventy fighting men of Pharaoh’s body-guard to cast him
down and handcuff him. But when they approached, Simeon gave a
scream, and the seventy fell back on the ground, and their teeth
went down their throats. “Hah!” said Joseph to his son Manasseh,
who stood near him, “throw a chain about his neck.”
Manasseh dealt Simeon a blow, and chained him. “Then,” said
Simeon, “this blow comes from one of the family.”[424]
Jacob, reluctant to part with Benjamin, was however obliged to do
so, being pressed with famine. Joseph received the brethren,
measured out to them the wheat, and, by his orders, his steward
secretly put the silver cup of Joseph into the sack of Benjamin. Then
at the gate of the city they were charged with theft, and were brought
back to the palace of Joseph.
“What is the penalty due to him who has stolen my cup?” asked
Joseph.
“Let him be thy slave,” answered the brethren, feeling confident in
their innocence. But when the sacks were opened, and his cup was
found in that of Benjamin, they said to their youngest brother, “Woe
to thee! what hast thou done? Wast thou resolved to follow the
example of thy lost brother, who stole his grandfather Laban’s idol,
and his aunt’s girdle?”
But as they had sworn to their father to restore Benjamin to him, they
besought Joseph to take one of them in the place of Benjamin. But
Joseph persisted that he would keep Benjamin.
Then said Reuben to his brothers, “Go back to our father, and tell
him all that has occurred; I, the eldest of you, who undertook on the
security of my life to bring Benjamin home, must remain here till he
himself calls me back, for he will see that we have stood hostages
for a thief.”[425]
Now Reuben had a fierce temper, and when he became furious, all
the down or hair on his skin bristled and penetrated his clothes like
needles; he pulled off his head-gear, and uttered a scream so terrible
that all who heard it died of terror. This frenzy of Reuben’s could only
be abated by one of the family of Jacob placing his hand upon him.
Reuben went up to Joseph, and said, “O great one of Egypt. I am in
a rage; and if I scream out, all who hear me will die of fright. Restore
to me my brother, or I shall scream, and then thou and all the
inhabitants of Egypt will perish.”
Joseph knowing that Reuben spoke the truth, and seeing his hair
bristling through his clothes like needle-points, and knowing also that
if any one of the house of Jacob were to lay his hand on the body of
Reuben, his force would pass away,—he said to Ephraim, his son,
“Go softly, so that Reuben may not observe thee, and lay thine hand
upon his shoulder that his anger may abate.” Ephraim did as he was
bidden, and instantly the hairs of Reuben sank, and his fury passed
away, and he felt that the power to scream was gone from him.
Then Joseph said calmly, “I shall retain Benjamin, do what you will.”
Reuben made an effort to scream, but it was unavailing. Then
astonishment got hold of him, and he said to Joseph, “I think that
there must be one of the family of Jacob in this house.”[426]
Then Joseph ordered Benjamin to be chained. And when Judah saw
this, he roared like a lion, and his voice was so piercing, that
Chuschim, the son of Dan, who was in Canaan, heard him, and
began to roar also.
And Judah drew his sword, and roared, and pursued the Egyptian
soldiers sent to bind Benjamin, and the fear of him fell on them all,
and they fell, and he smote them up to the gates of the king’s palace;
and he roared again, and all the walls of Memphis rocked, and the
earth shook, and Pharaoh was shaken off his throne and fell on his
face, and the roar of Judah was heard four hundred miles off.
Joseph feared to be killed by Judah. When Judah was angry, blood
spirted from his right eye. Judah wore five sets of clothes upon him,
one above another; and when he was angry, his heart swelled so as
to tear them all. Joseph, fearing him, roared at him, and his voice
shivered a pillar of the palace into fine dust, so that Judah thought,
“This is a great hero! he can master me.”[427]
Then said Judah to Joseph, “Let our brother go, or we will devastate
this land.”
Then Joseph answered, “Go home, and tell your father that a wild
beast has devoured him.”
Then Judah beckoned to his brother Naphtali, who was very swift of
foot, and said to him, “Run speedily and count all the streets in
Egypt, and come swiftly back and tell me.”
But Simeon said, “There is no need; I will break a stone out of the
mountains and throw it down on the land of Egypt, and will utterly
destroy it.”[428]
Then Joseph saw that it was not well to press them further; so he
took a bowl, and filled it, and looked into it as though he were
divining by it, and said suddenly, “Ye are liars! Ye told me that your
brother Joseph was dead, and behold he is alive, and I see him in
this bowl! Ye sold him.”
Then he bade Zuleika bring the deed of sale, and he handed it to
Judah. Thereupon the brothers knew him, and fell down before him,
and besought him to pardon them.
Then he told them how God had exalted him, and he comforted their
hearts, and after that he asked news of his father.
They replied, “He is blind with grief at having to part with Benjamin.”
Therefore Joseph said, “Take my shirt and go to my father, and pass
my shirt before his face, and he will recover his sight. Then take all
that you have, and come down into Egypt.”[429]
When the caravan left Memphis, the sons of Jacob carried with them
abundance of corn and the shirt of Joseph; and the wind was in their
backs, and blew the scent of the shirt from the gate of Memphis into
Canaan. And Jacob snuffed the wind, and said, “O women! O
children! I can smell Joseph.”
They all thought, “He is deranged,” but they said, “It is forty years
since Joseph died, and thou canst think of nothing else; thou art
always insisting that he is alive.”
When the caravan was near the dwelling of Jacob, Judah brought
the shirt of Joseph in, and said, “On the day upon which I bore the
bloody coat of Joseph, I said a wolf had devoured him. Now I bring
thee good news.” And he cast the shirt upon the face of his father,
and Jacob recovered his sight.[430]
The story in the Sepher Hadjaschar, or Book of Jasher, is more
poetical. As the sons were approaching the home of their father,
Sarah, the adopted daughter of Asher, came to meet them. She was
very beautiful and graceful and modest, and could play sweetly on
the harp. They gave her the kiss of peace, and told her the tidings.
Then she went singing home, accompanying her words upon the
harp, “Joseph is not dead, God has been his protector, and he lives,
and is governor in Egypt; rejoice and be glad of heart!” Then Jacob
was filled with hope and consolation, and he said, “Because thou
hast revived my spirit, my daughter, death shall never seize on
thee.”[431]
After that, Jacob went down into Egypt, that he might see his son
Joseph before he died. And when they met, they fell on one
another’s neck and wept, and kissed; and Jacob said to his son, “Tell
me, I pray thee, what evil thy brothers did to thee.” But Joseph
answered, “Nay, my father, I will tell thee only how great good the
Lord did to me.”
We have heard how that Joseph married Zuleika, the wife of
Potiphar, but this is not a universal tradition. It is said in Genesis that
he had to wife Asenath, daughter of Potipherah, priest of On. Many
suppose that this Asenath was the daughter of Potiphar, the old
master of Joseph, and that her mother was Dinah, the daughter of
Jacob, and the following story is related of Asenath:—
She was a maid of wondrous beauty, of which she was very proud,
and she greatly despised all men, though she had never seen any,
saving her father. She dwelt in a tower next to her father’s house, ten
stories high, which contained everything that the eye could desire,
and also idols in gold and silver, which she daily worshipped.
Asenath was as tall as Sarah, as comely as Rebekah, and as
beautiful as Rachel.