A Convenient Hatred: The History of Antisemitism (29 page)

But even if one were to judge [a people’s] wickedness only by the quantity of thieves and receivers of stolen goods among them, this number should not be viewed in terms of that people’s proportion of the entire population. The comparison should rather be made between traders and [peddlers] among the Jews on the one hand, and among other peoples on the other. I am sure that such a comparison would yield very different proportions…. This is aside from the fact that the Jew is forced to take up such a calling, while the others could have become field marshals or ministers. They freely chose their profession, be it trader, [peddler], seller of mouse traps… or vendor of curios
.

It is true that quite a number of Jewish [peddlers] deal in stolen goods; but few of them are outright thieves, and those, mostly, are people without refuge or sanctuary anywhere on earth. As soon as they have made some fortune they acquire a patent of protection from their territorial prince and change their profession. This is public knowledge; when I was younger I personally met a number of [Jews] who were esteemed in my native country after they had elsewhere made enough dubious money to purchase a patent of protection. This injustice is directly created by that fine policy which denies the poor Jews protection and residence, but receives with open arms those very same Jews as soon as they have “thieved their way to wealth.”
⁸

Frederick II ignored the debate. Prussia did not grant citizenship to Jews until 1812—long after his death. Von Dohm’s ideas made more of an impression in other parts of Europe, including Austria.

In 1782, soon after von Dohm’s essay was published, the emperor of Austria, Joseph II, issued an “Edict of Tolerance.” Its goal was “to make the Jewish nation useful and serviceable to the State, mainly through better education and enlightenment of its youth as well as by directing them to the sciences, the arts, and the crafts.” The document made it clear that Jews would be “tolerated” only in proportion to their “usefulness.” They even had to pay a special tax for their “protected” status. To keep down the number of “tolerated” Jews, the king allowed Jews to pass whatever wealth they had accumulated to only one son.

The edict also stated that Jews were no longer to be regarded as a separate people or nation. They were no longer to be governed by
kehillot
—communal organizations with some governmental authority as well as religious and economic rights (see
Chapter 8
). That change meant that Jews no longer had an official organization that could speak in their name. Other edicts aimed at assimilating Jews into Austrian society had similar drawbacks.

These documents did offer Jews some benefits. They no longer had to live in ghettos or wear special clothing. They also had more freedom in choosing an occupation and a place to live. In addition, some discriminatory taxes were abolished. Jews also had more freedom of movement. They no longer had to stay indoors during Christian holidays, and the men no longer had to wear beards.

Although many Jews welcomed these changes, many others saw the edict as an attempt to undermine Judaism as a religion and Jews as a people. After all, the
kehillot
gave Jews a defined role and a measure of security in a society that regarded them with hostility. A number of rabbis and other Jewish leaders also pointed out that the changes did nothing to end prejudice or discrimination. Indeed, after Joseph’s death in 1790, many of the old restrictions were revived, and
kehillot
were still not allowed. Jewish efforts to keep those communal organizations gave new life to the old stereotype of Jews as “clannish,” even though Jews have always adapted to the customs and laws of the country in which they live. The story of English Jews is an example of how adaptable they could be.

Unlike Germany or Austria, England in 1600 had a very small Jewish population—a few hundred in a population of approximately five million. Jews had been expelled from England in 1290, but in the 1600s, a few Sephardic Jews entered the country by claiming they were Catholics. They settled mainly in London and other cities.

By the mid-1600s, there was talk of readmitting Jews to England. The idea caused a sensation. The country at that time was divided along religious lines. The official church was the Anglican Church, or Church of England, but not everyone was satisfied with it. Some wanted England to be a Catholic country again. Others accepted many of the teachings of the Church of England but did not approve of some practices. Because they wanted to “purify” the church, they were known as Puritans. Disagreements among these groups had led to civil war and the overthrow of the monarchy: in 1649, a republic was established under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell, a Puritan.

In 1654, Menasseh ben Israel, one of Amsterdam’s leading rabbis, sent Cromwell a petition asking that Jews be allowed to settle in England. The rabbi did not ask for a charter or contract like those Jews had in other places. Instead he asked that Jews be allowed to live “with the same equalness and conveniences that your… born subjects do enjoy.” In other words, he wanted Jews to have rights equal to those of other people in England—including the right of citizenship.

Cromwell was not a tolerant man, and he had little use for Anglicans and even less for Catholics. Yet he seemed eager to admit Jews to England. Why? He believed that Jewish merchants were responsible for at least some of the prosperity the Netherlands enjoyed, and he hoped they would have a similar effect on England.

Cromwell’s interest in Jews sparked hundreds of new rumors. Some claimed that Jews were about to buy St. Paul’s Cathedral in London and turn it into a synagogue. Others insisted that Jews had no interest in the cathedral but were planning to buy entire towns and force out Christians. Still others maintained that Jews were going to take over the great libraries of the universities at Oxford and Cambridge. Merchants and artisans feared “unfair competition” from Jews. And some Protestant leaders were convinced that Jews were coming to England solely to convert Christians.

To avoid a political battle, Cromwell invited 25 of England’s leading legal and religious scholars to a conference. He wanted their support for a law permitting Jewish immigration. The scholars told him that he did
not need a new law that would allow Jews to settle in England. The order of expulsion in 1290 applied only to Jews living in England at that time; it did not include Jews born centuries later. So Jews could legally settle in England if they wished to do so. Nevertheless, the group made it clear that they opposed the idea. When Cromwell realized how hostile they were, he abruptly ended the meeting and never brought up the idea in public again.

Two years later, in 1656, England went to war against Spain. That war presented a problem for Jewish families living in London as “Spanish Catholics.” They were now considered “enemy aliens,” and Cromwell’s government had the right to arrest them and seize their belongings. They decided that it was time to declare themselves as Jews. They sent Cromwell two petitions—one asking for the release of a Jew who had been arrested as an enemy alien and the other for permission to gather for prayer and buy land for a cemetery.

Cromwell and his advisers held two meetings on the matter. At the first, they ordered the release of the Jew who had been imprisoned as an enemy alien. At the other meeting, they may have granted the second petition. The minutes of that meeting disappeared centuries ago, so no one knows exactly what was decided. Nevertheless, shortly after it took place, Jews purchased land for a cemetery and ordered a Torah scroll from Amsterdam. The scroll arrived along with a cantor (a person who leads a Jewish congregation in prayer). In the months that followed, Jews rented a house for use as a synagogue. They were not likely to have taken these steps if they did not have permission to do so.

The way Cromwell responded to the question of whether to permit Jewish immigration had consequences. Those who opposed the idea had no reason to speak out or try to sway public opinion, because no one was now suggesting that the country open its doors to Jews. On the other hand, Jews already living in England were free to settle wherever they pleased and openly practice their religion—England had no laws that denied them those rights.

Cromwell’s republic did not last long. When the monarchy was restored in 1660, the new king, Charles II, continued Cromwell’s policy toward Jews, even though Protestant merchants (who did not want competition from Jews) repeatedly asked him to reissue the expulsion decree of 1290. Charles and his advisers stated many times that Jews were free to live and trade in England as long as they did so quietly. Like Cromwell, Charles and his successors believed that Jews were economically useful, and they were therefore willing to tolerate them.

In the years that followed, Jewish immigration grew. The new arrivals were Ashkenazi Jews from eastern Europe. Like Sephardic Jews, the newcomers had no charter, nor did they ask for one. Like everyone else in the nation, they were taxed as individuals and judged as individuals in English courts. In many ways, England was home to the first modern Jewish community in the world.

By the 1700s, a number of Jews were English citizens simply because they had been born in England. The only restrictions these Jews encountered were laws and customs that favored Anglicans over not only Jews but also Catholics and even other Protestants. Little by little, however, many of these restrictions were overturned—sometimes by new laws, but more often by legal decisions based on existing laws and traditions.

The way Jews won the right to testify in court is a good example of the process. According to English law, a witness had to take an oath “on the true faith of a Christian.” As early as 1667, however, English courts were interpreting that law in a way that allowed Jews to take their oath on the Hebrew Scriptures rather than the New Testament. When that practice was challenged in court in 1744, Sir John Willes, the lord chief justice, ruled that to refuse to allow the oath (and therefore the testimony of a particular witness) was “contrary not only to the [Christian Bible] but to common sense and common humanity.” He argued that denying Jews the right to testify in court was “a little mean, narrow notion,” because it assumed “that no one but a Christian could be an honest man.”
⁹

That ruling marked an important improvement in the status of Jews under English law. It did not, however, mark an end to bigotry, as the fight over a naturalization law a decade later reveals. Any foreigner living in England could become a naturalized citizen, although few bothered to do so—the process was long, complicated, and expensive. Applicants were also required to take a Christian oath of loyalty. As a result, no Jew could become a naturalized citizen.

In 1753, a few foreign-born Jews asked Parliament to change the law. They pointed out that it was unfair. Not only did other immigrants have the right to become citizens but so did Jews who lived in British colonies; in 1740, Parliament had passed a law allowing them to become naturalized citizens after seven years without taking the Christian oath. Parliament responded by passing the Naturalization Act, a similar law for foreign Jews in England.

Although both houses of Parliament approved the law by a large margin, angry calls for its repeal came from all parts of English society—merchants and farmers, rich men and poor, highly skilled artisans and
unskilled workers, clergymen and freethinkers. Mobs paraded through the streets of London carrying signs that read, “No Jews, No Naturalization Bill, Old England and Christianity Forever!”

Some opponents of the law revived old myths about Jews committing ritual murders and poisoning wells. Others claimed that Britain would soon be swamped by unscrupulous traders and greedy moneylenders who would use their ill-gotten gains to acquire farmland and large houses. Because the right to vote was based on ownership of property, these people insisted that Jews would soon control Parliament. At times, the wild rumors led to acts of violence. Within six months Parliament had repealed the law, and almost overnight the campaign against “the Jews” came to an end.

Why did a law that would have affected only a handful of individuals cause so much turmoil? If the English were so antisemitic, why didn’t they place restrictions on Jews born in England? One answer to these questions lies in the fact that 1754 was an election year. The Tories, members of England’s conservative political party, used antisemitism to bring down the Whigs, members of the more liberal party that controlled Parliament at the time. But the Tories’ strategy would not have worked if it had not touched a nerve. Although most people in England had never met a Jew, many regarded “the Jews” as different and strange—outsiders who were not like them. And almost everyone was familiar with the old stereotypes and myths about Jews.

The English were also hostile for another reason. In 1700, about a thousand Jews lived in England—a country with a population of about 5.5 million. By 1800, England was home to more than 20,000 Jews. By the mid-1700s, people were becoming aware of that dramatic rise in immigration, and it aroused strong feelings. One Tory opponent of the Naturalization Act claimed that the bill would naturalize “hordes” of foreign Jews. In his opinion, those Jews could never become part of the English nation.
¹⁰

The newcomers aroused fear for yet another reason as well. Unlike the wealthy Jewish merchants who had settled in London in the early 1600s, many of the Jews who came to England during the 1700s were poor. They also tended to be young, and few had much education. Most found work on the fringes of society—peddling trinkets, doing odd jobs, or selling secondhand goods. Newspapers and magazines portrayed them as suspicious, shifty, and cunning. In the 1700s, criminals were identified by name if they were Christian and by name and religion if they were Jews. John Toland, a philosopher who was born in Ireland but lived in England, observed: