The Jews and Modern
Capitalism
Werner Sombart
Translated by M. Epstein
Contents
Translator’s Introductory
Note
Part I: The Contribution of
the Jews to Modern Economic Life
Chapter 1: Introductory
Chapter 2: The
Shifting of the Centre of Economic Life since the Sixteenth Century
Chapter 3: The
Quickening of International Trade
Chapter 4: The
Foundation of Modern Colonies
Chapter 5: The
Foundation of the Modern State
Chapter 6: The
Predominance of Commerce in Economic Life
Chapter 7: The
Growth of a Capitalistic Point of View in Economic Life
Part II: The Aptitude of
the Jews of Modern Capitalism
Chapter 8: The
Problem
Chapter 9: What
is a Capitalist Undertaker?
Chapter 10: The Objective Circumstances in the Jewish Aptitude for Modern
Capitalism
Chapter 11: The Significance of the Jewish Religion in Economic Life
Chapter 12: Jewish Characteristics
Part III: The Origin of the
Jewish Genius
Chapter 13: The Race Problem
Chapter 14: The Vicissitudes of the Jewish People
Notes and References
Werner Sombart is undoubtedly one of the most striking
personalities in the
But Sombart is an artist as well as a scholar; he combines reason
with imagination in an eminent degree, and he has the gift, seldom enough
associated with German professors, of writing in a lucid, flowing, almost
eloquent style. That is one characteristic of all his books, which are worth
noting. The rise and development of modern capitalism has been the theme that
has attracted him most, and his masterly treatment of it may be found in his Der
moderne Kapitalismus (2 vols., Leipzig, 1902). In 1896 he published Sozialismus
und soziale Bewegung, which quickly went through numerous editions and may
be described as one of the most widely read books in German-speaking countries.[1] Die deutsche Volkswirtschaft im 19ten
Jahrhundert appeared in 1903, and Das Proletariat in 1906.
For some years past Sombart has been considering the revision of
his magnum opus on modern capitalism, and in the course of his studies
came across the problem, quite accidentally, as he himself tells us, of the
relation between the Jews and modern capitalism. The topic fascinated him, and
he set about inquiring what that relationship precisely was. The results of his
labours were published in the book[2] of which this is an English edition. The English version
is slightly shorter than the German original. The portions that have been left
out (with the author’s concurrence) are not very long and relate to general
technical questions, such as the modern race theory or the early history of
credit instruments. Furthermore, everything found within square brackets has
been added by the translator. My best thanks are due to my wife, who has been
constantly helpful with suggestions and criticisms, and to my friend Leon Simon
for the verse rendering on pp. 000–000.
M. E. London,
Two possible methods may be used to discover to what extent any
group of people participated in a particular form of economic organization. One
is the statistical; the other may be termed the genetic.
By means of the first we endeavour to ascertain the actual number
of persons taking part in some economic activity—say, those who establish trade
with a particular country, or who found any given industry—and then we
calculate what percentage is represented by the members of the group in which
we happen to be interested. There is no doubt that the statistical method has
many advantages. A pretty clear conception of the relative importance for any
branch of commerce of, let us say, foreigners or Jews, is at once evolved if we
are able to show by actual figures that 50 or 75 per cent of all the persons
engaged in that branch belong to either the first or the second category named.
More especially is this apparent when statistical information is forthcoming,
not only as to the number of persons but also concerning other or more striking
economic factors—e.g., the amount of paid-up capital, the quantity of
the commodities produced, the size of the turnover, and so forth. It will be
useful, therefore, to adopt the statistical method in questions such as the one
we have set ourselves. But at the same time it will soon become evident that by
its aid alone the complete solution cannot be found. In the first place, even
the best statistics do not tell us everything; nay, often the most important
aspect of what we are trying to discover is omitted. Statistics are silent as
to the dynamic effects which strong individualities produce in economic, as indeed in all
human life—effects
which have consequences reaching far beyond the limits of their immediate
surroundings. Their actual importance for the general tendency of any
particular development is greater far than any set of figures can reveal.
Therefore the statistical method must be supplemented by some other.
But more than this. The statistical method, owing to lack of
information, cannot always be utilized. It is indeed a lucky accident that we
possess figures recording the number of those engaged in any industry or trade,
and showing their comparative relation to the rest of the population. But a
statistical study of this kind, on a large scale, is really only a possibility
for modern and future times. Even then the path of the investigator is beset by
difficulties. Still, a careful examination of various sources, including the
assessments made by Jewish communities on their members, may lead to fruitful
results. I hope that this book will give an impetus to such studies, of which,
at the present time, there is only one that is really useful—the enquiry of
Sigmund Mayr, of Vienna.
When all is said, therefore, the other method (the genetic), to
which I have already alluded, must be used to supplement the results of
statistics. What is this method? We wish to discover to what extent a group of
people (the Jews) influence or have influenced the form and development of
modern economic life—to discover, that is, their qualitative or, as I have
already called it, their dynamic importance. We can do this best of all by
enquiring whether certain characteristics that mark our modern economic life
were given their first form by Jews, i.e., either that some particular
form of organization was first introduced by the Jews, or that some well-known
business principles, now accepted on all hands as fundamental, are specific
expressions of the Jewish spirit. This of necessity demands that the history of
the factors in economic development should be traced to their earliest
beginnings. In other words, we must study the childhood of the modern
capitalistic system, or, at any rate, the age in which it received its modern
form. But not the childhood only: its whole history must be considered. For
throughout, down to these very days, new elements are constantly entering the
fabric of capitalism and changes appear in its characteristics. Wherever such
are noted our aim must be to discover to whose influence they are due. Often
enough this will not be easy; sometimes it will even be impossible; and scientific
imagination must come to the aid of the scholar.
Another point should not be overlooked. In many cases the people who are responsible
for a fundamental idea or innovation in economic life are not always the inventors (using
that word in its narrowest meaning). It has often been asserted that the Jews
have no inventive powers; that not only technical but also economic discoveries
were made by non-Jews alone, and that the Jews have always been able cleverly
to utilize the ideas of others. I dissent from this general view in its
entirety. We meet with Jewish inventors in the sphere of technical science, and
certainly in that of economics, as I hope to show in this work. But even if the
assertion which we have mentioned were true, it would prove nothing against the
view that Jews have given certain aspects of economic life the specific
features they bear. In the economic world it is not so much the inventors that
matter as those who are able to apply the inventions: not those who conceive
ideas (e.g., the hire-purchase system) as those who can utilize them in
everyday life.
Before proceeding to the problem before us—the share of the Jews
in the work of building up our modern capitalistic system—we must mention one
other point of importance. In a specialized study of this kind Jewish influence
may appear larger than it actually was. That is in the nature of our study,
where the whole problem is looked at from only one point of view. If we were
enquiring into the influence of mechanical inventions on modern economic life
the same would apply: in a monograph that influence would tend to appear larger
than it really was. I mention this point, obvious though it is, lest it be said
that I have exaggerated the part played by the Jews. There were undoubtedly a
thousand and one other causes that helped to make the economic system of our
time what it is. Without the discovery of America and its silver treasures,
without the mechanical inventions of technical science, without the ethnical
peculiarities of modern European nations and their vicissitudes, capitalism
would have been as impossible as without the Jews.
In the long story of capitalism, Jewish influence forms but one
chapter. Its relative importance to the others I shall show in the new edition
of my Modern Capitalism, which I hope to have ready before long.
This caveat will, I trust, help the general reader to a
proper appreciation of the influence of Jews on modern economic life. But it
must be taken in conjunction with another. If on the one hand we are to make some
allowance, should our studies apparently tend to give Jews a preponderating
weight in economic affairs, on the other hand, their contribution is very often
even larger than we are led to believe. For our researches can deal only with
one portion of the problem, seeing that all the material is not available. Who to-day
knows anything definite about the individuals, or groups, who founded this or that industry,
established this or that branch of commerce, first adopted this or that
business principle? And even where we are able to name these pioneers with
certainty, there comes the further question, were they Jews or not?
Jews—that is to say, members of the people who profess the Jewish
faith. And I need hardly add that although in this definition I purposely leave
out any reference to race characteristics, it yet includes those Jews who have
withdrawn from their religious community, and even descendants of such, seeing
that historically they remain Jews. This must be borne in mind, for when we are
determining the influence of the Jew on modern economic life, again and again
men appear on the scene as Christians, who in reality are Jews. They or their
fathers were baptized, that is all. The assumption that many Jews in all ages
changed their faith is not far fetched. We hear of cases from the earliest
Middle Ages; in Italy, in the 7th and 8th centuries; at the same period in
Spain and in the Merovingian kingdoms; and from that time to this we find them
among all Christian nations. In the last third of the 19th century, indeed,
wholesale baptisms constantly occurred. But we have reliable figures for the
last two or three decades only, and I am therefore inclined to doubt the
statement of Jacob Fromer that towards the end of the twenties in last century
something like half the Jews of Berlin had gone over to Christianity.1 Equally improbable is the view of Dr. Wemer,
Rabbi in Munich, who, in a paper which he recently read, stated that altogether
120,000 Jews have been baptized in Berlin. The most reliable figures we have
are all against such a likelihood. According to these, it was in the nineties
that apostasy on a large scale first showed itself, and even then the highest
annual percentage never exceeded 1.28 (in 1905), while the average percentage
per annum (since 1895) was 1. Nevertheless, the number of Jews in Berlin
who from 1873 to 1906 went over to Christianity was not small; their total was
1869 precisely.2
The tendency to apostasy is stronger among Austrian Jews,
especially among those of Vienna. At the present time, between five and six
hundred Jews in that city renounce their faith every year, and from 1868 to
1903 there have been no less than 9085. The process grows apace; in the years
1868 to 1879 there was on an average one baptism annually for every 1200 Jews;
in the period 1880 to 1889 it was one for 420–430 Jews; while between 1890 and
1903 it had reached one for every 260– 270.3
But the renegade Jews are not the only group whose influence on
the economic development of our time it is difficult to estimate. There are
others to which the same applies. I am not thinking of the Jewesses who married
into Christian families, and who, though they thus ceased to be Jewish, at any
rate in name, must nevertheless have retained their Jewish characteristics. The
people I have in mind are the crypto-Jews, who played so important a part in
history, and whom we encounter in every century. In some periods they formed a
very large section of Jewry. But their non-Jewish pose was so admirably
sustained that among their contemporaries they passed as Christians or
Mohammedans. We are told, for example, of the Jews of the South of France in
the 15th and 16th centuries, who came originally from Spain and Portugal (and
the description applies to the Marannos everywhere): “They practised all the
outward forms of Catholicism; their births, marriages and deaths were entered
on the registers of the church, and they received the sacraments of baptism,
marriage and extreme unction. Some even took orders and became priests.”4 No wonder then that they do not appear as Jews
in the reports of commercial enterprises, industrial undertakings and so forth.
Some historians even to-day speak in admiring phrase of the beneficial
influence of Spanish or Portuguese “immigrants.” So skillfully did the
crypto-Jews hide their racial origin that specialists in the field of Jewish
history are still in doubt as to whether a certain family was Jewish or not.5 In those cases where they adopted Christian
names, the uncertainty is even greater. There must have been a large number of
Jews among the Protestant refugees in the 17th century. General reasons would
warrant this assumption, but when we take into consideration the numerous
Jewish names found among the Huguenots the probability is strong indeed.6
Finally, our enquiries will not be able to take any account of
all those Jews who, prior to 1848, took an active part in the economic life of
their time, but who were unknown to the authorities. The laws forbade Jews to
exercise their callings. They were therefore compelled to do so, either under
cover of some fictitious Christian person or under the protection of a
“privileged” Jew, or they were forced to resort to some other trick in order to
circumvent the law. Reliable authorities are of opinion that the number of Jews
who in many a town lived secretly in this way must have been exceedingly large.
In the forties of last century, for example, it is said that no less than
12,000 Jews, at a moderate estimate, were to be found in Vienna. The wholesale
textile trade was at that
time already in their hands, and entire districts in the centre of the city
were full of Jewish shops. But the official list of traders of 1845 contained
in an appendix the names of only sixty-three Jews, who were described as
“tolerated Jewish traders,” and these were allowed to deal only in a limited
number of articles.7
But enough. My point was to show that, for many and various
reasons, the number of Jews of whom we hear is less than those who actually
existed. The reader should therefore bear in mind that the contribution of the
Jews to the fabric of modern economic life will, of necessity, appear smaller
than it was in reality.
What that contribution was we shall now proceed to show.
One of the most important
facts in the growth of modern economic life is the removal of the centre of
economic activity from the nations of Southern Europe — the Italians, Spaniards
and Portuguese, with whom must also be reckoned some South German lands — to
those of the North-West — the Dutch, the French, the English and the North
Germans. The epoch-making event in the process was Holland’s sudden rise to
prosperity, and this was the impetus for the development of the economic
possibilities of France and England. All through the 17th century the
philosophic speculators and the practical politicians among the nations of
North-Western Europe had but one aim: to imitate Holland in commerce, in
industry, in shipping and in colonization.
The most ludicrous explanations of this well-known fact have been
suggested by historians. It has been said, for example, that the cause which
led to the economic decline of Spain and Portugal and of the Italian and South
German city states was the discovery of America and of the new route to the
East Indies; that the same cause lessened the volume of the commerce of the
Levant, and therefore undermined the position of the Italian commercial cities
which depended upon it. But this explanation is not in any way satisfactory. In
the first place, Levantine commerce maintained its pre-eminence throughout the
whole of the 17th and 18th centuries, and during this period the prosperity of
the maritime cities in the South of France, as well as that of Hamburg, was
very closely bound up with it. In the second place, a number of Italian towns,
Venice among them, which in the 17th century lost all their importance,
participated to a large extent in the trade of the Levant in the 16th century,
and that despite the neglect of the trade route. It is a little difficult to
understand why the nations which had played a leading part until the 15th
century — the Italians, the Spaniards, the Portuguese — should have suffered in
the least because of the new commercial relations with America and the East
Indies, or why they should have been placed at any disadvantage by their
geographical position as compared with that of the French, the English or the
Dutch. As though the way from Genoa to America or the West Indies were not the
same as from Amsterdam or London or Hamburg! As though the Spanish and
Portuguese ports were not the nearest to the new lands — lands which had been
discovered by Italians and Portuguese, and had been taken possession of by the
Portuguese and the Spaniards!
Equally unconvincing is another reason which is often given. It
is asserted that the countries of North-Western Europe were strong consolidated
states, while Germany and Italy were disunited, and accordingly the former were
able to take up a stronger position than the latter. Here, too, we ask in
wonder whether the powerful Queen of the Adriatic was a weaker state in the
16th century than the Seven Provinces in the 17th? And did not the empire of
Philip II excel all the kingdoms of his time in power and renown? Why was it,
moreover, that, although Germany was in a state of political disruption,
certain of its cities, like Hamburg or Frankfort-on-the-Main, reached a high
degree of development in the 17th and 18th centuries, such as few French or English
cities could rival?
This is not the place to go into the question in all its
many-sidedness. A number of causes contributed to bring about the results we
have mentioned. But from the point of view of our problem one possibility
should not be passed over which, in my opinion, deserves most serious
consideration, and which, so far as I know, has not yet been thought of. Cannot
we bring into connexion the shifting of the economic centre from Southern to
Northern Europe with the wanderings of the Jews? The mere suggestion at once
throws a flood of light on the events of those days, hitherto shrouded in
semi-darkness. It is indeed surprising that the parallelism has not before been
observed between Jewish wanderings and settlement on the one hand, and the economic
vicissitudes of the different peoples and states on the other. Israel passes
over Europe like the sun: at its coming new life bursts forth; at its going all
falls into decay. A short résumé of the changing fortunes of the Jewish people
since the 15th century will lend support to this contention.
The first event to be recalled, an event of world-wide import, is
the expulsion of the Jews from
It was by a remarkable stroke of fate that these two occurrences,
equally portentous in their significance — the opening-up of new continents and
the mightiest upheavals in the distribution of the Jewish people—should have
coincided. But the expulsion of the Jews from the Pyrenean Peninsula did not
altogether put an end to their history there. Numerous Jews remained behind as
pseudo-Christians (Marannos), and it was only as the Inquisition, from the days
of Philip II onwards, became more and more relentless that these Jews were
forced to leave the land of their birth.2 During
the centuries that followed, and especially towards the end of the 16th, the
Spanish and Portuguese Jews settled in other countries. It was during this
period that the doom of the economic prosperity of the Pyrenean Peninsula was
sealed.
With the 15th century came the expulsion of the Jews from the
German commercial cities — from Cologne (1424–5), from Augsburg (1439–40), from
Strassburg (1438), from Erfurt (1458), from Nuremberg (1498–9), from Ulm
(1499), and from Ratisbon (1519).
The same fate overtook them in the 16th century in a number of
Italian cities. They were driven from Sicily (1492), from Naples (1540– 1), from
Genoa and from Venice (1550). Here also economic decline and Jewish emigration
coincided in point of time.
On the other hand, the rise to economic importance, in some cases
quite unexpectedly, of the countries and towns whither the refugees fled, must
be dated from the first appearance of the Spanish Jews. A good example is that
of
In France in the 17th and 18th centuries the rising towns were
Marseilles, Bordeaux, Rouen — again the havens of refuge of the Jewish exiles.6
As for Holland, it is well-known that at the end of the 16th
century a sudden upward development (in the capitalistic sense) took place
there. The first Portuguese Marannos settled in Amsterdam in 1593, and very
soon their numbers increased. The first synagogue in Amsterdam was opened in
1598, and by about the middle of the 17th century there were Jewish communities
in many Dutch cities. In Amsterdam, at the beginning of the 18th century, the estimated
number of Jews was 2400.7 But even by the
middle of the 17th century their intellectual influence was already marked; the
writers on international law and the political philosophers speak of the
ancient Hebrew commonwealth as an ideal which the Dutch constitution might well
seek to emulate.8 The Jews themselves
called Amsterdam at that time their grand New Jerusalem.9 Many of the Dutch settlers had come from the Spanish
Netherlands, especially from Antwerp, whither they had fled on their expulsion
from Spain. It is true that the proclamations of 1532 and 1539 forbade the
pseudo-Christians to remain in Antwerp, but they proved ineffective. The
prohibition was renewed in 1550, but this time it referred only to those who
had not been domiciled for six years. But this too remained a dead letter: “the
crypto-Jews are increasing from day to day.” They took an active part in the
struggle for freedom in which the Netherlands were engaged, and its result
forced them to wander to the more northerly provinces.10 Now it is a remarkable thing that the brief space during which
Antwerp became the commercial centre and the money-market of the world should
have been just that between the coming and the going of the Marannos.11
It was the same in England. The economic development of the
country, in other words, the growth of capitalism,12
ran parallel with the influx of Jews, mostly of Spanish andPortuguese
origin.13
It was believed that there were no Jews in England from the time
of their expulsion under Edward I (1290) until their more or less officially
recognized return under Cromwell (1654–56). The best authorities on
Anglo-Jewish history are now agreed that this is a mistake. There were always
Jews in England; but not till the 16th century did they begin to be numerous.
Already in the reign of Elizabeth many were met with, and the Queen herself had
a fondness for Hebrew studies and for intercourse with Jews. Her own physician
was a Jew, Rodrigo Lopez, on whom Shakespeare modelled his Shylock. Later on,
as is generally known, the Jews, as a result of the efforts of Manasseh ben
Israel, obtained the right of unrestricted domicile. Their numbers were
increased by further streams of immigrants including, after the 18th century,
Jews from Germany, until, according to the author of the Anglia Judaica, there were 6000 Jews in London alone in the year
1738.14
When all is said, however, the fact that the migration of the
Jews and the economic vicissitudes of peoples were coincident events does not
necessarily prove that the arrival of Jews in any land was the only cause of
its rise or their departure the only cause of its decline. To assert as much
would be to argue on the fallacy “post hoc, ergo propter hoc.” Nor are the
arguments of later historians on this subject conclusive, and therefore I will
not mention any in support of my thesis.15 But
the opinions of contemporaries always, as I think, deserve attention. So I will
acquaint the reader with some of them, for very often a word suffices to throw
a flood of light on their age.
When the Senate of Venice, in 1550, decided to expel the Marannos
and to forbid commercial intercourse with them, the Christian merchants of the
city declared that it wouldmean their ruin and that they might as well leave
Venice with the exiles, seeing that they made their living by trading with the
Jews. The Jews controlled the Spanish wool trade, the trade in Spanish silk and
crimsons, sugar, pepper, Indian spices and pearls. A great part of the entire
export trade was carried on by Jews, who supplied the Venetians with goods to
be sold on commission; and they were also bill-brokers.16
In England the Jews found a protector in Cromwell, who was
actuated solely by considerations of an economic nature. He believed that he
would need the wealthy Jewish merchants to extend the financial and commercial
prosperity of the country. Nor was he blind to the usefulness of having moneyed
support for the government.17
Like Cromwell, Colbert, the great French statesman of the 17th
century, was also sympathetically inclined towards the Jews, and in my opinion
it is of no small significance that these two organizers, both of whom
consolidated modern European states, should have been so keenly alive to the
fitness of the Jew in aiding the economic (i.e.,
capitalistic) progress of a country. In one of his Ordinances to the
Intendant of Languedoc, Colbert points out what great benefits the city of
Marseilles derived from the commercial capabilities of the Jews.18 The inhabitants of the great French trading
centres in which the Jews played an important role were in no need of being
taught the lesson; they knew it from their own experience and, accordingly,
they brought all their influence to bear on keeping their Jewish
fellow-citizens within their walls. Again and again we hear laudatory accounts
of the Jews, more especially from the inhabitants of Bordeaux. In 1675 an army
of mercenaries ravaged Bordeaux, and many of the rich Jews prepared to depart.
The Town Council was terrified, and the report presented by its members is worth
quoting. “The Portuguese who occupy whole streets and do considerable business
have asked for their passports. They and those aliens who do a very large trade
are resolved to leave; indeed, the wealthiest among them, Gaspar Gonzales and
Alvares, have already departed. We are very much afraid that commerce will
cease altogether.”19 A few years later the
Sous-Intendant of Languedoc summed up the situation in the words “without them
(the Jews) the trade of Bordeaux and of the whole province would be inevitably
ruined.”20
We have already seen how the fugitives from the Iberian Peninsula
in the 16th century streamed into Antwerp, the commercial metropolis of the
Spanish Netherlands. About the middle of the century, the Emperor in a decree
dated
Antwerp lost no small part of its former glory by reason of the
departure of the Jews, and in the 17th century especially it was realized how
much they contributed to bring about material prosperity. In 1653 a committee
was appointed to consider the question whether the Jews should be allowed into
Antwerp, and it expressed itself on the matter in the following terms: “And as
for the inconveniences which are to be feared and apprehended in the public
interest — that they (the Jews) will attract to themselves all trade, that they
will be guilty of a thousand frauds and tricks, and that by their usury they
will devour the wealth of good Catholics — it seems to us on the contrary that
by the trade which they will expand far beyond its present limits the benefit
derived will be for the good of the whole land, and gold and silver will be
available in greater quantities for the needs of the state.”22
The Dutch in the 17th century required no such recommendations;
they were fully alive to the gain which the Jews brought. When Manasseh ben
Israel left Amsterdam on his famous mission to England, the Dutch Government
became anxious; they feared lest it should be a question of transplanting the
Dutch Jews to England, and they therefore instructed Neuport, their ambassador
in London, to sound Manasseh as to his intentions. He reported (December 1655)
that all was well, and that there was no cause for apprehension. “Manasseh ben
Israel hath been to see me, and did assure me that he doth not desire anything
for the Jews in Holland but only for those as sit in the Inquisition in Spain
and Portugal.”23
It is the same tale in Hamburg. In the 17th century the
importance of the Jews had grown to such an extent that they were regarded as
indispensable to the growth of Hamburg’s prosperity. On one occasion the Senate
asked that permission should be given for synagogues to be built, otherwise,
they feared, the Jews would leave Hamburg, and the city might then be in danger
of sinking to a mere village.24 On another
occasion, in 1697, when it was suggested that the Jews should be expelled, the
merchants earnestly entreated the Senate for help, in order to prevent the
serious endangering of Hamburg’s commerce.25 Again,
in 1733, in a special report, now in the Archives of the Senate, we may read:
“In bill-broking, in trade with jewellery and braid and in the manufacture of
certain cloths the Jews have almost a complete mastery, and have surpassed our
own people. In the past there was no need to take cognizance of them, but now
they are increasing in numbers. There is no section of the great merchant
class, the manufacturers and those who supply commodities for daily needs, but
the Jews form an important element therein. They have become a necessary evil.”26 To the callings enumerated in which the Jews
took a prominent part, we must add that of marine insurance brokers.27
So much for the judgment of contemporaries. But as a complete
proof even that will not serve. We must form our own judgment from the facts,
and therefore our first aim must be to seek these out. That means that we must
find from the original sources what contributions the Jews made to the
building-up of our modern economic life from the end of the 15th century onward
— the period, that is, when Jewish history and general European economic
progress both tended in the same direction. We shall then also be able to state
definitely to what extent the Jews influenced the shifting of the centre of
economic life.
My own view is, as I may say in anticipation, that the importance
of the Jews was twofold. On the one hand, they influenced the outward form of
modern capitalism; on the other, they gave expression to its inward spirit.
Under the first heading, the Jews contributed no small share in giving to
economic relations the international aspect they bear to-day; in helping the
modern state, that framework of capitalism, to become what it is; and lastly,
in giving the capitalistic organization its peculiar features, by inventing a
good many details of the commercial machinery which moves the business life of
to-day, and co-operating in the perfecting of others. Under the second heading,
the importance of the Jews is so enormous because they, above all others,
endowed economic life with its modern spirit; they seized upon the essential
idea of capitalism and carried it to its fullest development.
We shall consider these points in turn, in order to obtain a
proper notion of the problem. Our intention is to do no more than ask a
question or two, and here and there to suggest an answer. We want merely to set
the reader thinking. It will be for later research to gather sufficient
material by which to judge whether, and to what extent, the views as to cause
and effect here propounded have any foundation in actual fact.
The transformation of European commerce which has taken place
since the shifting of the centre of economic activity owed a tremendous debt to
the Jews. If we consider nothing but the quantity of commodities that passed through their
hands, their position is unique. Exact statistics are, as I have already
remarked, almost non-existent; special research may, however, bring some
figures to light that will be useful. At present there is, to my knowledge,
only some slight material on this head, but its value cannot be overestimated.
It would appear that even before their formal admission into
England—that is, in the first half of the 17th century—the extent of the trade
in the hands of Jews totalled one-twelfth of that of the whole kingdom.1 Unfortunately we are not told on what
authority this calculation rests, but that it cannot be far from the truth is
apparent from a statement in a petition of the merchants of London. The
question was whether Jews should pay the duty on imports levied on foreigners.
The petitioners point out that if the Jews were exempted, the Crown would
sustain a loss of ten thousand pounds annually.2
We are remarkably well informed as to the proportion of trading
done by Jews at the Leipzig fairs,3 and as
these were for a long period the centre of German commerce, we have here a
standard by which to measure its intensive and extensive development. But not
alone for
It is only since the Easter fair of 1756 that we are able to
compare the Jewish with the Christian traders, as far as numbers are concerned,
for it is only from that date that the Archives possess statistics of the
latter. The average number of Jews attending the Leipzig fair was as follows:—
|
1675-1680 416 1681-1690 489 1691-1691 834 1701-1710 854 1711-1720 769 1721-1730 899 1731-1740 874 1741-1748 708 |
1767-1769 995 1770-1779 1652 1780-1789 1073 1790-1799 1473 1800-1809 3370 1810-1819 4896 1820-1829 3747 1830-1839 6444 |
Note especially the speedy increase towards the end of the 17th
and 18th centuries and also at the beginning of the 19th.
If we glance at the period 1766 to 1839, we see that the fairs
were visited annually by an average of 3185 Jews and 13,005 Christians—that is
to say, the Jews form 24.49 per cent, or nearly one-quarter of the total number
of Christian merchants. Indeed, in some years, as for example between 1810 and
1820, the Jewish visitors form 33% per cent of the total of their colleagues
(4896 Jews and 14,366 Christians). This is significant enough, and there is no
need to lay stress on the fact that in all probability the figures given in the
table are underestimated.
The share taken by Jews in the commerce of a country may
sometimes be ascertained by indirect means. We know, for example, that the
trade of Hamburg with Spain and Portugal, and also with Holland, in the 17th
century was almost entirely in the hands of the Jews.5 Now some 20 per cent. of the ships’ cargoes leaving Hamburg
were destined for the Iberian Peninsula, and some 30 per cent for Holland.6
Take another instance. The Levant trade was the most important
branch of French commerce in the 18th century. A contemporary authority informs
us that it was entirely controlled by Jews—“buyers, sellers, middlemen,
bill-brokers, agents and so forth were all Jews.”7
In the 16th and 17th centuries, and even far into the 18th, the
trade of the Levant as well as that with, and via, Spain and Portugal,
was the broadest stream in the world’s commerce. This mere generalization goes
far to prove how preeminent, from the purely quantitative point of view, the
Jews were in forwarding the development of international intercourse. Already
in Spain the Jews had managed to obtain control of the greater portion of the
Levant trade, and everywhere in the Levantine ports Jewish offices and
warehouses were to be found. Many Spanish Jews at the time of the expulsion
from Spain settled in the East; the others journeyed northwards. So it came
about that almost imperceptibly the Levantine trade became associated with the
more northerly peoples. In Holland, more especially, is the effect of this seen: Holland
became a commercial country of world-wide influence. Altogether, the commercial
net, so to say, became bigger and stronger in proportion as the Jews
established their offices, on the one hand further afield, on the other in
closer proximity to each other.8 More
particularly was this the case when the Western Hemisphere—largely through
Jewish influence—was drawn into the commerce of the world. We shall have more
to say on this aspect of the question in connexion with the part the Jews
played in colonial foundations.
Another means by which we may gain a clear conception of what the
Jews did for the extension of modern commerce is to discover the kind of
commodities in which they for the most part traded. The quality of the commerce
matters more than its quantity. It was by the character of their trade that
they partially revolutionized the older forms, and thus helped to make commerce
what it is to-day.
Here we are met by a striking fact. The Jews for a long time
practically monopolized the trade in articles of luxury, and to the fashionable
world of the aristocratic 17th and 18th centuries this trade was of supreme
moment. What sort of commodities, then, did the Jews specialize in? Jewellery,
precious stones, pearls and silks.9 Gold
and silver jewellery, because they had always been prominent in the market for
precious metals. Pearls and stones, because they were among the first to settle
in those lands (especially Brazil) where these are to be found; and silks,
because of their ancient connexions with the trading centres of the Orient.
Moreover, Jews were to be found almost entirely, or at least
predominantly, in such branches of trade as were concerned with exportation on
a large scale. Nay, I believe it may with justice be asserted that the Jews
were the first to place on the world’s markets the staple articles of modern
commerce. Side by side with the products of the soil, such as wheat, wool,
flax, and, later on, distilled spirits, they dealt throughout the 18th century
specially in textiles,10 the output of a
rapidly growing capitalistic industry, and in those colonial products which for
the first time became articles of international trade, viz., sugar and tobacco.
I have little doubt that when the history of commerce in modern times comes to
be written Jewish traders will constantly be met with in connexion with
enterprises on a large scale. The references which quite by accident have come
under my notice are already sufficient to prove the truth of this assertion.11
Perhaps the most far-reaching, because the most revolutionary,
influence of the Jews on the development of economic life was due to their
trade in new commodities, in the preparation of which new methods supplanted
the old. We may mention cotton,12 cotton
goods of foreign make, indigo and so forth.13 Dealing
in these articles was looked upon at the time as “spoiling sport,” and
therefore Jews were taunted by one German writer with carrying on “unpatriotic
trade”14 or “Jew-commerce, which gave
little employment to German labour, and depended for the most part on home
consumption only.”15
Another great characteristic of “Jew-commerce,” one which all
later commerce took for its model, was its variety and many-sidedness. When in
1740 the merchants of Montpelier complained of the competition of the Jewish
traders, the Intendant replied that if they, the Christians, had such
well-assorted stocks as the Jews, customers would come to them as willingly as
they went to their Jewish competitors.16 We
hear the same of the Jews at the Leipzig fairs: “The Jewish traders had a
beneficial influence on the trade of the fairs, in that their purchases were so
varied. Thus it was the Jews who tended to make trade many-sided and forced
industry (especially the home industries) to develop in more than one
direction. Indeed, at many fairs the Jews became the arbiters of the market by
reason of their extensive purchases.”17
But the greatest characteristic of “Jew-commerce” during the
earlier capitalistic age was, to my mind, the supremacy which Jewish traders
obtained, either directly or by way of Spain and Portugal, in the lands from
which it was possible to draw large supplies of ready money. I am thinking of
the newly discovered gold and silver countries in Central and South America.
Again and again we find it recorded that Jews brought ready money into the
country.18 The theoretical speculator and
the practical politician knew well enough that here was the source of all
capitalistic development. We too, now that the mists of Adam Smith’s doctrines
have lifted, have realized the same thing. The establishment of modern economic
life meant, for the most part, and of necessity, the obtaining of the precious
metals, and in this work no one was so successfully engaged as the Jewish
traders. This leads us at once to the subject of the next chapter, which deals
with the share of the Jews in colonial expansion.
We are only now beginning to realize that colonial expansion was
no small force in the development of modern capitalism. It is the purpose of
this chapter to show that in the work of that expansion the Jews played, if not
the most decisive, at any rate a most prominent part.
That the Jews should have been keen colonial settlers was only
natural, seeing that the New World, though it was but the Old in a new garb,
seemed to hold out a greater promise of happiness to them than crossgrained old
Europe, more especially when their last Dorado (Spain) proved an inhospitable
refuge. And this applies equally to all colonial enterprises, whether in the
East or the West or the South of the globe. There were probably many Jews
resident in the
It is as yet unknown to what extent the Jews shared in the growth
of economic life in India after the English became masters there. We have,
however, fairly full information as to the participation of the Jews in the
founding of the English colonies in South Africa and Australia. There is no
doubt that in these regions (more particularly in Cape Colony), wellnigh all
economic development was due to the Jews. In the twenties and thirties of the
19th century Benjamin Norden and Simon Marks came to South Africa, and “the
industrial awakening of almost the whole interior of Cape Colony” was their
work. Julius Mosenthal and his brothers Adolph and James established the trade
in wool, skins, and mohair. Aaron and Daniel de Pass monopolized the whaling
industry; Joel Myers commenced ostrich fanning. Lilienfeld, of Hopetown, bought
the first diamonds. 7 Similar leading positions were occupied by the
Jews in the other South African colonies, particularly in the Transvaal, where
it is said that to-day twenty-five of the fifty thousand Jews of South Africa
are settled.8 It is the same story in
Australia, where the first wholesale trader was Montefiore. It would seem to be
no exaggeration therefore that “a large proportion of the English colonial
shipping trade was for a considerable time in the hands of the Jews.”9
But the real sphere of Jewish influence in colonial settlements,
especially in the early capitalistic period, was in the Western Hemisphere.
America in all its borders is a land of Jews. That is the result to which a
study of the sources must inevitably lead, and it is pregnant with meaning.
From the first day of its discovery
The very discovery of America is most intimately bound up with
the Jews in an extraordinary fashion. It is as though the New World came into
the horizon by their aid and for them alone, as though Columbus and the rest
were but managing directors for Israel. It is in this light that Jews, proud of
their past, now regard the story of that discovery, as set forth in the latest
researches.11 These would seem to show
that it was the scientific knowledge of Jewish scholars which so perfected the
art of navigation that voyages across the ocean became at all possible. Abraham
Zacuto, Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at the University of Salamanca,
completed his astronomical tables and diagrams, the Almanach perpetuum, in
1473. On the basis of these tables two other Jews, Jose Vecuho, who was Court astronomer
and physician to John II of Portugal, and one Moses the Mathematician (in
collaboration with two Christian scholars), discovered the nautical astrolabe,
an instrument by which it became possible to measure from the altitude of the
sun the distance of a ship from the Equator. Jose further translated the
Almanack of his master into Latin and Spanish.
The scientific facts which prepared the way for the voyage of
Columbus were thus supplied by Jews. The money which was equally necessary came
from the same quarter, at any rate as regards his first two voyages. For the
first voyage, Columbus obtained a loan from Louis de Santangel, who was of the King’s
Council; and it was to Santangel, the patron of the expedition, and to Gabriel
Saniheg, a Maranno, the Treasurer of Aragon, that the first two letters of
Columbus were addressed. The second voyage was also undertaken with the aid of
Jewish money, this time certainly not voluntarily contributed. On their
expulsion from Spain in 1492, the Jews were compelled to leave much treasure
behind; this was seized by Ferdinand for the State Exchequer, and with a
portion of it Columbus was financed.
But more than that. A number of Jews were among the companions of
Columbus, and the first European to set foot on American soil was a Jew—Louis
de Torres. So the latest researches would have us believe. 12
But what caps all—Columbus himself is claimed to have been a Jew.
I give this piece of information for what it is worth, without guaranteeing its
accuracy. At a meeting of the Geographical Society of Madrid, Don Celso Garcia
de la Riega, a scholar famous for his researches on
Scarcely were the doors of the New World opened to Europeans than
crowds of Jews came swarming in. We have already seen that the discovery of
America took place in the year in which the Jews of Spain became homeless, that
the last years of the 15th century and the early years of the 16th were a
period in which millions of Jews were forced to become wanderers, when European
Jewry was like an antheap into which a stick had been thrust. Little wonder, therefore,
that a great part of this heap betook itself to the New World, where the future
seemed so bright. The
first traders in America were Jews. The first industrial establishments in
America were those of Jews. Already in the year 1492 Portuguese Jews settled in
St. Thomas, where they were the first plantation owners on a large scale; they
set up many sugar factories and gave employment to nearly three thousand
Negroes.13 And as for Jewish emigration to
South America, almost as soon as it was discovered, the stream was so great
that Queen Joan in 1511 thought it necessary to take measures to stem it.14 But her efforts must have been without avail,
for the number of Jews increased, and finally, on
In order to do full justice to the unceasing activity of the Jews
in South America as founders of colonial commerce and industry, it will be
advisable to glance at the fortunes of one or two colonies.
The history of the Jews in the American colonies, and therefore
the history of the colonies themselves, falls into two periods, separated by
the expulsion of the Jews from Brazil in 1654.
We have already mentioned the establishment of the sugar industry
in St. Thomas by Jews in 1492. By the year 1550 this industry had reached the
height of its development on the island. There were sixty plantations with
sugar mills and refineries, producing annually, as may be seen from the tenth
part paid to the King, 150,000 arrobes of sugar.15
From St. Thomas, or possibly from Madeira,16 where they had for a long time been engaged in the sugar
trade, the Jews transplanted the industry to Brazil, the largest of the
American colonies. Brazil thus entered on its first period of prosperity, for
the growth of the sugar industry brought with it the growth of the national
wealth. In those early years the colony was populated almost entirely by Jews
and criminals, two shiploads of them being brought thither annually from
Portugal.17 The Jews quickly became the
dominant class, “a not inconsiderable number of the wealthiest Brazilian
traders were New Christians.”18 The first
Governor-General was of Jewish origin, and he it was who brought order into the
government of the colony. It is not too much to say that Portugal’s new
possessions really began to thrive only after Thomé de Souza, a man of
exceptional ability, was sent out in 1549 to take matters in hand.19 Nevertheless the colony did not reach the
zenith of its prosperity until after the influx of rich Jews from Holland,
consequent on the Dutch entering into possession in 1642. In that very year, a
number of American Jews combined to establish a colony in Brazil, and no less
than six hundred influential Dutch Jews joined them.20 Up to about the middle of the 17th century all the large sugar plantations
belonged to Jews,21 and contemporary
travellers report as to their many-sided activities and their wealth. Thus
Nieuhoff, who travelled in Brazil from 1640 to 1649, says of them:22 “Among the free inhabitants of Brazil that
were not in the (Dutch West India) Company’s service the Jews were the most
considerable in number, who had transplanted themselves thither from Holland.
They had a vast traffic beyond the rest; they purchased sugar-mills and built
stately houses in the Receif. They were all traders, which would have been of
great consequence to the Dutch Brazil had they kept themselves within the due
bounds of traffic.” Similarly we read in F. Pyrard’s Travels:29 “The profits they make after being nine or
ten years in those lands are marvellous, for they all come back rich.”
The predominance of Jewish influence in plantation development
outlasted the episode of Dutch rule in Brazil, and continued, despite the
expulsion of 1654,24 down to the first half
of the 11th century.25 On one occasion,
“when a number of the most influential merchants of Rio de Janeiro fell into
the hands of the Holy Office (of the Inquisition), the work on so many
plantations came to a standstill that the production and commerce of the
Province (of Bahio) required a long stretch of time to recover from the blow.”
Later, a decree of the 2nd March 1768 ordered all the registers containing
lists of New Christians to be destroyed, and by a law of 25th March 1773 New
Christians were placed on a footing of perfect civic equality with the
orthodox. It is evident, then, that very many crypto-Jews must have maintained
their prominent position in Brazil even after the Portuguese had regained
possession of it in 1654, and that it was they who brought to the country its
flourishing sugar industry as well as its trade in precious stones.
Despite this, the year 1654 marks an epoch in the annals of
American-Jewish history. For it was in that year that a goodly number of the
Brazilian Jews settled in other parts of America and thereby moved the economic
centre of gravity.
The change was specially profitable to one or two important
islands of the West Indian Archipelago and also to the neighbouring coastlands,
which rose in prosperity from the time of the Jewish influx in the 17th
century. Barbados, which was inhabited almost solely by Jews, is a case in
point.26 It came under English rule in
1627; in 1641 the sugar cane was introduced, and seven years later the
exportation of sugar began. But the sugar industry could not maintain itself.
The sugar produced was so poor in quality that its price was scarcely
sufficient to pay for the
cost of transport to England. Not till the exiled “Dutchmen” from Brazil
introduced the process of refining and taught the natives the art of drying and
crystallizing the sugar did an improvement manifest itself. As a result, the
sugar exports of Barbados increased by leaps and bounds, and in 1661 Charles II
was able to confer baronetcies on thirteen planters, who drew an annual income
of £10,000 from the island. By about the year 1676 the industry there had grown
to such an extent that no fewer than 400 vessels each carrying 180 tons of raw
sugar left annually.
In 1664 Thomas Modyford introduced sugar manufacturing from
Of the other English colonies, the Jews showed a special
preference for Surinam.30 Jews had been
settled there since 1644 and had received a number of privileges—“whereas we
have found that the Hebrew nation … have … proved themselves useful and
beneficial to the colony.” Their privileged position continued under the Dutch,
to whom Surinam passed in 1667. Towards the end of the 17th century their
proportion to the rest of the inhabitants was as one to three, and in 1730 they
owned 115 of the 344 sugar plantations.
The story of the Jews in the English and Dutch colonies finds a
counterpart in the more important French settlements, such as Martinique,
Guadeloupe, and San Domingo.81 Here also
sugar was the source of wealth, and, as in the other cases, the Jews controlled
the industry and were the principal sugar merchants.
The first large plantation and refinery in Martinique was
established in
1655 by Benjamin Dacosta, who had fled thither from Brazil with 900
co-religionists and 1100 slaves.
In San Domingo the sugar industry was introduced as early as
1587, but it was not until the “Dutch” refugees from Brazil settled there that
it attained any degree of success.
In all this we must never lose sight of the fact that in those
critical centuries in which the colonial system was taking root in America (and
with it modern capitalism), the production of sugar was the backbone of the
entire colonial economy, leaving out of account, of course, the mining of
silver, gold and gems in Brazil. Indeed, it is somewhat difiicult exactly to
picture to ourselves the enormous significance in those centuries of
sugar-making and sugar-selling. The Council of Trade in Paris (1701) was guilty
of no exaggerated language when it placed on record its belief that “French
shipping owes its splendour to the commerce of the sugar-producing islands, and
it is only by means of this that the navy can be maintained and strengthened.”
Now, it must be remembered that the Jews had almost monopolized the sugar
trade; the French branch in particular being controlled by the wealthy family
of the Gradis of Bordeaux. 32
The position which the Jews had obtained for themselves in
Central and South America was thus a powerful one. But it became even more so
when towards the end of the 17th century the English colonies in North America
entered into commercial relations with the West Indies. To this close union,
which again Jewish merchants helped to bring about, the North American
Continent (as we shall see) owes its existence. We have thus arrived at the
point where it is essential to consider the Jewish factor in the growth of the
United States from their first origins. Once more Jewish elements combined,
this time to give the United States their ultimate economic form. As this view
is absolutely opposed to that generally accepted (at least in Europe), the
question must receive full consideration.
At first sight it would seem as if the economic system of North
America was the very one that developed independently of the Jews. Often
enough, when I have asserted that modern capitalism is nothing more or less
than an expression of the Jewish spirit, I have been told that the history of
the United States proves the contrary. The Yankees themselves boast of the fact
that they throve without the Jews. It was an American writer—Mark Twain, if I
mistake not—who once considered at some length why the Jews played no great
part in the States, giving
as his reason that the Americans were as “smart” as the Jews, if not smarter.
(The Scotch, by the way, think the same of themselves.) Now, it is true that we
come across no very large number of Jewish names to-day among the big captains
of industry, the well-known speculators, or the Trust magnates in the country.
Nevertheless, I uphold my assertion that the United States (perhaps more than
any other land) are filled to the brim with the Jewish spirit. This is
recognized in many quarters, above all in those best capable of forming a
judgment on the subject. Thus, a few years ago, at the magnificent celebration
of the 250th anniversary of the first settlement of the Jews in the United
States, President Roosevelt sent a congratulatory letter to the Organizing
Committee. In this he said that that was the first time during his tenure of
office that he had written a letter of the kind, but that the importance of the
occasion warranted him in making an exception. The persecution to which the
Jews were then subjected made it an urgent duty for him to lay stress on the
splendid civic qualities which men of the Jewish faith and race had developed
ever since they came into the country. In mentioning the services rendered by
Jews to the United States he used an expression which goes to the root of the
matter—“The Jews participated in the up-building of this country.”33 On the same occasion ex-President Cleveland
remarked: “I believe that it can be safely claimed that few, if any, of those
contributing nationalities have directly and indirectly been more influential
in giving shape and direction to the Americanism of to-day.”34
Wherein does this Jewish influence manifest itself? In the first
place, the number of Jews who took part in American business life was never so
small as would appear at the first glance. It is a mistake to imagine that
because there are no Jews among the half-dozen well-known multimillionaires,
male and female, who on account of the noise they make in the world are on all
men’s lips, therefore American capitalism necessarily lacks a Jewish element.
To begin with, even among the big Trusts there are some directed by Jewish
hands and brains. Thus, the Smelters’ Trust, which in 1904 represented a
combination with a nominal capital of 201,000,000 dollars, was the creation of
Jews—the Guggenheims. Thus, too, in the Tobacco Trust (500,000,000 dollars), in
the Asphalt Trust, in the Telegraph Trust, to mention but a few, Jews occupy
commanding positions.36 Again, very many
of the large banking-houses belong to Jews, who in consequence exercise no
small control over American economic life. Take the Harriman system, which had
for its goal the fusion
of all the American railways. It was backed to a large extent by
Kuhn, Loeb & Co., the well-known banking firm of New York.
Especially influential are the Jews in the West California is for the most part
their creation. At the foundation of the State Jews obtained distinction as
Judges, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, and so on, and last but not least, as
business men. The brothers Seligman—William, Henry, Jesse and James—of San
Francisco; Louis Sloss and Lewis Gerstle of Sacramento (where they established
the Alaska Commercial Company), Hellman and Newmark of Los Angeles, are some of
the more prominent business houses in this part of the world. During the
gold-mining period Jews were the intermediaries between California and the
Eastern States and Europe. The important transactions of those days were
undertaken by such men as Benjamin Davidson, the agent of the Rothschilds;
Albert Priest, of Rhode Island; Albert Dyer, of Baltimore; the three brothers
Lazard, who established the international banking-house of Lazard Freres of
Paris, London and San Francisco; the Seligmans, the Glaziers and the Wormsers.
Moritz Friedlaender was one of the chief “Wheat kings.” Adolph Sutro exploited
the Cornstock Lodes. Even to-day the majority of the banking businesses, no
less than the general industries, are in the hands of Jews. Thus, we may
mention the London, Paris and American Bank (Sigmund Greenbaum and Richard
Altschul); the Anglo-Californian Bank (Philip N. Lilienthal and Ignatz
Steinhart); the Nevada Bank; the Union Trust Company; the Farmers’ and
Merchants’ Bank of Los Angeles; John Rosenfeld’s control of the coalfields; the
Alaska Commercial Company, which succeeded the Hudson Bay Company; the North
American Commercial Company, and many more.36
It can scarcely be doubted that the immigration of numerous Jews
into all the States during the last few decades must have had a stupendous
effect on American economic life everywhere. Consider that there are more than
a million Jews in New York to-day, and that the greater number of the
immigrants have not yet embarked on a capitalistic career. If the conditions in
America continue to develop along the same lines as in the last generation, if
the immigration statistics and the proportion of births among all the
nationalities remain the same, our imagination may picture the United States of
fifty or a hundred years hence as a land inhabited only by Slavs, Negroes and
Jews, wherein the Jews will naturally occupy the position of economic leadership.
But these are dreams of the future which have no place in this
connexion, where our main concern is with the past and the present. That Jews have taken
a prominent share in American life in the present and in the past may be
conceded; perhaps a more prominent share than would at first sight appear.
Nevertheless, the enormous weight which, in common with many others who have
the right of forming an opinion on the subject, I attach to their influence,
cannot be adequately explained merely from the point of view of their numbers.
It is rather the particular kind of influence that I lay stress on, and this
can be accounted for by a variety of complex causes.
That is why I am not anxious to overemphasize the fact, momentous
enough in itself, that the Jews in America practically control a number of
important branches of commerce; indeed, it is not too much to say that they
monopolize them, or at least did so for a considerable length of time. Take the
wheat trade, especially in the West; take tobacco; take cotton. We see at once
that they who rule supreme in three such mighty industries must perforce take a
leading part in the economic activities of the nation as a whole. For all that
I do not labour this fact, for to my mind the significance of the Jews for the
economic development of the United States lies rooted in causes far deeper than
these.
As the golden thread in the tapestry, so are the Jews interwoven
as a distinct thread throughout the fabric of America’s economic history;
through the intricacy of their fantastic design it received from the very
beginning a pattern all its own.
Since the first quickening of the capitalistic spirit on the
coastlands of the ocean and in the forests and prairies of the New World, Jews
have not been absent; 1655 is usually given as the date of their first
appearance. 37 In that year a vessel with
Jewish emigrants from Brazil, which had become a Portuguese possession,
anchored in the Hudson River, and the passengers craved permission to land in
the colony which the Dutch West India Company had founded there. But they were
no humble petitioners asking for a favour. They came as members of a race which
had participated to a large extent in the new foundation, and the governors of
the colony were forced to recognize their claims. When the ship arrived, New
Amsterdam was under the rule of Stuyvesant, who was no friend to the Jews and
who, had he followed his own inclination, would have closed the door in the
face of the newcomers. But a letter dated
Then their manifold activities began, and it was due to them that
the colonies were able to maintain their existence The entity of the United
States to-day is only possible, as we know, because the English colonies of
North America, thanks to a chain of propitious circumstances, acquired i degree
of power and strength such as ultimately led to their complete independence. In
the building up of this position of supremacy the Jews were among the first and
the keenest workers.
I am not thinking of the obvious fact that the colonies were only
able to achieve their independence by the help of a few wealthy Jewish firms
who laid the economic foundations for the existence of the New Republic. The
United States would never have won complete independence has not the Jews
supplied the needs of their armies and furnished them with the indispensable
sinews of war. But what the Jews accomplished in this direction did not arise out
of specifically American conditions. It was a general phenomenon, met with
throughout the history of the modern capitalistic States, and we shall do
justice to instances of it when dealing with wider issues.
No. What I have in mind is the special service which the Jews
rendered the North American colonies, one peculiar to the American Continent—a
service which indeed gave America birth. I refer to the simple fact that during
the 17th and 18th centuries the trade of the Jews was the source from which the
economic system of the colonies drew its lifeblood. As is well known, England
forced her colonies to purchase all the manufactured articles they needed in
the Mother-country. Hence the balance of trade of the colonies was always an
adverse one, and by constantly having to send money out of the country they
would have been drained dry. But there was a stream which carried the precious
metals into the country, a stream diverted in this direction by the trade of
the Jews with South and Central America. The Jews in the English colonies
maintained active business relations with the West Indian Islands and with
Brazil, resulting in a favourable balance of trade for the land of their
sojourn. The gold mined in South America was thus brought to North America and
helped to keep the economic system in a healthy condition.39
In the face of this fact, is there not some justification for the
opinion that the United States owe their very existence to the Jews? And if
this be so, how much more can it be asserted that Jewish influence made the United States just
what they are—that is, American? For what we call Americanism is nothing else,
if we may say so, than the Jewish spirit distilled.
But how comes it that American culture is so steeped in
Jewishness? The answer is simple—through the early and universal admixture of
Jewish elements among the first settlers. We may picture the process of
colonizing somewhat after this fashion. A band of determined men and women—let
us say twenty families—went forth into the wilds to begin their life anew.
Nineteen were equipped with plough and scythe, ready to clear the forests and
till the soil in order to earn their livelihood as husbandmen. The twentieth
family opened a store to provide their companions with such necessaries of life
as could not be obtained from the soil, often no doubt hawking them at the very
doors. Soon this twentieth family made it its business to arrange for the
distribution of the products which the other nineteen won from the soil. It was
they, too, who were most likely in possession Of ready cash, and in case of
need could therefore be useful to the others by lending them money. Very often
the store had a kind of agricultural loan-bank as its adjunct, perhaps also an
office for the buying and selling of land. So through the activity of the
twentieth family the farmer in North America was from the first kept in touch
with the money and credit system of the Old World. Hence the whole process of
production and exchange was from its inception along modern lines. Town methods
made their way at once into even the most distant villages. Accordingly, it may
be said that American economic life was from its very start impregnated with
capitalism. And who was responsible for this? The twentieth family in each
village. Need we add that this twentieth family was always a Jewish one, which
joined a party of settlers or soon sought them out in their homesteads?
Such in outline is the mental picture I have conceived of the
economic development of the United States. Subsequent writers dealing with this
subject will be able to fill in more ample details; I myself have only come
across a few. But these are so similar in character that they can hardly be
taken as isolated instances. The conclusion is forced upon us that they are
typical. Nor do I alone hold this view. Governor Pardel of California, for
example, remarked in 1905: “He (the Jew) has been the leading financier of
thousands of prosperous communities. He has been enterprising and aggressive.”40
Let me quote some of the illustrations I have met with. In 1785 Abraham Mordccai
settled in Alabama. “He established a trading-post two miles west of Line
Creek, carrying on an extensive trade with the Indians, and exchanging his
goods for pinkroot, hickory, nut oil and peltries of all kinds.”41 Similarly in Albany: “As early as 1661, when
Albany was but a small trading post, a Jewish trader named Asser Levi (or
Leevi) became the owner of real estate there.”42 Chicago
has the same story. The first brick house was built by a Jew, Benedict Schubert,
who became the first merchant tailor in Chicago, while another Jew, Philip
Newburg, was the first to introduce the tobacco business.43 In Kentucky we hear of a Jewish settler as
early as 1816. When in that year the Bank of the United States opened a branch
in Lexington, a Mr. Solomon, who had arrived in 1808, was made cashier.44 In Maryland,45 Michigan,46 Ohio47 and
Pennsylvania48 it is on record that Jewish
traders were among the earliest settlers, though nothing is known of their
activity.
On the other hand, a great deal is known of Jews in Texas, where
they were among the pioneers of capitalism. Thus, for example, Jacob de Cordova
“was by far the most extensive land locator in the State until 1856.” The
Cordova’s Land Agency soon became famous not only in Texas but in New York,
Philadelphia and Baltimore, where the owners of large tracts of Texas land
resided. Again, Morris Koppore in 1863 became President of the National Bank of
Texas. Henry Castro was an immigration agent; “between the years 1843–6 Castro
introduced into Texas over 5000 immigrants … transporting them in 27 ships,
chiefly from the Rhenish provinces.… He fed his colonists for a year, furnished
them with cows, farming implements, seeds, medicine, and in short with
everything they needed.”49
Sometimes branches of one and the same family distributed
themselves in different States, and were thereby enabled to carry on business
most successfully. Perhaps thebest instance is the history of the Seligman
family. There were eight brothers (the sons of David Seligman, of Bayersdorf,
in
In the Southern States likewise the Jew played the part of the
trader in the midst of agricultural settlers.51 Here
also (as in Southern and Central America) we find him quite early as the owner
of vast plantations. In South Carolina indeed, “Jew’s Land” is synonymous with
“Large Plantations.”52 It was in the South
that Moses Lindo became famous as one of the first undertakers in the
production of indigo.
These examples must suffice. We believe they tend to illustrate
our general statement, which is supported also by the fact that there was a
constant stream of Jewish emigration to the United States from their earliest
foundation. It is true that there are no actual figures to show the proportion
of the Jewish population to the total body of settlers. But the numerous
indications of a general nature that we do find make it pretty certain that
there must always have been a large number of Jews in America.
It must not be forgotten that in the earliest years the
population was thinly scattered and very sparse. New Amsterdam had less than
1000 inhabitants.53 That being so, a
shipful of Jews who came from Brazil to settle there made a great difference,
and in assessing Jewish influence on the whole district we shall have to rate
it highly.54 Or take another instance.
When the first settlement in Georgia was established, forty Jews were among the
settlers. The number may seem insignificant, but when we consider the meagre
population of the colony, Jewish influence must be accounted strong. So, too,
in Savannah, where in 1733 there were already twelve Jewish families in what
was then a tiny commercial centre.55
That America early became the goal of German and Polish Jewish
emigrants is well known. Thus we are told: “Among the poorer Jewish families of
Posen there was seldom one which in the second quarter of the 19th century did
not have at least one son (and in most cases the ablest and not least
enterprising) who sailed away across the ocean to flee from the narrowness and
the oppression of his native land.”56 We
are not surprised, therefore, at the comparatively large number of Jewish
soldiers (7243 )57 who took part in the
Civil War, and we should be inclined to say that the estimate which puts the
Jewish population of the United States about the middle of the 19th century at
300,000 (of whom 30,000 lived in New York)58 was
if anything too moderate.
The development of the modern colonial system and the
establishment of the modern State are two phenomena dependent on one another.
The one is inconceivable without the other, and the genesis of modern
capitalism is bound up with both. Hence, in order to discover the importance of
any historic factor in the growth of capitalism it will be necessary to find
out what, and how great a part that factor played in both the colonial system
and the foundation of the modern State. In the last chapter we considered the
Jews in relation to the colonial system; in the present we shall do the same
for the modern State.
A cursory glance would make it appear that in no
direction could the Jews, the “Stateless” people, have had less influence than
in the establishment of modern States. Not one of the statesmen of whom we
think in this connexion was a Jew—neither Charles the Fifth, nor Louis the
Eleventh, neither Richelieu, Mazarin, Colbert, Cromwell, Frederick William of
Prussia nor Frederick the Great.1 However, when speaking of these modern statesmen and
rulers, we can hardly do so without perforce thinking of the Jews: it would be
like Faust without Mephistopheles. Arm in arm the Jew and the ruler stride
through the age which historians call modern. To me this union is symbolic of
the rise of capitalism, and consequently of the modern State. In most countries
the ruler assumed the role of protector of the persecuted Jews against the
Estates of the Realm and the Gilds—both pre-capitalistic forces. And why? Their
interests and their sympathies coincided. The Jew embodied modern capitalism,
and the ruler allied himself with this force in order to establish, or
maintain, his own position. When, therefore, I speak of the part played by the
Jews in the foundation of modern States, it is not so much their direct
influence as organizers that I have in mind, as rather their indirect
co-operation in the process. I am thinking of the fact that the Jews furnished
the rising States with the material means necessary to maintain themselves and
to develop; that the Jews supported the army in each country in two ways, and
the armies were the bulwarks on which the new States rested. In twoways: on the
one hand, the Jews supplied the army in time of war with weapons, and munition
and food; on the other hand, they provided money not only for military purposes
but also for the general needs of courts and governments. The Jews throughout
the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries were most influential as army-purveyors and
as the moneyed men to whom the princes looked for financial backing. This
position of the Jews was of the greatest consequence for the development of the
modern State. It is not necessary to expatiate on this statement; all that we
shall do is to adduce instances in proof of it. Here, too, we cannot attempt to
mention every possible example. We can only point the way; it will be for
subsequent research to follow.
Although there are numerous cases on record of Jews acting in the
capacity of army-contractors in Spain previous to 1492, I shall not refer to
this period, because it lies outside the scope of our present considerations.
We shall confine ourselves to the centuries that followed and begin with
England.
In the 17th and 18th centuries the Jews had already achieved
renown as army-purveyors. Under the Commonwealth the most famous
army-contractor was Antonio Fernandez Carvajal, “the great Jew,” who came to
London some time between 1630 and 1635, and was very soon accounted among the
most prominent traders in the land. In 1649 he was one of the five
It was the same in the wars of the Spanish Succession; here, too,
Jews were the principal army-contractors.4 In
1716 the Jews of Strassburg recall the services they rendered the armies of
Louis XIV by furnishing information and supplying provisions.8 Indeed, Louis XIV’s army-contractor-in-chief
was a Jew, Jacob Worms by name;6 and in
the 18th century Jews gradually took a more and more prominent part in this
work. In 1727 the Jews of Metz brought into the city in the space of six weeks
2000 horses for food and more than 5000 for remounts.7 Field-Marshal Maurice of Saxony, the victor of Fontenoy,
expressed the opinion that his armies were never better served with supplies
than when the Jews were the contractors.8 One
of the best known of the Jewish armycontractors in the time of the last two
Louis was Cerf Beer, in whose patent of naturalization it is recorded that “...
in the wars which raged in Alsace in 1770 and 1771 he found the opportunity of
proving his zeal in our service and in that of the State.”9
Similarly, the house of the Gradis, of Bordeaux, was an
establishment of international repute in the 18th century. Abraham Gradis set
up large storehouses in Quebec to supply the needs of the French troops there.10 Under the Revolutionary Government, under the
Directory, in the Napoleonic Wars it was always Jews who acted as purveyors.11 In this connexion a public notice displayed
in the streets of Paris in 1795 is significant. There was a famine in the city
and the Jews were called upon to show their gratitude for the rights bestowed
upon them by the Revolution by bringing in corn. “They alone,” says the author
of the notice, “can successfully accomplish this enterprise, thanks to their
business relations, of which their fellow citizens ought to have full benefit.”
12 A parallel story comes from Dresden. In
1720 the Court Jew, Jonas Meyer, saved the town from starvation by supplying it
with large quantities of corn. (The Chronicler mentions 40,000 bushels.)18
All over Germany the Jews from an early date were found in the
ranks of army-contractors. Let us enumerate a few of them. There was Isaac
Meyer in the 16th century, who, when Cardinal Albrecht admitted him a resident
of Halberstadt in 1537, was enjoined by him, in view of the dangerous times,
“to supply our monastery with good weapons and armour.” There was Joselman von
Rosheim, who in 1548 received an imperial letter of protection because he had
supplied both money and provisions for the army. In 1546 , there is a record of
Bohemian Jews who provided great; coats and blankets for the army.14 In the next century (1633) another Bohemian
Jew, Lazarus by name, received an offiicial declaration that he “obtained
either in person, or at his own expense, valuable information for the Imperial
troops, and that he made it his business to see that the army had a good supply
of ammunition and clothing.”15 The Great
Elector also had recourse to Jews for his military needs. Leimann Gompertz and Solomon
Elias were his contractors for cannon, powder and so forth.16 There were numerous others: Samuel Julius,
remount contractor under the Elector Frederick Augustus of Saxony; the Model
family, court-purveyors and army-contractors in the Duchy of Ansbach in the
17th and 18th centuries are well known.17 In
short, as one writer of the time pithily expresses it, “all the contractors are
Jews and all the Jews are contractors.”18
Austria does not differ in this respect from Germany, France and
England. The wealthy Jews, who in the reign of the Emperor Leopold received
permission to re-settle in Vienna (1670)—the Oppenheimers, Wertheimers, Mayer
Herschel and the rest—were all army-contractors.19
And we find the same thing in all the countries under the Austrian Crown.20 Lastly, we must mention the Jewish
army-contractors who provisioned the American troops in the Revolutionary and
Civil Wars.21
This has been a theme on
which many historians have written, and we are tolerably well informed
concerning this aspect of Jewish history in all ages. It will not be necessary
for me, therefore, to enter into this question in great detail; the enumeration
of a few well-known facts will suffice.
Already in the Middle Ages we find that everywhere taxes,
saltmines and royal domains were farmed out to Jews; that Jews were royal
treasurers and money-lenders, most frequently, of course, in the Pyrenean
Peninsula, where the Almoxarife and the Rendeiros were chosen preferably from
among the ranks of the rich Jews. But as this period does not specially concern
us here, I will not mention any names but refer the reader to the general
literature on the subject.22
It was, however, in modern times, when the State as we know it
today first originated, that the activity of the Jews as financial advisers of
princes was fraught with mighty influence. Take Holland, where although
officially deterred from being servants of the Crown, they very quickly
occupied positions of authority. We recall Moses Machado, the favourite of
William III; Delmonte, a family of ambassadors (Lords of Schoonenberg); the
wealthy Suasso, who in 1688 lent William two million gulden, and others.23
The effects of the Jewish haute finance in
Next, English finance was at this time also very extensively
controlled by Jews.25 The monetary needs
of the Long Parliament gave the first impetus to the settlement of rich Jews in
England. Long before their admission by Cromwell, wealthy crypto-Jews,
especially from Spain and Portugal, migrated thither via Amsterdam: the
year 1643 brought an exceptionally large contingent. Their rallying-point was
the house of the Portuguese Ambassador in London, Antonio de Souza, himself a
Maranno. Prominent among them was Antonio Fernandez Carvajal, who has already been
mentioned, and who was as great a financier as he was an army contractor. It
was he who supplied the Commonwealth with funds. The little colony was further
increased under the later Stuarts, notably under Charles the Second. In the
retinue , of his Portuguese bride, Catherine of Braganza, were quite a number
of moneyed Jews, among them the brothers Da Sylva, Portuguese bankers of
Amsterdam, who were entrusted with the transmission and administration of the
Queen’s dowry.26 Contemporaneously with
them came the Mendes and the Da Costas from Spain and Portugal, who united
their families under the name of Mendes da Costa.
About the same period the Ashkenazi (German) Jews began to arrive
in the country. On the whole, these could hardly compare for wealth with their
Sephardi (Spanish) brethren, yet they also had their capitalistic magnates,
such as Benjamin Levy for example.
Under William III their numbers were still further increased, and
the links between the court and the rich Jews were strengthened. Sir Solomon
Medina, who has also been already mentioned, followed the King from Holland as
his banker, and with him came the Suasso, another of the plutocratic families.
Under Queen Anne one of the most prominent financiers in England was Menasseh
Lopez, and by the time the South Sea Bubble burst, the Jews as a body were the
greatest financial power in the country. They had kept clear of the wild
speculations which had preceded the disaster and so retained their fortunes
unimpaired. Accordingly, when the Government issued a loan on the Land Tax, the
Jews were in a position to take up one quarter of it. During this critical
period the chief family was that of the Gideons, whose representative, Sampson
Gideon (1699–1762), was the “trusted adviser of the Government,” the friend of
Walpole, the “pillar of the State credit.” In 1745, the year of panics, Sampson
raised a loan of £1,700,000 for the assistance of the Government. On his death
his influence passed to the firm of Francis and Joseph Salvador, who retained
it till the beginning of the 19th century, when the Rothschilds succeeded to
the financial leadership.
It is the same story in France, and the powerful position held by
Samuel Bernard in the latter part of the reign of Louis XIV and in the whole of
that of Louis XV may serve as one example among many. We find Louis XIV walking
in his garden with this wealthy Jew, “whose sole merit,” in the opinion of one
cynical writer,27 “was that he supported
the State as the rope does the hanged man.” He financed the Wars of the Spanish
Succession; he aided the French candidate for the throne of Poland; he advised
the Regent in all money matters. It was probably no exaggeration when the
Marquis de Dangeau spoke of him in one of his letters28 as “the greatest banker in Europe at the present time.” In
France also the Jews participated to a large extent in the reconsolidation of
the French East India Company after the bursting of the South Sea Bubble.29 It was not, however, until the 19th century
that they won a really leading position in financial circles in France, and the
important names here are the Rothschilds, the Helphens, the Foulds, the
Cerfbeers, the Duponts, the Godchaux, the Dalemberts, the Pereires and others.
It is possible that in the 17th and 18th centuries also a great many more Jews
than those already mentioned were active as financiers in France, but that
owing to the rigorous exclusion of Jews they became crypto-Jews, and so we have
no full information about them.
It is easier to trace Jewish influence in finance in Germany and
Austria through that clever invention—the status of “Court Jew.” Though the law
in these countries forbade Jews to settle in their boundaries, yet the princes
and rulers kept a number of “privileged” Jews at their courts. According to
Graetz,30 the status of “Court Jew” was
introduced by the Emperors of Germany during the Thirty Years’ War. Be that as
it may, it is an undoubted fact that pretty well every State in Germany
throughout the 17th and 18th centuries had its Court Jew or Jews, upon whose
support the finances of the land depended.
A few examples by way of illustration. In the 17th century31 we find at the Imperial Court Joseph Pinkherle,
of Goerz, Moses and Jacob Marburger, of Gradisca, Ventura Parente of Trieste,
Jacob Bassewi Batscheba Schmieles in Prague, the last of whom the Emperor
Ferdinand raised to the ranks of the nobility under the title von Treuenburg on
account of his faithful services. In the reign of the Emperor Leopold I we meet
with the respected family of the Oppenheimers, of whom the Staatskanzler
Ludewig wrote in the following terms.32 After
saying that the Jews were the arbiters of the most important events, he continues:
“In the year 1690 the Jew Oppenheimer was well known among merchants and
bankers not only in Europe but throughout the world.” No less famous in the
same reign was Wolf Schlesinger, purveyor to the court, who in company with
Lewel Sinzheim raised more than one large loan for the State. Maria Theresa
utilized the services of Schlesinger and others, notably the Wertheimers,
Amsteins and Eskeles. Indeed, for more than a century the court bankers in
Vienna were Jews.33 We can gauge their economic
influence from the fact that when an anti-Jewish riot broke out in Frankfort-on-the-Main, the
local authorities thought it wise in the interest of credit to call upon the
Imperial Office to interfere and protect the Frankfort Jews, who had very close
trade relations with their brethren in Vienna.34
It was not otherwise at the smaller German courts. “The
continually increasing needs of the various courts, each vying with the other
in luxury, rendered it imperative, seeing that communication was by no means
easy, to have skilful agents in the commercial centres.” Accordingly the Dukes
of Mecklenburg had such agents in Hamburg; Bishop John Philip of Wurzburg was
in 1700 served by Moses Elkan in Frankfort. This activity opened new channels
for the Jews; the enterprising dealer who provided jewels for her ladyship,
liveries for the court chamberlain and dainties for the head cook was also
quite willing to negotiate a loan.35 Frankfort
and Hamburg, with their large Jewish population, had many such financial
agents, who acted for ruling princes living at a distance. Besides those
already mentioned we may recall the Portuguese Jew, Daniel Abensur, who died in
Hamburg in 1711. He was Ministerresident of the King of Poland in that city,
and the Polish Crown was indebted to him for many a loan.36 Some of these agents often moved to the court
which borrowed from them, and became “Court Jews.” Frederick Augustus, who
became Elector of Saxony in 1694, had a number of them: Leffmann Berentz, of
Hanover, J. Meyer, of Hamburg, Berend Lehmann, of Halberstadt (who advanced
money for the election of the King of Poland) and others.37 Again, in Hanover the Behrends were Chief
Court Purveyors and Agents to the Treasury;38 the
Models, the Fraenkels and the Nathans acted in a similar capacity to the Duchy
of Ansbach. In the Palatinate we come across Lemte Moyses and Michel May, who
in 1719 paid the debt of 2½ million gulden which the Elector owed the Emperor,39 and lastly, in the Marggravate of Bayreuth,
there were the Baiersdorfs.40
Better known perhaps are the Court Jews of the
Brandenburg-Prussian rulers—Lippold, under Joachim II; Gomperz and Joost
Liebmann, under Frederick III; Veit, underFrederick William I; and Ephraim,
Moses, Isaac and Daniel Itzig, under Frederick II. Most famous of all the
German Court Jews, the man who may be taken as their archetype, was
Suess-Oppenheimer, who was at the court of Charles Alexander of Wiirtemberg.41
Finally, we must not leave unmentioned that during the 18th
century, more especially in the Revolutionary Wars, the Jews played no small role as
financiers in the
And now comes an extraordinary thing. Whilst for centuries
(especially during the 17th and the 18th—the two so momentous in the growth of
the modern State) the Jews had personal financial dealings with the rulers, in
the century that followed (but even during the two already mentioned) the
system of public credit gradually took a new form. This forced the big
capitalist from his dominating position more and more into the background, and
allowed an ever-increasing number of miscellaneous creditors to take his place.
Through the evolution of the modern method of floating loans the public credit
was, so to speak, “democratized,” and, in consequence, the Court Jew became
superfluous. But the Jews themselves were not the least who aided the growth of
this new system of borrowing, and thus they contributed to the removal of their
own monopoly as financiers. In so doing they participated to a greater degree
than ever before in the work of building up the great States of the present.
The transformation in the public credit system was but a part of
a much vaster change which crept over economic life as a whole, a metamorphosis
in which also the Jews took a very great share. Let us consider this change in
its entirety.
It is a matter of common knowledge that the Stock Exchange in
modern times is becoming more and more the heart of all economic activities.
With the fuller development of capitalism this was only to be expected, and
there were three clear stages in the process. The first was the evolution of
credit from being a personal matter into one of an impersonal relationship. It
took shape and form in securities. Stage two: these securities were made
mobile—that is, bought and sold in a market. The last stage was the formation
of undertakings for the purpose of creating such securities.
In all the stages the Jew was ever present with his creative
genius. We may
even go further and say that it was due specifically to the Jewish spirit that
these characteristics of modern economic life came into being.
Securities represent the standardization of personal
indebtedness.2 We may speak of
“standardization” in this sense when a relationship which was originally
personal becomes impersonal; where before human beings directly acted and
reacted on each other, now a system obtains. An instance or two will make our
meaning clear. Where before work was done by man, it is now done by a machine.
That is the standardization of work. In olden times a battle was won by the
superior personal initiative of the general in command; nowadays victory falls
to the leader who can most skilfully utilize the body of experience gathered in
the course of years and can best apply the complicated methods of tactics and
strategy; who has at his disposal the best guns and who has the most effective
organization for provisioning his men. We may speak in this instance of the
“standardization” of war. A business becomes standardized when the head of the firm
who came into personal contact with his employees on the one hand and with his
customers on the other, is succeeded by a board of directors, under whom is an
army of officials, all working on an organized plan, and consequently business
is more or less of an automatic process.
Now, at a particular stage in the growth of capitalism credit
became standardized. That is to say, that whereas before indebtedness arose as
the result of an agreement between two people who knew each other, it was now
rearranged on a systematic basis, and the people concerned might be entire
strangers. The new relationship is expressed by negotiable instruments, whether
bill of exchange or security or banknote or mortgage deed, and a careful
analysis of each of them will prove this conclusively.
Of the three persons mentioned in a bill of exchange, the
specified party in whose favour the document is made out (the payee) or, if no
name is mentioned, the bearer of the document may be quite unknown to the other
two; he may have had no direct business relation with the party making out the
bill (the drawer), yet this document establishes a claim of the former on the
latter—general and impersonal.3
The security gives the owner the right to participate in the
capital and the profit of a concern with which he has no direct personal
contact. He may
never even have seen the building in which the undertaking in question is
housed, and when he parts with his security to another person he transfers his
right of participation.
Similarly with a banknote. The holder has a claim on the bank of
issue despite the fact that he personally may never have deposited a penny with
it.
So, in short, with all credit instruments: an impersonal
relationship is established between either an individual or a corporation on
the one hand (the receiver of moneys), and an unknown body of people (we speak
of “the public”) on the other—the lender of moneys.
What share did the Jews take in the creation of this credit
machinery? It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to show what that share
was by reference to documentary evidence, even if we had a very full account of
the position of the Jews in the early economic history of most lands. But
unfortunately that aspect of economic development which would have been invaluable
for the solution of the problem in hand has been sadly neglected. I refer to
the history of money and of banking in the Pyrenean Peninsula during the last
centuries of the Middle Ages. But even if such a history were at our disposal,
the question would still be difficult to answer. We must remember that the
origins of economic organization can no more be discovered by referring to
documentary evidence than the origins of legal institutions. No form of
organization or tendency in economic life can be traced to a particular day or
even a particular year. It is all a matter of growth, and the most that the
economic historian can do is to show that in any given period this or that
characteristic is found in business life, this or that organization dominates all
economic activities. Even for this the ludicrously inadequate sources at our
disposal are hardly sufficient. The historian will have to turn to the general
history of the particular group in which he happens to be interested.
To take an instance. The history of bills of exchange can
scarcely be written merely by referring to the few mediaeval bills which chance
has left to us. Such documents are certainly useful to supplement or correct
general theories. But we must formulate the general theories first. Let us take
a case in point. The bill which for a long time was held to be the oldest
extant was drawn by a Jew, Simon Rubens, in the year 1207. This is hardly
sufficient evidence on which to base the assertion that the Jews were the
inventors of this form of credit instrument.4 Earlier
bills have come to light recently, drawn by non-Jews, but they do not render testimony
strong enough for the statement that the Jews were not the inventors of
bills. Do we know how many thousands of bills circulated in Florence or Bruges,
and how can we be sure which section of the population issued them? We do know,
however, that the Jews were occupied throughout the Middle Ages in
money-dealing, that they were settled in various parts of Europe and that they
carried on a continuous intercourse with each other. From these facts we may
draw the tolerably certain conclusion that “the Jews, the intermediaries in
international trade, utilized on a large scale the machinery of foreign
exchanges, then traditionally current in the Mediterranean lands, and extended
it.”5
That this method of reasoning requires great caution is
self-evident. Yet it may lead to useful conclusions for all that. There are
cases, as we shall see, where the share of the Jews in the extension of some
economic policy or machinery may be proved by a fund of documentary evidence.
In other instances, and they are numerous, we must content ourselves if it can
be shown that, at any particular time and in any given place, there must have
been some special reason for the utilization by Jews of a form of economic
organization then current.
Bearing this in mind, let us enquire into the genesis
of one or two types of credit instruments.
Not merely the early history of the bill of exchange but rather that
of the modern endorsable bill is what we are concerned with most of all. It is
generally accepted that the endorsing of bills of exchange had been fully
developed prior to the 17th century, and the first complete legal recognition
of such endorsement was found in Holland (Proclamation in Amsterdam of
We carry on the same commerce with them also in matters of
exchange, because they continually remit to us their money … sending cash, in
order that we may change it for them for Lyons, Flanders and other parts of the
world on our Exchange, or indeed that we may buy for them silken cloths and
other merchandise according to their convenience, gaining our usual commission.
That which we say of the inhabitants of Florence holds good also of the other
merchants of the same Spanish and Portuguese nation, who dwell in Flanders,
Lyons, Rome, Naples, Sicily and other countries, who lay themselves out to do
business with us, not only in exchanges but in sending hither merchandise of
Flanders, selling corn from Sicily and buying other merchandise to transport to
other countries.
A further development in the endorsing of bills
appears to have taken place at the fairs of Genoa in the 16th century. Who, we
may ask, were the “Genoese,” met with everywhere throughout that century, but
especially at the famous fairs of Besancon, dominating the money market, and
who all of a sudden showed a remarkable genius for business and gave an impetus
to the growth of new methods, hitherto unknown, for cancelling international
indebtedness? It is true that the ancient wealthy families of Genoa were the
principal creditors of the Spanish Crown as well as of other needy princes. But
to imagine that the descendants of the Grimaldis, the Spinolas, the Lercaras
exhibited that extraordinary commercial ability which gave a special character to
the activity of the Genoese in the 16th century; to think that the old nobility
gadded about the fairs at Besancon or elsewhere, or even sent their agents with
never-failing regularity—this appears to me an assumption hardly warranted
without some very good reason. Can the explanation be that the Jews brought new
blood into the decrepit economic body of Genoa? We know9 that fugitives
from Spain landed at Genoa, that some of the settlers became Christians, that
the rest were admitted into Novi, a small town near Genoa, and that the Jews of
Novi did business with the capital; we know, too, that the newcomers were “for
the most part intelligent Jewish craftsmen, capitalists, physicians,” and that
in the short space of time between their arrival and 1550 they had become so
unpopular in Genoa that they had aroused the hatred of the citizens; we know,
finally, that there were constant communications between the Genoese bankers
and the Jewish, or rather Maranno, banking houses of the Spanish cities, e.g.,
with the Espinosas, the leading bankers in Seville.10
If we should wish to speak of securities in those
cases where the capital of a business concern is split up into many parts, and
where the liability of the capitalists is limited, we have ample justification
for so doing in the case of the Genoa Maones, in the 14th century,11 the Casa di
San Giorgio (1407) and the important trading companies of the 17th century. But
if stress is laid on the standardization of the credit-relationship, it will
not be before the 18th century that we shall find instances of joint-stock
enterprise and of securities. For the early contributions to a joint-stock
never lost their personal character. The Italian Monies were impregnated
through and through with the personality of their founders. In the case of the
Maones, the personal factor was no less important than the financial; while at
the Bank of St. George in Genoa, the families concerned jealously guarded the
principle that each one should obtain its proper share in the directing of the
work of the bank. The trading companies too had a strong personal element. In
the English East India Company, for instance, it was not until 1650 that shares
could be transferred to strangers, but they had to become members of the
Company.
In all early instances the
security was for unequal and varying sums. The personal relationship thus
showed itself plainly enough. In some companies shares could not be transferred
at all except by consent of all the other members. In fact, the security was
just a certificate of membership, and throughout the 18th century such
securities as were made out in the name of a specified person predominated.12 Even where there was freedom of transfer from
one person to another (as in the case of the Dutch East India Company) the
process was beset with innumerable obstacles and difficulties.18
The modern form of security can therefore not be found before the
18th century. If now it be asked what share did the Jews have in the extension
of this form of credit in modern times, the reply is obvious enough. During the
last hundred and fifty or two hundred years, Jews have beenlargely instrumental
in bringing about the standardization of what was before a purely personal
relationship between the holder of stock and the company in which he
participated. I am bound to admit, however, that I cannot adduce direct proofs
in support of my thesis. But indirectly the evidence is fairly conclusive. Jews
were great speculators, and speculation must of necessity tend to substitute
for the security wherein the holder is specified one which has no such
limitation. A little reflection
will show therefore that Jews must have had no small influence on the
standardization of securities. In some cases it may even be demonstrated that
speculation was responsible for the change from securities of differing amounts
to those of equal value. The Dutch East India Company is a case in point.
Originally its shares were of all values; later only 3000 florin shares were
issued.14
Many opinions prevail as to the precise occasion when banknotes
first came into use. For my own part I lay stress on the standardization here
also. The first time any banker issued a note without reference to some
specific deposit a new type of credit instrument, the modern banknote, came
into being. There were banknotes in existence long before that.15 But they bore the depositor’s name and
referred to his money.16 I believe that in
all probability the personal banknote became a general (impersonal) one in
Venice about the beginning of the 15th century. There are on record instances
dating from that time of banks making written promises to pay over and above
the sums deposited with them. An edict of the Venetian Senate as early as 1421
made it an offence to deal in such documents.17 The
first permission to establish a bank was granted to two Jews in 1400, and their
success was so great that the nobili made haste to follow their example.18 The question arises, may these two Jews be
regarded as the fathers of the modern (impersonal) banknote?
But perhaps no particular firm introduced the new paper money. It
may have come into existence in order to satisfy the needs of some locality.
Nevertheless, if we take as the place of its origin the town where the earliest
banks reached a high degree of perfection, we shall surely be on the safe side.
From this point of view Venice is admirably qualified. Now Venice was a city of
Jews, and that is wherein its interest for us lies in this connexion. According
to a list dating from the year 1152, there were no fewer than 1300 Jews in
Venice.19 In the 16th century their number
was estimated at 6000; and Jewish manufacturers employed 4000 Christian
workmen.20 These figures, to be sure, have
no scientific value, but they do show that the Jews must have been pretty
numerous in Venice. From other sources we are acquainted with some of their
activities. Thus, we find Jews among the leading bankers—one of the most
influential families were the Lipmans; and in 1550, as we have already noted,
the Christian merchants of Venice stated that they might as well emigrate if
trade with the Marannos were forbidden them.
It is possible that the Marannos may have founded the business of
banking even while they were yet in Spain. We have, however, no satisfactory
information, though many writers have dealt with the subject.21 There is a strong probability that at the
time when measures were taken against them (16th century) the Jews were the
leading bankers in the
Furthermore, Jews were prominent and active figures wherever in
the 17th century banks were established. They participated in the foundation of
the three great banks of that period—the Bank of Amsterdam, the Bank of England
and the Bank of Hamburg. But as none of these owed its origin to purely
commercial causes, I shall not emphasize their importance in connexion with the
Jews. The facts, nevertheless, are interesting, and I would therefore state
that the experience which the Jews gathered when the Bank of Amsterdam was
founded served them in good stead when in 1619 the Hamburg Bank came into
being. No less than forty Jewish families took shares in the new concern. As
for the Bank of England, the latest authorities22
on its history are agreed that the suggestion for the Bank came from
Jewish immigrants from Holland.
The earliest bonds issued for public loans were addressed to some
individual lender, and it was long before they changed then” character and
became “general” instruments. In Austria, to take one example, it was not until
the Debt of 1761 was contracted that the bonds had coupons attached which gave
the bearer the right to receive interest.24 Previous
to that, the bond was of the nature of a private agreement; the Crown or the
Treasury was the debtor of some specific lender.25
To what extent the Jews were responsible for the
“standardization” of public credit it is difficult to estimate. So much is
certain, that William III’s advisers were Jews; that public borrowing in the
German States was commenced on the model of Holland, most probably through the
influence of Dutch Jews who, as we have already seen, were the chief financiers
in German and Austrian lands. Speaking generally, Dutch Jews were most
intimately concerned in European finance in the 18th century.26
As for private loan-bonds or mortgage-deeds, we know very little
of their history, and it is almost impossible to compute the direct influence of the Jews here.
But indirectly the Jews were, in all likelihood, the originators of this
species of credit instrument, more especially of mortgage deeds. We have it on
record that Dutch bankers, from about the middle of the 18th century onward,
advanced money to colonial planters on the security of their plantations.
Mortgage-deeds of this kind were bought and sold on the Stock Exchange, just
like Public Debt bonds. The bankers who dealt in them were called
“correspondentie” or “Directeurs van de negotiatie,” and the instruments
themselves “obligatie.” Documents to the value of no less than 100,000,000
gulden were in circulation before the crash of the 1770’s.27
I must confess that nowhere have I found any mention of Jewish
bankers participating in these speculations. Yet even the most superficial
acquaintance with the Dutch moneymarket in the 18th century can scarcely leave
room for doubt that Jews must have been largely interested in this business. It
is a well-known fact (as I hope to show) that in those days anything in
So much for the “sources” regarding the Jewish share in the
development of modern credit instruments. The sum-total is not much; it is for
subsequent research to fill in the details and to add to them. Yet I believe
the evidence sufficient for the general conclusion that in the standardization
of modern credit the Jews took no inconsiderable share. This impression will
only be deepened if we think for a moment of the means by which the
standardization was brought about or, at any rate, facilitated. I mean the
legal form of the credit instruments, which in all probability was of Jewish
origin.
There is no complete agreement among authorities on the history
of legal documents as to the origin of credit instruments.28 But in my opinion the suggestion that they
owe their modern form to Jewish influence has much to be said for it. Let it be
remembered that such documents first came into use among merchants, in whose
ranks the Jewish element was not insignificant. The form that became current
received recognition in judicial decisions, and eventually was admitted into
the body of statute
law, first of all presumably in Holland.
The only question is. Can we possibly deduce modern credit
instruments from Rabbinic law? I believe we can.
In the first place, the Bible and the Talmud are both acquainted
with credit instruments. The Biblical passage is in the Book of Tobit, iv. 20;
v. 1, 2, 3; ix. 1, 5.
The best known passage in the Talmud is as follows (Baba
Bathra, 172):—“In the court of R. Huna a document was once produced to this
effect: T, A.B., son of C.D., have borrowed a sum of money from you.’ R. Huna
decided that ‘from you’ might mean ‘from the Exilarch or even from the King
himself.’”
Second, in later Jewish law, as well as in Jewish commercial
practice, the credit instrument is quite common. As regards practice, special
proof is hardly necessary; and as for theory, let me mention some Rabbis who dealt
with the problem.29
First in importance was Rabbenu Asher (1250–1327), who speaks of
negotiable instruments in his Responsa (lxviii. 6, 8). “If A sends money to B
and C, and notes in his bill ‘payable to bearer by B and C,’ payment must be
made accordingly.” So also R. Joseph Caro in his Choshen Mishpat: “If in
any bill no name is mentioned but the direction is to ‘pay bearer,’ then
whoever presents the bill receives payment” (lxi. 10; cf. also 1.; lxi. 4, 10;
lxxi. 23). R. Shabbatai Cohen in his Shach. (1. 7; lxxi. 54) is of the
same opinion.
Thirdly, it is very likely that the Jews, in the course of
business, independently of Rabbinic laws, developed a form of credit instrument
which was quite impersonal and general in its wording. I refer to. the Mamre
(Mamram, Momran).30 It is claimed that
this document first appeared among the Polish Jews in the 16th century, or even
earlier. Its form was fixed, but a space was left for the name of the surety,
sometimes, too, for the amount in question. There is no doubt that such
documents were in circulation during three centuries and were very popular,
circulating even between Christians and Jews. Their value as evidence consists
in that they already had all the characteristics of modern instruments: (1) the
holder put the document in circulation by endorsement; (2) there is no mention
of the personal relationship of the debtor and the creditor; (3) the debtor may
not demand proof of endorsement or transfer; (4) if the debtor pays his debt
without the presentation of the Mamre having been made to him, it is considered
that he has not really discharged his obligation; and lastly (5) the
cancellation of the document is almost the same as it is to-day—if it is lost
or stolen the holder of the document informs the debtor; public notice is given
by a declaration posted up for four weeks in the synagogue, wherein the bearer
of the instrument is requested to come forward; at the end of four weeks, if
nothing happens, the creditor demands payment of the debtor.
In the fourth place, it would appear that Jewish influences were
potent in the development of many weighty points of legal practice. Let me
mention some.
(1) During the 16th century there circulated in different parts
of Europe credit instruments with blanks for filling in names. What was their
origin? Is there not a possibility that they emanated from Jewish commercial
circles, having been modelled on the pattern of the Mamre? They are met
with in the Netherlands,31 in France32 and in Italy.33
In the Netherlands they appeared towards the beginning of the 16th
century at the Antwerp fairs, just when the Jews began to take a prominent part
in them. An Ordinance of the year 1536 states explicitly that “at the Antwerp
fairs payment for commodities was made by promissory notes, which might be
passed on to third persons without special permission.” It would seem from the
wording that the practice of accepting notes in payment for goods was a new
one. What sort of documents were these notes? Can they have been Christian Mamrem?
Even more Jewish were the documents in vogue in Italy a century later. I
mean the first known “open” note, issued by the Jewish bill-brokers, Giudetti,
in Milan. The note was for 500 scudi, payable through John Baptist Germanus at
the next market day in Novi to the personal order of Marcus Studendolus in
Venice for value received. Studendolus sent the bill to de Zagnoni Brothers in
Bologna “with his signature, leaving a sufficient blank space at the end for
filling in the amount, and the name of the person in whose favour the de
Zagnonis preferred payment to be made.” The recorder of this instance remarks34 that “Italian financial intercourse could
hardly have thought of a facility of this kind, had there not been a model
somewhere to imitate. Such a model is found in France, where from the 17th
century onward bearer bonds were in general circulation.” The question at once
suggests itself, how did this document arise in France. Will the example of
Holland account for it? Even in Italy it may be a case of Maranno
influence—Studendolo(?) in Venice, Giudetti in Milan!
(2) Of very great significance in the development of modern
credit instruments
is the Antwerp Custom of 1582, wherein it is for the first time admitted that
the holder of a note has the right of suing in a court of law.35 This conception spread rapidly from Antwerp
to Holland—as rapidly, indeed, as the Jewish refugees from Belgium settled down
among the Dutch.36
(3) In Germany the first State to adopt credit instruments was
Saxony. In the year 1747 an adventurer of the name of Bischopfield suggested to
the Minister of Finance the plan of a Public Loan, and it seems that
Bischopfield was in communication with Dutch Jews at the time.37 Further, an ordinance of 20th September 1757
forbade Dutch Jews to speculate in Saxon Government Stock. All of which points
to Jewish influence—on the one side of the Dutch Jews, and on the other of
Polish Jews, owing to the connexion of the royal houses of Saxony and Poland.
So great was this influence that one authority comes to the definite conclusion
that the Mamre became the model for credit instruments.38
(4) Among the instruments wherein the name of the holder was
inserted we must include marine insurance policies. It is recorded that the
Jewish merchants of Alexandria were the first to use the formulae “o qual si
voglia altera persona,” “et qwsvis alia persona” and “sive
quamlibet aliam personam” (“or to any other person desired”).39
Now why did the Jewish merchants of Alexandria adopt this legal
form? The answer to this question is of the gravest import, more especially as
I believe that the causes for which we are seeking were inherent in the
conditions of Jewish life.
(5) That leads me to my fifth consideration. It was to the
interest of the Jews to a very large degree—in some respects even it was to the
interest of the Jews alone—to have a proper legal form for credit instruments.
For what was it that impelled the Jewish merchants of Alexandria to make out
their policies to bearer? Anxiety as to the fate of their goods. Jewish ships
ran the risk of capture by Christian pirates and the fleets of His Catholic
Majesty, who accounted the wares of Jews and Turks as legitimate booty. Hence
the Jewish merchants of Alexandria inserted in their policies some fictitious Christian
name, Paul or Scipio, or what you will, and when the goods arrived, received
them in virtue of the “bearer” formula in their policies.
How often must the same cause have actuated Jews throughout the
Middle Ages! How often must they have endeavoured to adopt some device which
concealed the fact that they were the recipients either of money or of
commodities sent from a distance. What more natural than that they should welcome the legal
form which gave “the bearer” the right of claiming what the document he had
entitled him to. This formula made it possible for fortunes to vanish if the
Jews in any locality passed through a storm of persecution. It enabled Jews to
deposit their money wherever they wanted, and if at any time it became
endangered, to remove it through the agency of some fictitious person or to
transfer their rights in such a way as not to leave a trace of their former
possessions. 40 It may seem inexplicable
that while throughout the Middle Ages the Jews were deprived of their “all” at
very short intervals, they managed to become rich again very quickly. But
regarded in the light of our suggestion, this problem is easily explained. The
fact was that the Jews were never mulcted of their “all”; a good portion of
their wealth was transferred to a fictitious owner whenever the kings squeezed
too tight.
Later, when the Jews commenced to speculate in securities and
commodities (as we shall see in due course) it was only to be expected that
they would extend the use of this form of bond, more particularly in the case
of securities.41 It is obvious that if a
big loan is subscribed by a large number of comparatively small contributors
bearer bonds offer facilities of various kinds.42
The remark of a Rabbi here and there demonstrates this
conclusively. One passage in the commentaries of R. Shabbatai Cohen is
distinctly typical. “The purchaser of a bond,” he says, “may claim damages
against the debtor if he pays the debt without obtaining a receipt, the reason
being that as there is no publicity in the transaction this practice is
detrimental to dealings in such instruments. It is true that Rabbenu Asher and
his school expressed no view concerning Shetarot (instruments) of all
kinds, which the Rabbis introduced in order to extend commerce. That is because
dealings in such instruments were not very common, owing to the difficulty of
transfer. But the authorities were thinking only of personal bonds. In the case
of bearer bonds, the circulation of which at the present time (i.e., the
17th century) is greater far than that of commodities, all ordinances laid down
by the Rabbis for the extension of commerce are to be observed.”
(6) Here again we touch a vital question. I believe that if we
were to examine the whole Jewish law concerning bearer bonds and similar
instruments we should find—and this is my sixth point—that such documents
spring naturally from the innermost spirit of Jewish law, just as they are
alien to the spirit of German and Roman law.
It is a well-known fact that the specifically Roman conception of indebtedness was a
strictly personal one.43 The obligatio was
a bond between certain persons. Hence the creditor could not transfer his claim
to another, except under exceedingly difficult conditions. True, in later Roman
law the theory of delegation and transmission was interpreted somewhat
liberally, yet the root of the matter, the personal relationship, remained
unchanged.
In German law a contract was in the same way personal; nay, to a
certain extent it was even more so than in Roman law. The German principle on
the point was clear enough. The debtor was not obliged to render payment to any
one but the original creditor to whom he had pledged his word. There could in
no wise be transference of claim—as was the case in English law until 1873. It
was only when Roman law obtained a strong hold on Germany that the transfer of
claims first came into vogue. The form it took was that of “bearer bonds”—the
embodiment of an impersonal credit relationship.
It is admitted that the legal notion underlying all “bearer”
instruments—that the document represents a valid claim for each successive
holder—was not fully developed either in the ancient world or in the Middle
Ages.44 But the admission holds good only
if Jewish law be left out of account. Jewish law was certainly acquainted with
the impersonal credit relationship.45 Its
underlying principle is that obligations may be towards unnamed parties, that
you may carry on business with Messrs. Everybody. Let us examine this principle
a little more closely.
Jewish law has no term for obligation: it knows only debt
(“Chov”) and demand (“Tvia”). Each of these was regarded as distinct from the
other. That a demand and a promise were necessarily bound up with some tangible
object is proved by the symbolic act of acquisition. Consequently there could
be no legal obstacles to the transfer of demands or to the making of agreements
through agents. There was no necessity therefore for the person against whom
there was a claim to be defined, the person in question became known by the
acquisition of certain commodities. In reality claims were against things and
not against persons. It was only to maintain a personal relationship that the
possessor of the things was made responsible. Hence the conception that just as
an obligation may refer to some specified individual, so also it may refer to
mankind as a whole. Therefore a transference of obligations is effected merely
by the transference of documents.
So much would appear from the view held by Auerbach. Jewish law
is more abstract in this respect than either Roman or German law. Jewish law can
conceive of an impersonal, “standardized” legal relationship. It is not too
much to assume that a credit instrument such as the modern bearer bond should
have grown out of such a legal system as the Jewish. Accordingly, all the
external reasons which I have adduced in favour of my hypothesis are supported
by what may be termed an “inner” reason.
And what is this hypothesis? That instruments such as modern
bearer bonds owe thenorigin chiefly to Jewish influences.
In modern securities we see the plainest expression of the
commercial aspect of our economic life. Securities are intended to be
circulated, and they have not served their true purpose if they have not been
bought and sold. Of course it may be urged that many a security rests
peacefully in a safe, yielding an income to its owner, for whom it is a means
to an end rather than a commodity for trading in. The objection has a good deal
in it. A security that does not circulate is in reality not a security at all;
a promissory note might replace it equally well. The characteristic mark of a
security is the ease with which it may be bought and sold.
Now if to pass easily from hand to hand is the real raison
d’être of the security, everything which facilitates that movement matters,
and therefore a suitable legal code most of all. But when is it suitable? When
it renders possible speedy changes in the relationship between two people, or
between a person and a commodity.
In a society where every commodity continues as a rule in the
possession of one and the same person, the law will strive all it can to
fix every relationship between persons and things. On the other hand, if a body
of people depends for its existence on the continued acquisition of
commodities, its legal system will safeguard intercourse and exchange.
In modern times our highly organized system of
intercommunication, and especially dealings in securities and credit
instruments of all kinds, has facilitated the removal of old and the rise of
new legal relationships. But this is contrary to the spirit of Roman and German
law, both of which placed obstacles in the way of commodities changing hands.
Indeed, under these systems any one who has been deprived of a possession not
strictly in accordance with law may demand its return from the present owner,
without the need of any compensation, even though his bona-fides be
established. In modern law, on the other hand, the return of the possession can be made
only if the claimant pays the present owner the price he gave for it—to say
nothing of the possibility that the original owner has no claim whatever
against the present holder.
If this be so, whence did the principle, so alien to the older
systems, enter into modern law? The answer is that in all probability it was
from the Jewish legal code, in which laws favouring exchange were an integral
part from of old.
Already in the Talmud we see how the present owner of any object
is protected against the previous owners. “If any one,” we read in the “Mishna”
(Baba Kama, 114b and 115a), “after it has become known
that a burglary took place at his house finds his books and utensils in the
possession of another, this other must declare on oath how much he paid for the
goods, and on his receiving the amount returns them to the original owner. But
if no burglary has taken place, there is no need for this procedure, for it is
then assumed that the owner sold the goods to a second person and that the
present owner bought them.” In every case, therefore, the present owner obtains
compensation, and in certain given circumstances he retains the objects without
any further ado. The “Gamara,” it is true, wavers somewhat in the discussion of
the passage, but in general it comes to the same conclusion. The present owner
must receive “market protection,” and the previous owner must pay him the price
he gave.
The attitude of the Talmud, then, is a friendly one towards
exchange, and the Jews adopted it throughout the Middle Ages. But more than
that—and this is the important point—they succeeded quite early in getting the
principle recognized by Christian law-courts in cases where Jews were
concerned. For centuries there was a special enactment regulating the
acquisition of moveables by Jews; it received official recognition for the
first time in the “Privileges” issued by King Henry IV to the Jews of Speyers
in 1090. “If a commodity that has been stolen,” we read therein, “is found in
the possession of a Jew who declares that he bought it, let him swear according
to his law how much he paid for it, and if the original owner pays him the
price, the Jew may restore the commodity to him.” Not only in Germany, but in
other lands too46 (in France already about
the middle of the 12th century), is this special ordinance for Jews to be met
with.47
But when all is said, the principal thing was to establish a
suitable market for credit instruments. The Stock Exchange answered the purpose.
And just as the commodities there to be bought and sold were impersonal
embodiments of claims, so, too, was the dealing divested of its personal
character. Indeed, this is a feature of the Stock Exchange which differentiates
it from other markets. It is no longer the trustworthiness that a merchant
enjoys in the estimation of his fellow-merchants, based upon personal
experience, that underlies business activities, but the general, abstract
valuation of credit, the ditto di Borsa. Prices are no longer formed by
the higgling of two or more traders talking over their transactions, but rather
by a mechanical process, representing the average of a thousand and one units.48
As for the history of the Stock Exchange (in the broadest
connotation of the term), it may be divided into two periods—(1) from its
beginning in the 16th to the end of the 18th century, an epoch of growth and
development, and (2) from the 19th century to the present day, when the Stock
Exchange dominates all economic activities.
It is now generally agreed that the origin of Stock Exchange
dealing most likely began with the associating of bill-brokers.49 The centres where the famous exchanges first
arose in the 16th and 17th centuries were previously well known for a brisk
trade in bills.
The important thing for us is that just when the Stock Exchanges
came into being the Jews almost entirely monopolized bill-broking. In many
towns, indeed, this business was regarded as a Jewish specialty. That such was
the case in Venice we have already seen.50 It
was also true of Amsterdam, though we must add that the first mention of Jews
in that capacity was not until the end of the 17th century.51 Despite this, however, I believe we shall be
safe in assuming that previous to that date also they were influential
bill-brokers.
In Frankfort-on-the-Main we hear the same story. Already in the
16th century a contemporary”52 says of the
Jews who came to the fan’s that their presence was “hardly ornamental but
certainly very useful, especially in the bill-discounting business.” Again, in
1685, the Christian merchants of Frankfort complained that the Jews had
captured the whole of the business of bill-broking.53
Lastly, Gliickel von Hamein states in her Memoirs that friends of
her family dealt in bills, “as was customary among Jews.”34
As for Hamburg, Jews certainly introduced the business of bill broking there. A
hundred years after the event (1733) a document in the Archives of the Senate
expressed the opinion that “Jews were almost masters of the situation in bill-broking
and had quite beaten our people at it.”55 And
even as late as the end of the 18th century the Jews were almost the only
purchasers of bills in Hamburg. Among other German towns, it is recorded that
in Furth bill-broking (in the 18th century) was almost entirely in Jewish
hands.56
The position in Vienna was no different. The Austrian capital, as
is well known, became a notable centre as a stock market at the end of the 18th
century, and the State Chancellor Ludewig remarks concerning the activities of
the Jews under Leopold I, “chiefly in Vienna by the influence and credit of the
Jews business of the greatest importance is often transacted. Especially
exchanges and negotiations of the first import in the market.”
So in Bordeaux, where we are told57
“the chief business activity is buying bills and introducing gold and
silver into the realm.” Even from so far north as
When speculation in stocks first arose is as yet difficult to
determine. Some have held59 that the
Italian cities furnish examples of this kind of dealing as early as the 15th
century.60 But to my mind this has not yet
been conclusively proved.61
Not in Italy in the 15th, but in Amsterdam in the 17th century
will the beginnings of modern speculation have to be more correctly placed. It
is almost certain that the Dutch East India Company’s shares called stock-jobbing
into existence. The large number of shares of equal value that were suddenly
put into circulation at that time, the strong speculative temper of the age,
the great interest taken in the Company ever since its foundation, the changing
rates of profit that its activities produced—all these must surely have given
an impetus to stock and share dealing on the Amsterdam Exchange,62 then already a highly developed institution.
In the space of only eight years dealing in stock became so general and so reckless
that it was regarded as an evilby the authorities, who tried to abolish it. A
proclamation by the Government of the 26th February, 1610, forbade merchants to sell
more shares than they actually possessed. Similar prohibitions were issued in
1621, 1623, 1677, 1700 and so on, all equally without effect.
Who were the speculators? The answer is, all those irrespective
of religion who had sufficient money to enable them to participate.
Nevertheless the assumption will not be too bold that the Jews were more
prominent than others in this activity. Their contribution to the growth of
Stock Exchange business was their specialization in stockbroking and the device
of dealing in futures. We are not without evidence on both points. Towards the
end of the 18th century it was a generally accepted fact that Jews had
“discovered” the stock and share business.63 This
belief does not necessarily prove anything; yet that it was without any
foundation is hardly likely, especially as there are witnesses to give it
support. Nicolas Muys van Holy, who has already been mentioned, says that Jews
were the principal stockholders—already in the second half of the 17th century.
Later they are found as large investors in both the Dutch India Companies. De
Pinto64 is the authority as regards the
Dutch East India Company, and for the West India Company there is the letter of
the Directors to Stuyvesant,65 the
Governor of New Amsterdam, requesting him to allow the Jews to settle in the
Company’s colony, “also because of the large amount of capital which they have
invested in shares of the Company.” Referring to both companies, Manasseh ben
Israel66 reported to Cromwell “that the
Jews were enjoying a good part of the Dutch East and West India Company.”
Most significant of all, however, the book which for the first
time exhaustively treated of Stock Exchange business in all its branches was
written by a Portuguese Jew in Amsterdam, towards the end of the 17th century.
I refer to Don Joseph de la Vega’s Confusion de confusiones, etc., which
appeared in 1688,67 and which a Stock
Exchange specialist has described as “being still the best description, both in
form and substance, of stock and share dealing even to-day.” The book bears
witness to the fact that a Jew was the first “theorist” in the sphere of
speculations in futures. De la Vega was himself engaged in commerce and his
treatise clearly reflects the atmosphere in which he lived.
De la Vega’s book in conjunction with the other evidence quoted
cannot but lead to the conclusion that if the Jews were not actually the
“fathers” of Stock Exchange business they were certainly primarily concerned in
its genesis.
Should this view nevertheless be sceptically received by some, I have a trump card in
the way of direct proof in support of it. We possess a report, probably of the
French Ambassador in The Hague, written for his Government in the year 1698,
wherein he distinctly states that the Jews held the Stock Exchange business in
their hands, and shaped its development as they willed. The most salient
passages68 here follow in full:—
In this State (Holland) the Jews have a good deal of power and
according to the prognostications of these pretended political speculators,
themselves often unreliable, the prices of these stocks vary so considerably
that they cause transactions to take place several times a day, transactions
which merit the term wager or bet rather than business; the more so, as the
Jews who dominate this kind of activity are up to all manner of tricks which
take in people, even if they be ever so skilled.... Their Jewish brokers and
agents, the cleverest of their kind in all the world.... Bonds and shares, of
all of which they hold large amounts.
The author, acquainted as he is with all the secrets of Stock
Exchange activity, describes at length how the Jews succeeded in obtaining the
influential position they held on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange. I shall refer
to this in due course.
Much light is thrown on the conditions of the Stock Exchange in
the Dutch capital when compared with those in other centres. Let us take London
first, which from the 18th century onward succeeded Amsterdam as the chief
financial centre in Europe. The predominance of Jews in the Stock Exchange in
London is perhaps more apparent even than in the case of Amsterdam. The growing
activity in the London Stock market towards the end of the 17th century may be
traced to the exertions of Amsterdam Jews, who at that time began to settle in
England. If this be so, it is proof positive that the Jews were in large
measure responsible for the expansion of Stock Exchange dealing in Amsterdam.
Else how could they have been so influential in the London Exchange, highly
developed as it then already was?
One or two particulars in the story of the accession to power of
the Jews in the London Exchange may be noted.
In 1657 Solomon Dormido applied for admission as a member of the
Exchange, from which Jews were officially excluded. The law which ordered this
exclusion seems to have been conveniently forgotten. Any how, towards the end of the 17th
century the Exchange (which since 1698 had become known as ‘Change Alley) was
full of Jews. So numerous did they become that a special corner of the building
was designated the “Jews’ Walk.” “The Alley throngs with Jews,” wrote a
contemporary. 69
Whence these throngs?70 The
answer is obvious. They came in the train of William III from Amsterdam, and
brought with them the machinery of Stock Exchange dealings in vogue there. The
events, as related by John Francis, are regarded as a true presentation by many
authorities, even on the Jewish side.
The Stock Exchange was like Minerva: it appeared on the scene
ready armed. The principal participants in the first English loan were Jews:
they assisted William III with their advice, and one of them, the wealthy
Medina, was Marlborough’s banker, giving the General an annual grantof £6,000
and receiving in return the advantage of being first in the field with news of
the wars. The victories of the English troops were as profitable to Medina as
they were honourable for England. All the tricks bound up with rising and
falling prices, lying reports from the seat of war, the pretended arrival of
couriers, the formation of financial cliques and cabals behind the scenes, the
whole system of Mammon’s wheels—they knew them all, the early fathers of the
Stock Exchange, and utilized them to the full to their own advantage.
By the side of Sir Solomon Medina (“the Jew Medina,” as he was
called), who may be regarded as having originated speculation in the public
funds in England, we may place a number of other wealthy Jews of the reign of
Anne, all of whom speculated on the Stock Exchange. Manasseh Lopez was one. He
amassed a fortune in the panic which followed the false news that the Queen was
dead, buying up all Government Stock which had fallen in price in consequence.
A similar story is told of Sampson Gideon, known among the Gentiles as “the
great Jew broker.”71 A notion of the
financial strength of the Jews in the London of those days may be obtained when
it is recalled that at the beginning of the 18th century the number of Jewish
families with an annual income between £1000 and £2000 was put by Picciotto at
100; those with an annual income of £300 at 1000; whilst some individual Jews,
such as Mendes da Costa, Moses Hart, Aaron Frank, Baron d’Aguilar, Moses Lopez
Pereira, Moses or Anthony da Costa (who towards the end of the 17th century was
a Director of the Bank of England) and others were among the wealthiest
merchants in London.
It is evident then that the wealth of the Jews brought about
Stock Exchange speculation on a large scale. But more striking still, the
business of stock-jobbing as a specialized profession was introduced into the
London Exchange by Jews, probably in the first half of the 18th century. As far
as I am aware this fact has hitherto passed unnoticed. But there is
abundant proof in support of it.
Postlethwayt, who is pretty reliable in matters of this kind,
asserts72 that “Stock-jobbing … was at
first only the simple occasional transferring of interest and shares from one
to another as persons alienated their estates; but by the industry of the
stockbrokers, who got the business into their hands, it became a trade; and
one, perhaps, which has been managed with the greatest intrigue, artifice, and
trick that ever anything which appeared with a face of honesty could be handled
with; for, while the brokers held the box, they made the whole exchange the
gamesters, and raised and lowered the prices of stocks as they pleased and
always had both buyers and sellers, who stood ready, innocently to commit their
money to the mercy of their mercenary tongues.” That Jews formed a considerable
proportion of brokers is wellknown. As early as 1697, out of one hundred sworn
brokers on the London Exchange, no fewer than twenty were Jews and aliens.
Doubtless their number increased in the centuries that followed. “The Hebrews
flocked to ‘Change Alley from every quarter under heaven,” wrote Francis.
Indeed, a reliable observer of the 1730’s (that is to say, a generation after
their first appearance on the London Exchange) remarks73 that there were too many Jewish brokers for them all to do
business, consequently this “has occasioned almost one half of the Jew brokers
to run into stock-jobbing.” The same authority puts the number of Jews then in
London at 6000.
This process, by which stock-jobbing was in a sense the outcome
of stockbroking, was not limited to London. The same tendencies showed
themselves in Frankfort. Towards the end of the 17th century the Jews there
were in possession of the entire broking business,74
and gradually no doubt worked their way into stock-jobbing. In Hamburg75 the Portuguese Jews had four brokers in 1617,
whilst a little later there were twenty. Taking these facts into consideration,
taking into consideration also that public opinion regarded the Jews as
responsible for the growth of arbitrage business on the London Exchange,76 and that Jews participated to a great degree
in the big speculations in Government Stock towards the end of the 18th century,
we shall be forced to agree with the view that has been expressed by a first-rate authority,77 that if to-day London is the chief financial
centre of the world, it owes this position in large measure to the Jews.
In the period of early capitalism, the Stock Exchanges of other
towns lagged far behind those of Amsterdam and London. Even in Paris it was not
until towards the end of the 18th century that business became at all brisk.
The beginnings of stock speculation (or Agiotage, as it is called in
France) can be traced to the early 18th century; Ranke78 discovered the term Agioteur in a letter of Elisabeth
Charlotte, dated 18th January, 1711. The writer is of the opinion that the term
had some connexion with the billets de monnaye (bills) but that it was unknown
before. It would seem, therefore, that the Law period left no lasting
impression. For even in the 1730’s the economic pre-eminence of England and
Holland, both more capitalistically advanced than their neighbour, was felt in
France. One writer of the time79 makes
this clear. “The circulation of stock is one of the sources of great wealth to
our neighbours; they have a bank, dividendsare paid, and stock and shares are
sold.” Apparently then such was not the case in France. Even in 1785, an edict
(7th August) proclaimed that “the King is informed that for some time past a
new kind of commodity has been introduced into the capital”—viz., stocks and
shares.
The condition of comparative unimportance which Stock Exchange
activities occupied in France during the 18th century is a direct indication
that the Jews had little influence on the economic life of France (and
especially of Paris) in that period. The cities in which they resided, such as
Lyons or Bordeaux, were hardly favourable to the development of stockbroking.
In Lyons, however, there was for a short space, in the 16th century, a fairly
brisk trade in what would to-day be called securities, but no satisfactory
reasons have as yet been offered to explain it.80
Anyhow, it had no after-effects.
But to return to Paris. What stockbroking it had it probably owed
to the Jews. The centre of this business was in the Rue Quincampoix, which
later became notorious through the swindles connected with the name of Law. Now
in this particular street there lived, in the words of a reliable authority,81 “many Jews.” Be that as it may, the man with
whom the first stock speculations in France were connected, one who was a
greater master of the art of manipulation than even Law, was Samuel Bernard,
the well-known financier of Louis XIV. No wonder then that the billets de
monnaye, when they became merely bits of valueless paper, were nicknamed Bernardines.82 And as for John Law, his knowledge of the mechanism of
the Stock Exchange had been acquired in Amsterdam.83
Whether he was himself a Jew (it has been held84 that Law == Levy) I have been unable to discover. It is,
however, quite possible. Was not his father a “goldsmith” (and banker)? He was,
it is true, a Christian, but that is not necessarily a proof of his non-Jewishness.
The Jewish appearance of the man in portraits (for example, in the German
edition (1720) of his Money and Trade Considered) rather supports the
thesis that he was a Jew. On the other hand, the peculiar mixture of the
lordling and the adventurer which characterized his nature is against the
assumption.
In Germany the Exchanges of Frankfort and Hamburg, the two Jewish
towns par excellence, alone reached a position of any importance.
Illustrations of the Jewish influence have already been dealt with.
As for Berlin, it may be said that the Stock Exchange there was a
Jewish institution from its very inception. At the beginning of the last
century, even before 1812, when they were emancipated, the Jews predominated
numerically on the Exchange. Of the four Presidents, two were Jews; and the
whole Stock Exchange Committee was made up as follows:—4 Presidents, 10 Wardens
of the two Gilds, 1 of the Elbe Seamen’s Gild, and 8 “of the merchants of the
Jewish nation, elected thereto.” Out of a total of 23, therefore, 10 were Jews.
That is to say, professing Jews: it is impossible to determine whether, and how
many, baptized Jews and crypto-Jews were in the committee.
As it is, their number shows plainly enough that stockbroking had
its large quota of Jews. Of six sworn bill-brokers three were Jews. Further, of
the two sworn brokers in cotton and silk, one was a Jew, and his substitute was
also a Jew. That is to say, of a total of three, two were Jews.85
Stockbroking so far as Germany in the 18th century was concerned
was carried on only in Hamburg and Frankfort. Already at the beginning of that
century trading in securities was forbidden. A proclamation of the Hamburg
Council, dated 19th July, 1720, expresses itself as follows:—“The Council has
heard to its abhorrence and great disgust, that certain private citizens, under
the pretext of founding an assurance company, have on their own authority
commenced business as dealers in shares. The Council fears that harmful
consequences may ensue therefrom as well to the public at large, as also to the
said private citizens.”86 It seems that
the powers that be were only voicing the general feeling in the matter; “the
dangerous and wickedly ruinous trade in stocks and shares” a writer of the tune87 indignantly called it.
Were Jews here also the originators? So much at least is certain,
that the impetus to stock-dealing came from the circles of the assurers, as is
apparent from the above-mentioned proclamation of 1720. Now, as a matter of
fact, it is known that Jews actively stimulated the growth of marine insurance
in Hamburg.88 Any further evidence as to
Stock Exchange influences is only indirect. The same applies to Frankfort The
first certain trace dates from 1817, and refers to Augsburg. There is on record
the decision of a court of law in a bill case of the 14th February in the year
mentioned. A motion to enforce payment of the difference in the price of a
credit-instrument which rose owing to the rise of the market-rate was
dismissed, on the ground that it was of the nature of a game of hazard. The sum
in question was 17,630 florins, and the original contract was for delivery of
90,000 florins’ worth of lottery tickets in the Bavarian State Lottery. The
plaintiff’s name was Heymann, the defendant’s H. E. Ullmann! This is the first
attested case of speculation in bonds in Germany.89
But with the year 1817 we reach a period which differed from the
preceding one, and which I consider as opening a new epoch in the history of
Stock Exchange transactions. Why new? What were its special features that it
should be described by that dreadful word “modern”?
Judgments on the Stock Exchange by contemporaries then and now
show how widely different a position it occupies to-day from what it did even a
hundred years ago.
Until well on in the 18th century, even in capitalistic circles,
speculation in the public funds was looked at askance. The standard commercial
handbooks and dictionaries in English, French, Italian and German, which have
come down to us from the 18th century, either make no mention at all of
dealings in stocks (especially in the economically “backward” countries), or
if, like Postlethwayt, they do treat of the subject, they cannot sufficiently
express their contempt for it. The view concerning the Stock Exchange which is
to-day held by the petty trader, the small shopkeeper or the farmer was in the
18th century that of the rich merchant. When in 1733 Sir John Barnard’s Bill
(to prevent the “infamous practice of stock-jobbing”) was being discussed in
the House of Commons, all the speakers were unanimous in their condemnation of
the business. Half a generation later the same harsh terms are to be found in the pages
of Postlethwayt, who refers to “those mountebanks we very properly call
stockbrokers.” Stock-jobbing he regards as a “public grievance,” which has
become “scandalous, to the nation.”90 No
wonder that the legislation of the period completely forbade the business.
But the dislike of the Stock Exchange went deeper still. It was
bound up with an aversion for what the Exchange rested on—securities in
general. Naturally the interests of the State coincided with those who defended
the trade in securities, so that Ruler and Jobber were ranged as a lonely
couple on one side, while everybody else was on the other—save only those who indulged
in the purchase of securities. In truth, the National Debt was looked upon as
something of which States had need to be ashamed, and the best men of their
generation were agreed that its growth was an evil which should be combated by
all possible means. Thinkers and practical men were united on this point. In
commercial circles the question was seriously discussed how the public debt
could be paid off, and it was even suggested that the State should disavow its
responsibilities in connexion with the debt, and so wipe it out. And this in
England in the second half of the 18th century!91
Nor were the theorists of the time differently minded. The system of
public borrowing is called by David Hume “a practice … ruinous beyond all
controversy;”92 Adam Smith writes of “the
ruinous practice of funding,” “the ruinous expedient of perpetual funding ...
has gradually enfeebled every State which has adopted it” … “the progress of
the enormous debts, which at present oppress and will in the long run probably
ruin all the great nations of Europe.”93 In
these opinions, as always, Adam Smith is the mirror of the economic conditions
of his age, a period of early capitalistic development, and nothing
distinguishes it from our own so well as the fact that in the complete system
of Adam Smith there is no niche available for the study of securities, or of
the Stock Exchange and its business.
About the same time, however, a book appeared which dealt only
with credit and its blessings, with the Stock Exchange and its significance; a
book which may be justly termed the “Song of Songs” of Public Debts and
share-dealing; a book which looked to the Future, as the Wealth of Nations looked
to the Past. I refer to the Traité
du credit et de la circulation, published in 1771 from the pen
of Joseph de Pinto. Now Pinto was a Portuguese Jew, hence my special reference
to him in this connexion. In his pages may be found the very arguments which
have been put
forward in the 19th century in defence of public credit, of dealings in
securities and of speculation in the public funds. If Adam Smith in his system
be said to stand at the end ofthe period in which the Stock Exchange was in its
infancy, Pinto may be regarded as standing at the beginning of the modern era
with its theory of credit, in which stock and share speculation have become the
centre of economic activity, and the Stock Exchange the heart of the body
economic.
Silently, but none the less surely, public opinion veered round
in favour of dealings in securities and of the recognition of the Stock
Exchange as a necessity. Public opinion grew as these grew, and step by step,
hostile legislation was removed, so that when the Napoleonic wars were over and
peace reigned once more, the Stock Exchange began to take on enormous
dimensions.
We see, then, that there is some justification for speaking of a
new period in the history of the Stock Exchange. What were the actual changes?
And to what extent were the Jews concerned in bringing about the new state of
affairs?
There was not much modification in the mechanism of the Stock
Exchange; that was complete as early as 1688, when de la Vega published his
book. Naturally, subsidiary kinds of business activities cropped up here and
there, and of these, too, Jews were generally the originators. Thus I have
discovered94 that the business of
insurance was established (in Germany) by W. Z. Wertheimer in Frankfort, and
that of the peculiar form of ship chartering known as “Heuergeschäft”
Jews were the founders.
But the rise of subsidiary businesses was not the salient point
in the development of Stock Exchange activities. It was rather the extensive
and intensive growth of the volume of business.
The enormous increase in the number of securities which have
appeared in the market since the beginning of the 19th century, and the
rapidity with which they came before the public, are facts too well known to
need repetition. But with this increase came also an extension of speculation.
Until about the middle of the 18th century, speculation in London and Amsterdam
may be compared to little ripples on the face of the water. It was not till
1763, as a reliable informant tells us, that the first private loan was floated
in Amsterdam. Previously what speculation there was was limited to public
bonds, “but during the last war a vast ocean of annuities flooded the market.”95 Even so, there were only fortyfour different
kinds of securities on the Amsterdam Exchange about the middle of the century. Of these,
twenty-five were bonds of internal, and six of German loans. When the century
closed, the first category of bonds numbered eighty, and the second thirty.96 Then came a sudden upward movement,
especially after the defeat of Napoleon. From the first establishment of the
Amsterdam Exchange until the year 1770, a total debt of 250,000,000 Gulden had
been dealt in; whereas in fourteen years (1808–22) one London firm alone issued
a greater sum—22,000,000 pounds. All this is common knowledge; and the identity
of that one London firm, which in a decade floated so vast a sum on the market,
does not need further indication.
With the mention of this firm, and of its four branches, we have
touched on the connexion between the extensive growth of Stock Exchange
activities and the Jewish influence upon it. For the expansion of the share
market between 1800 and 1850 was also the expansion of the house of Rothschild
and its appendages. The name Rothschild refers to more than the firm: it stands
for the whole of Jewish influence on the Stock Exchange. By the aid of that
influence the Rothschilds were enabled to attain to their powerful position—it
may even be said to their unique position—in the market for Government
securities. It was no exaggeration to assert that in many a land the minister
of finance who could not come to an agreement with this firm might as well
close the doors of his exchequer. “There is only one power in Europe,” was a
dictum well-known about the middle of the 19th century, “and that is
Rothschild: a dozen other banks are his underlings, his soldiers are all honest
merchants and workmen, and speculation is his sword” (A. Weil). Heine’s wit, in
passages that are surely too well-known to need quoting, has demonstrated the
importance of the family better far than any table of figures.
I have not the least intention of writing here a history of the
Rothschilds, even in outline. The reader will find ample material97 at his disposal should he wish to acquaint
himself with the fortunes of this remarkable family. All I shall do will be to
point out one or two characteristics which the modern Stock Exchange owes to
them, in order to make clear that not only quantitatively, but also
qualitatively, the Stock Exchange bears the impress of the Rothschilds (and
therefore of the Jew).
The first feature to be observed is that, since the appearance of
the Rothschilds, the stock market has become international. This was only to be
expected, considering the enormous extension of Stock Exchange activities, which
necessitated the flow of vast sums from all parts of the inhabited world to the
borrowing centres. To-day the internationalization of the stock market is an
accepted fact; at the commencement of the 19th century it was regarded with
nothing short of amazement. When in 1808, during the Peninsular War, Nathan
Rothschild undertook in London to attend to the pay of the English army in
Spain, his action was regarded as a stupendous achievement, and indeed, laid
the foundation of all his influence. Until 1798 only the Frankfort firm had
been in existence; in that year one of the sons of Mayer Amschel established a
branch in London, another son settled in Paris in 1812, a third in Vienna in
1816, and a fourth in Naples in 1820. The conditions were thus given whereby a
foreign loan might be treated as though it were an internal loan, and gradually
the public became accustomed to investing their capital in foreign securities,
seeing that the interest could be paid at home in coins of the realm. Writers
of the early 19th century describe it as a marvellous thing that “every holder
of Government stock … can receive his dividends in various places at his
convenience without any difficulty. The Rothschilds in Frankfort pay interest
for many Governments; the Paris house pays the dividends on the Austrian
Métalliques, the Neapolitan Rentes, the Anglo-Neapolitan Loan either in London,
Naples or Paris.”98
The circle of possible investors was thus enlarged. But the
Rothschilds were also alive to the importance of obtaining every available
penny that could be borrowed, and for this purpose they skilfully utilized the
machinery of the Stock Exchange for floating loans.
As far as can be judged from contemporary records,99 the issue by the Rothschilds of the Austrian
bonds in 1820–1 was an epoch-making event, both in public borrowing and in
Stock Exchange business. For the first time all the ropes were pulled to create
a demand for the shares, and speculations in Government stocks may be stated to
have begun on this occasion, at least on the Continent.
“To create a demand” was henceforth the watchword of the Stock
Exchange. “To create a demand” was the object in view when, by means of
systematic buying and selling, changes were brought about in price; and the
Rothschilds devoted themselves to the business from the first.100 In a sense, they carried on what the French
called agiotage, and this was something quite new for a great banking
firm to do. In reality the Rothschilds only adopted the methods of the
Amsterdam Jews for artificially influencing the market, but they applied them
to a new purpose—the placing of fresh securities before the public. The changed
relation of the banker to the Stock Exchange on the one hand, and to the public
on the other, will become more apparent when we have glanced at the new
activities which loomed on the horizon at this period—the age of the
Rothschilds—and began to play an independent role. I mean the business of
bringing out loans.
The business of bringing out loans is an attempt to obtain profit
by means of the creation of securities. It is important because it represents a
capitalistic force of exceedingly great power. Henceforth, stocks and shares
come into being not because of the needs of those who require money and depend
on credit, but quite independently, as a form of capitalistic enterprise. Hitherto
the possible investor was waited for until he came; now he is sought out. The
loan-floater becomes, as it were, aggressive; he gives the impetus to the
borrowing movement. But this is hardly ever noticeable. We see how it works,
however, when small States require loans; we may imagine a kind of “commercial
traveller in loans.” “Now we have wealthy firms with large machinery, whose
time and staff are devoted to hunting about the world for Powers for whom to
bring out loans.”101
Naturally, the loan-floater’s relation to the Stock Exchange and
the public changes. He must be aggressive and pushful, now that his main work
is to get people to take up shares.
There is as yet no satisfactory history of the business of
bringing out loans. We do not know, therefore, when it first began; its
origins, however, no doubt reach back into the 18th century, and probably there
were three well marked stages in its growth.
In the first of these, either a bank or a wealthy individual
(who, in the pre-Stock Exchange period himself made the loan) was entrusted
with the placing of the debt in return for a commission. Such was the method
adopted in Austria throughout the whole of the 18th century: “Loans of fairly
large sums, especially those contracted abroad, were usually obtained through
the intervention of a bank or a group of financiers. The firm in question
arranged, by means of public subscription, for the supply of the amount needed;
handed over the sum to the borrower or his agent; undertook’ the payment of
interest and portions of the principal to the individual lenders—out of their
own funds if need be; all, of course, for a consideration.”102
But about the middle of the 18th century there were already
“dealers in loans.” In 1769 there were Italian and Dutch firms who would
willingly undertake the floating of loans.103 Adam
Smith’s description of this business makes the matter plainer still. “In
England … the merchants are generally the people who advance money to
Government. But by advancing it they do not mean to diminish, but, on the
contrary, to increase their mercantile capitals; and unless theyexpected to
sell with some profit their share in the subscription for a new loan, they
never would subscribe.” In France, on the other hand, those concerned in the
finances were people of private means, who advanced their own money.104
Where did the specialists in this business come from? Not from
among the bankers, who in the 18th century floated loans, but in all
probability from among the dealers in stock and shares. Towards the end of the
18th century the charmed circle of London bankers who had the monopoly of
bringing out Government loans was broken through by competition from the ranks
of the stockholders. Here, too, it was a Jewish firm that took the initiative,
and brought the emission of loans into connexion with the Stock Exchange. I
refer to the “Rothschilds of the 18th century,” the men who predominated in
‘Change Alley in those days—Abraham and Benjamin Goldsmid. In 1792 they came
forward as the first members of the Stock Exchange105
to compete with the bankers of London in the bringing out of the new
loan, and from that date until the death of the second brother, Abraham, which
occurred in 1810, this firm controlled the money market. Perhaps we may account
them as the first “loan specialists,” whom the Rothschilds succeeded. But even
if there is some doubt about the Goldsmids’ claim, there can be no possible
doubt about the Rothschilds’, who were thus certainly the first in the field.
But it is obvious that only a few wealthy firms could subsist by
the business of issuing public loans. After all, the demand was comparatively
limited. But as soon as opportunities offered themselves for the creation of
securities for private needs, a very wide field of activity was ready for
ploughing. All that was necessary was to create a big demand artificially, and
this tendency gave birth to company-promoting and mortgage business.
Company-promoting is carried on by firms “whose business it
professedly is to make money by manufacturing stocks and shares wholesale and
forcing them upon the public” (Crump). The strength of the motive power that
thus began to actuate economic activities need scarcely be described. It was
not to the interest of undertakers, some of no small importance, to create
fresh capital by the issue of new stock or by extending the old, without any
reference at all to the question as to whether there was a demand for the stock
or not.
Who first started this form of business? It will not be difficult
to show that even if the Jews did not actually establish it, they certainly
helped forward its development.
The first ray of light on this matter, as far as we can make out,
is once again the activity of the Rothschilds. The railway boom of the 1830’s
made it possible to carry on company-promoting on a large scale. The
Rothschilds, as well as other Jewish houses (the d’Eichthals, the Foulds,
etc.), were the first in the field, and brought this branch of business to a
flourishing condition.
The extent of the participation may be gathered in some degree
from the length of the lines built, or the amount of capital subscribed. But
the actual share of the individual firms cannot be estimated. Nevertheless, we
know that the Rothschilds “built” the Northern Railway in France, the Northern
Railway in Austria, the Austro-Italian Railway, and many more.
Further, judging from the views of contemporaries, it would
appear that the Rothschilds were really the first “Railway Kings.” In 1843 the Augsburger
Allgemeine Zeitung wrote as follows: “When in the last few years
speculation became rife in industrial undertakings, and railways grew to be a
necessity for the Continent, the Rothschilds took the plunge and placed
themselves at the head of the new movement.” The house of Rothschild set the
fashion in railway building as it had done before in public loans. “Scarcely a
company that was started in Germany but looked to the goodwill of Rothschild.
Those in which he had no say were not very successful, and little could be made
out of them.”106 Statements such as these,
in which friend and foe agree, are significant enough.
Ever since those days the activity of floating companies has
become a specialty of Jewish undertakers. In the first place, the very biggest
men, such as Baron Hirsch or Dr. Strousberg, were Jews. But the rank and file,
too, have many Jews among them. A glance at the figures on the next page
concerning the promotion of companies in Germany in the two years 1871–3
suffices to show that an astoundingly large number of Jews participated in the
work.107 But these figures do not tell the
whole story. In
the first place, they form only a selection of the whole, and refer (of set
purpose) to the “shaky” companies, from which the Jews will probably have kept
away; and secondly, in many cases, the Jews were behind the scenes as
controlling influences, and those in the foreground were merely puppets. Even
so the figures will serve a useful purpose.
The tendency is perhaps best seen where private banking is still
important, as it is in England. Here, as I am told on the best authority, of
the 63 banks in the Bankers’ Almanack for 1904, 33 were Jewish firms, or
at least with a strong Jewish interest, and of these 33, 13 were firstclass
concerns.
It is more difficult to determine the proportion of Jews in this
calling in countries (e.g., Germany) where the private banker has been
displaced by the joint-stock bank. But everything points to Jewish influence in
the tendency of the joint-stock banks to act as company promoters.
None of the decades of company-flotation, neither the fifties nor
the seventies, nor still less the nineties, would have been conceivable without
the co-operation of the speculative bank. The stupendous undertakings in
railway construction owe their very existence to the banks, which advanced
capital to limited companies of their own creation. Private firms, it is true,
did no little in the same direction, but their means did not allow of rivalry
with the great banks. In France, between 1842 and 1847, no less than 144 million
francs were spent in railway building; in the following four years 130
millions, while from 1852 to 1854 the sum had reached 250 millions; in 1855
alone it was 500 millions, and in 1856 520 millions.108 It was the same in Germany. “The entire work of building our
net of railways in this period (1848–70) … was carried through … with the
assistance of banks.”109
The reason for this is not far to seek. On the one hand, the
increase of available capital, which was due to the rise of new joint-stock
banks, paved the way for proportionately larger undertakings. On the other
hand, since the joint-stock company in trying to obtain greater profits strove,
harder than a private firm to add to its activities, all possible opportunities
that presented themselves were utilized to the full.110 How did this special banking activity originate?111 I believe it may be traced to 1852, when the
credits mobiliers112 were first
established. The history of the crédit mobilier is well known.113 What interests us specially is that it owes
its inception to two Portuguese Jews, Isaac and Emil Pereire, and that other Jews
participated in it. The list of subscribers showed that the two Pereires
together held 11,446 shares, and Fould-Oppenheim 11,445, that among the other
large shareholders were Mallet Freres, Benjamin Fould, Torlonia (of Rome),
Solomon Heine (of Hamburg), Oppenheim (of Cologne)—in other words, the chief
representatives of European Jewry. The Rothschilds were not found in the ist,
for the crédit mobilier was directed against them.
|
Nature of Establishment |
Total
Number |
Number
of Jews |
|
Twenty-five firms of first-rate importance that floated companies |
25 |
16 |
|
Two of the biggest mining syndicates |
13 |
5 |
|
Continental Railway Company (capital 1½ million sterling) |
6 |
4 |
|
Twelve land-purchase companies in Berlin |
80 |
27 |
|
Building Society, “Unter den Linden” |
8 |
4 |
|
Nine building banks |
104 |
37 |
|
Nine Berlin breweries |
54 |
27 |
|
Twenty North German machine building companies |
148 |
47 |
|
Ten North German gasworks |
49 |
18 |
|
Twenty paper factories |
89 |
22 |
|
Twelve North German chemical works |
67 |
22 |
|
Twelve North German
textile factories |
65 |
27 |
The French crédit mobilier produced in the
years that followed a number of offshoots, legitimate and illegitimate, all of
Jewish blood. In Austria there was the “Kaiserlich-Koenigliche privilegierte
oesterreichische Kreditanstalt,” established in 1855 by S. M. Rothschild. In
Germany the first institution modelled on the new principle was the Bank fur
Handel und Industrie (Darmstadter Bank), founded in 1853, on the initiative of
the Oppenheims of Cologne.114 One of the first directors of this bank was Hess, who
had been a high official in the crédit mobilier. The Berliner
Discontogesellschaft was the second institution of the same kind. Its origin
was Christian, but its transformation into what it is to-day is the work of
David Hausemann. It was the same with the third German instance—the Berliner
Handelsgesellschaft, which was called into being by the Cologne firms already
mentioned in connexion with the Darmstadter Bank, and by the best known Berlin
bankers, such as Mendelssohn & Co., S. Bleichroder, Robert Warschauer & Co.,
Schickler Brothers, and others Finally, in the case of the Deutsche Bank (1870)
the Jewish element again predominated.
With the speculative banks capitalistic development reached its
zenith, at any rate, for the time being. They pushed the process of the
commercialization of economic life as far forward as it could go. Themselves
children of the Stock Exchange, the speculative banks brought Stock Exchange
activities (i.e., speculation) to their fullest bloom.115 Trade in securities was extended to
undreamt-of proportions. So much so, that the opinion has been expressed that,
in Germany at any rate, the speculative joint-stock banks will replace the
Stock Exchange.118 There may be a grain of
truth in this, provided the terms be properly understood. That the Stock
Exchange may cease to be an open market and be dominated by la haute finance
is possible; but as an economic organization it is bound to gain, if
anything, by modern developments, seeing that its sphere is continuously being
widened.
That is what I mean by the commercialization of industry. The
Stock Exchange activities of the joint-stock banks are becoming more and more
the controlling force in every department of economic life. Indeed, all
undertakings in the field of industry are now determined by the power of
finance. Whether a new industrial concern shall be established or an old one
enlarged, whether a “universal provider” shall receive an increase of capital
in order to extend his business—all this is now decided in the private offices
of banks or bankers. In the same way the distribution of commodities is
becoming more and more a financial problem. It is not too much to say that our
chief industries are as much financial as industrial concerns. The Stock
Exchange determines the price of most international manufactured articles and
raw materials, and he who hopes to survive the competitive strain must be able
to command the Stock Exchange. In a word, it may be safely asserted that all
economic activities nowadays are tending to become commercial dealings.
The electrical industry is the best example. From its first
foundations it represented a new type. Hitherto the great capitalistic
industries regarded their work as finished when they had obtained and carried
out their orders. A particular factory would appoint an agent in every big
town, who in most cases represented other factories as well, and whose search
for customers could not be marked by any very striking initiative. In the
electrical industry all this was changed. Its organizers were the first to see
that one of the primary duties of an industry was to create a market for
itself. What did they do? They endeavoured to capture the customer. On the one
hand, they attempted to control buyers. For example, by purchasing shares
either in tram companies about to be turned into electric tramways, or in
entirely new undertakings, they could obtain a dominating influence over the
body which gave orders for the commodities they were manufacturing. In case of
need, the directors of electrical undertakings would themselves call into being
limited companies for such activities as would create a demand for their goods.
The most successful electrical works have to-day become in an increasing degree
similar to banks for floating companies.
Nor is this all. Another policy they adopted was to establish
branches in all parts in order to seize upon as much of the market as they
could. Whereas formerly reliance was placed on general agents, now the work of
extending the connexion is delegated by each firm to a special representative
of its own. What is the result? The customer is seen at closer quarters; his
needs are better understood and, therefore, better supplied; his wishes more
easily met, and so forth.
It is well known that such was the system adopted by the
Allgemeine Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft and that Felix Deutsch was foremost in
its extension. The older companies have but slowly followed suit. Siemens and
Halske long thought themselves “too grand to run after customers,” until
Berliner, one of their directors, accepted the new plan to such good effect,
that his company soon regained the lost ground from its rival. This instance is
typical, and we may say generally that the commercialization of industry was
the gap in the hedge through which the Jews could penetrate into the field of
the production and transportation of commodities, as they had done earlier in
commerce and finance.
By this we are not asserting that the history of the Jews as
industrialists commences here. Far from it. As soon as modern capitalism
differentiated between the technical and commercial aspects of all economic
processes, so soon was the Jew found engaged in both. It is true that commerce
attracted him more, but already in the early capitalistic period Jews were
among the first undertakers in one industry or another.
Here they established the tobacco industry (Mecklenberg,
Austria); there, whisky distilling (Poland, Bohemia); in some countries they
were leather manufacturers (France, Austria), in others silk manufacturers
(Prussia, Italy and Austria); they made stockings in Hamburg; looking glasses
in Fürth; starch in France; cotton in Moravia. And almost everywhere they were
pioneers in the tailoring trade. I could show by reference to the materials I
have collected that in the 18th and early 19th centuries there were many other
instances of Jews as capitalistic industrialists. 117
But I hold that an account of this aspect of Jewish economic history is
useless, seeing that it contains nothing specifically Jewish. Jews were driven
into an industry by mere chance, and in all probability it would have thriven
without them equally well. Let us take an instance or two. In Poland and
Austria the position of the Jews as the stewards of the nobility brought it
about that they became whisky distillers. In other countries their enterprise
in the tobacco industry was a direct result of their status as Court Jews, in
connexion with which they very often held the tobacco monopoly. In the majority
of instances their commercial activities led to their stocking manufactured
articles, and eventually to their making of them, as in the case of textiles.
But the process is a common one, and non-Jews passed through it equally with
Jews. There was, however, an exception in the case of old clo’ dealing. That
was an essentially Jewish business, and led first to the sale of new clothes,
and eventually to tailoring.
But when all is said, Jewish influence on industrial undertakings
was not very great until their commercialization came about; that is, until in
almost every modern industry the work of directing and organizing has become
common to all, and a man may pass from one industry to another without thereby
diminishing his skill. The technical side is now in all cases a subdivision by
itself. It is no uncommon thing therefore to find that a man who started in the
leather industry ends up as an ironmaster, after having been in turn (shall we
say?) a manufacturer of alcoholic liquors and of sulphuric acid. The
capitalistic undertaker of old bore a technical impress, the modern undertaker
is quite colourless. Can you imagine Alfred Krupp manufacturing anything but
guns, Borsig anything but machines, Werner von Siemens anything but electrical
apparatus? Can you picture H. H. Myer at the head of any other concern but the
Nord-deutscher Lloyd? On the other hand, if Rathenau, Deutsch, Berliner,
Arnold, Friedlander, Ballin changed positions to-morrow they would be no less
successful than in their present capacities. And what is the reason? They are
all men of commerce, and the particular sphere of their activity matters not in
the least.
It has been put thus: the Christian makes his way up, starting as
technician; the Jew as commercial traveller or clerk.
The extent of Jewish participation in industrial undertakings
to-day would be very useful to know, but there is little material to go upon.
We shall have to be content with an approximate estimate, based on the numbers
of Jews who are directors of industrial concerns. The method is
unsatisfactory—naturally so. How is it possible to say with certainty who is a
Jew and who is not? How many people are aware, for example, that Hagen of
Cologne, who holds more directorships than any other man in Germany, was
originally called Levy? But apart from this, mere numbers are no criterion of
the extent of influence. Moreover, in some companies business ability alone
does not determine the membership of the Board of Directors; in others there is
an unwritten law to exclude Jews from positions of trust. In any case,
therefore, the figures that have been obtained relate only to a small portion
of the Jewish influence.
MANAGING
DIRECTORS
|
Industry |
Total |
Number
of Jews |
Percentage
of Jews |
|
Leather and rubber |
19 |
6 |
31.5 |
|
Metal |
52 |
13 |
25.0 |
|
Electrical |
95 |
22 |
23.1 |
|
Brewing |
71 |
11 |
15.7 |
|
Textiles |
59 |
8 |
13.5 |
|
Chemicals |
46 |
6 |
13.0 |
|
Mining |
183 |
23 |
12.8 |
|
Machinery |
90 |
11 |
12.2 |
|
Potash |
36 |
4 |
11.1 |
|
Cement, timber, glass, |
7 |
4 |
7.0 |
|
Total |
808 |
108 |
13.3 |
BOARD
OF DIRECTORS
|
Industry |
Total |
Number
of Jews |
Percentage
of Jews |
|
Brewing |
165 |
52 |
31.5 |
|
Metal |
130 |
40 |
30.7 |
|
Cement, timber, glass, |
137 |
41 |
29.9 |
|
Potash |
156 |
46 |
29.4 |
|
Leather and rubber |
42 |
12 |
28.6 |
|
Electrical |
339 |
91 |
26.8 |
|
Mining |
640 |
153 |
23.9 |
|
Chemicals |
127 |
29 |
22.8 |
|
Machinery |
215 |
48 |
21.4 |
|
Textiles |
141 |
19 |
13.5 |
|
Total |
2092 |
511 |
24.4 |
For all that I quote them; they have been compiled for
me from the last edition of the Handbook of German Joint-Stock Companies. In
the case of the electrical industries, only those with a capital of 6 million
mark have been noted; in the chemical industries those with 5 millions;
machinery and textiles with 4 millions, and the remainder with 3 millions. What
do these figures suggest? Is the Jewish influence in the industries named great
or small? I think it is very large, at any rate quantitatively. Bear in mind
that the social group which occupies almost a seventh part of all
directorships, and nearly a quarter of all the boards of directors, forms exactly
only a hundredth part of the entire population of the German Empire.
It is evident from the survey in the previous chapters that
Jewish influence extended far beyond the commercial institutions which it
called into being. In other words, the Stock Exchange is not merely a piece of
machinery in economic life, it is the embodiment of a certain spirit. Indeed,
all the newest forms of industrial organization are the products of this spirit,
and it is to this that I wish specially to call the reader’s attention.
The outer structure of the economic life of our day has been
built up largely by Jewish hands. But the principles underlying economic
life—that which may be termed the modern economic spirit, or the economic point
of view—may also be traced to a Jewish origin.
Proofs for the statement will have to be sought in directions
other than those hitherto followed. Documentary evidence is obviously of little
avail here. But what will certainly be a valuable guide is the feeling that
prevailed in those circles which first became alive to the fact that the Jewish
attitude of mind was something alien. Non-Jewish merchants or their spokesmen
expressed opinions which, though one-sided and often harsh, are nevertheless of
immense help, because they naively set forth the dislike of the Jewish spirit,
reflecting it, as it were, as in a mirror (though often enough, to be sure, it
was a convex mirror). The people who voiced the opinions to which we are about
to refer looked on the Jews as their worst enemies, and therefore we must try
to read between the lines, and deduce the truth from statements which were
meant to convey something very different. The task is made the more easy
because of the uniformity in the opinions formulated—a uniformity due by no
means to thoughtless imitation, but rather to similarity of conditions. Their
very similarity adds to their forcefulness as proofs.
In the first place, it must be noted that wherever Jews appeared
as business competitors, complaints were beard that Christian traders suffered
in consequence: their livelihood, we are told, was endangered, the Jews
deprived them of their profits, their chances of existence were lessened
because their customers went to Jews, and so forth.
A few extracts from documents of the 17th and 18th centuries, the
period which concerns us most, will illustrate what has been mentioned. Let us
turn first to Germany. In 1672 the Estates of Brandenburg complain that the
Jews “take the bread out of the mouths of the other inhabitants.” 1 Almost the same phrase is found in the
petition of the merchants of Danzig, of March 19th, 1717.2 In 1712 and 1717 the good citizens of the old
town of Magdeburg object to the admission of Jews into their midst, “because
the welfare of the city, and the success of traders, depends upon the fact that
... no Jewish dealing is permitted here.”3
In 1740 Ettenheim made a communication to its Bishop, wherein it
was stated that “as is well-known, the Jews’ low ways make only for loss and
undoing.” The same idea is voiced in the proverb, “All in that city doth decay,
where Jews are plentiful as hay.”4 In the
preamble to the Prussian Edict of 1750, mention is made that “the big merchants
of our town complain … that the Jews who deal in the same commodities as they
do, lessen their business considerably.” It was the same in the South of
Germany. In Nuremberg, for example, the Christian traders had to sit by and see
their customers make purchases of Jews. In 1469 the Jews were expelled from
Nuremberg; a very large number of them settled in the neighbouring town of
Fürth, and their customers from the first-named city, seeking the best
advantage for themselves as buyers, journeyed to Fürth to do their
shopping.[The first German railway was built between Nuremberg and Fürth
(1835). Whether the Jewish influence mentioned in the text had anything to do
with it is difficult to say. But it is a curious fact.—Trans.] No wonder
that the City Fathers of Nuremberg showered ordinances on the town throughout
the 17th and 18th centuries, forbidding dealings with Jews from Fürth.5
That Jews all through the 18th century were refused admission to
the merchant-gilds, no less than to the craft-gilds, is too well-known to need
further emphasis.6
Was it different in England? By no means. Says Josiah Child, “The
Jews are a subtil people … depriving the English merchant of that profit he
would otherwise gain”; they carry on their business “to the prejudice of the
English merchants.”7 When in 1753 the
Jews’ Naturalization Bill became law, the ill-will of the populace against the
hated race was so great that the Act had to be repealed the very next year. One
great fear was that if the Jews became English citizens they would “oust the
natives from their employment.”8
From Marseilles to Nantes the same tones were heard in France.
The merchants of the latter city in 1752 bewailed their fate in the following
terms: “The prohibited trade carried on by these strangers … has caused
considerable loss to the merchants of this town, so much so, that if they are
not favoured by the good-will of these gentry, they are in the predicament of
being able neither to provide for their families nor to pay their taxes.”9 Seven years earlier, in 1745, the Christian
traders of Toulouse regretfully declared that “everybody runs to the Jewish
traders.” 10 “We beseech you to bar the
onward march of this nation, which otherwise will assuredly destroy the entire
trade of Languedoc”—such was the request of the Montpelier Chamber of Commerce.11 Their colleagues in Paris compared the Jews
to wasps who make their way into the hive only to kill the bees, rip open their
bodies and extract the honey stored in their entrails.12
In Sweden,13 in Poland,14 the same cry resounded.15 In 1619 the civic authorities of Posen
complained, in an address to King Sigismund, that “difficulties and
stumbling-blocks are put in the way of merchants and craftsmen by the
competition of Jews.”
But all this does not suffice. We want to know more than that the
Jews endangered the livelihood of the others. We want to find out the reason
for this. Why were they able to become such keen competitors of the Christian
traders? Only when this question has been answered will we understand the
peculiar nature of Jewish business methods, “les secrets du négoce,” as Savary
calls them.
Let us refer to contemporary opinion, to the men who were sufficiently
in touch with everyday life to know the reason. Here again the answer is pretty
well unanimous. And what is it? The Jews were more successful because of their
dishonest dealing. “Jews … have one law and custom whenever it pays them; it is
called lying and cheating,” you may read in the pages of Philander von
Sittewald.16 Equally complimentary is the Comic
Lexicon of Cheating, compiled by George Paul Hönn,17 where under “Jews,” the only interpolation in the whole book
is made as follows: “Jews are cheats, collectively and individually.…” The
article “Jews,” in the General Treasury for Merchants, is of the same
calibre,18 while an anonymous writer on
manners and morals declares that the Jews of Berlin “make their living by
robbing and cheating, which, in their opinion, are no crimes.”19
Similar views were current in France. “The Jews,” says Savary,
“have the reputation of being good at business, but they are supposed not to be
able to carry it on with strict honesty and trustworthiness.”20
Now what do these accusations amount to? Even if the term
“cheating” be given a very wide connotation, the commercial practices of many
Jews hardly came within its scope. When it was asserted that Jews were cheats,
that was only an epithet to describe the fact that Jews in their commercial
dealings did not always pay regard to the existing laws or customs of trade.
Jewish merchants offended in neglecting certain traditions of their Christian
compeers, in (now and again) breaking the law, but above all, in paying no heed
to commercial etiquette. Look closely into the specific accusations hurled
against Jewish traders, examine their innermost nature, and you shall find that
the conflict between Jewish and Christian merchants was a struggle between two
outlooks, between two radically differing—nay, opposite—views on economic life.
To understand this conflict in its entirety, it will be necessary to obtain
some idea of the spirit that dominated economic activities, activities in which
from the 16th century onwards the Jews were obtaining a surer footing from day
to day. So much did they seem to be out of harmony with that spirit that
everywhere they were looked upon as a disturbing element.
During the whole of the period which I have described as the
“early capitalistic age,” and in which the Jews began to make their influence
felt, the same fundamental notions generally prevailed in regard to economic
life as characterized the Middle Ages—feudal relationships, manual labour,
three estates of the realm, and so forth.
The centre of this whole was the individual man. Whether as producer
or as consumer, his interests determined the attitude of the community as of
its units, determined the law regulating economic activities and the practices
of commercial life. Every such law was personal in its intent; and all who
contributed to the life of the nation had a personal outlook. Not that each
person could do as he liked. On the contrary, a code of restrictions hedged
about his activities in every direction. But the point is that the restrictions
were born of the individualistic spirit. Commodities were produced and bought
and sold in order that consumers might have their wants sufficiently satisfied.
On the other hand, producers and traders were to receive fair wages and fair
profits. What was fair, and what sufficient for your need, tradition and custom
determined.
And so, producer and trader should receive as much as was
demanded by the standard of comfort in their station in life. That was the
mediaeval view; it was also the view current in the early capitalistic age,
even where business was carried on along more or less modern lines. We find its
expression in the industrial codes of the day, and its justification in the
commercial literature.21
Hence, to make profit was looked upon by most people throughout
the period as improper, as “unchristian”; the old economic teaching of Thomas
Aquinas was observed,22 at least
officially. The religious or ethical rule was still supreme;23 there was as yet no sign of the liberation of
economic life from its religious and ethical bonds. Every action, no matter in
what sphere, was done with a view to the Highest Tribunal—the will of God. Need
it be pointed out that the attitude of Mammon was as opposed to this as pole is
to pole?
Producer and trader should receive sufficient for their need. One
outstanding result of this principle was strictly to circumscribe each man’s
activity in his locality. Competition was therefore quite out of the question.
In his own sphere a man might work as he willed—when, how, where—in accordance
with tradition and custom. But to cast a look at his neighbour’s sphere—that he
was forbidden to do. Just as the peasant received his holding—so much field,
with pasture and woodland, as would keep him and his family, just as he never
even dreamt of adding to his possessions, so, too, the craftsman and the
merchant were to rest content with their portions and never covet their
neighbour’s. The peasant had his land, the town-dweller his customers: in
either case they were the source whence sprang his livelihood; in either case
they were of a size sufficient for the purpose. Hence, the trader had to be
assured of his custom, and many were the ordinances which guarded him against
competition. Besides, it was commercial etiquette. You did not run after
customers. You waited until they came, “and then” (in the words of De Foe’s
sermon), “with God’s blessing and his own care, he may expect his share of
trade with his neighbours.”24 The merchant
who attended fairs did not do otherwise; “day and night he waits at his stall.”25
To take away your neighbour’s customers was contemptible,
unchristian, and immoral.26 A rule for “Merchants
who trade in commodities” was: “Turn no man’s customers awayfrom him, either by
word of mouth or by letter, and do not to another what you would not have
another do to you.”27 It was, however,
more than a rule; it became an ordinance, and is met with over and over again.
In Mayence its wording was as follows:28 “No
one shall prevent another from buying, or by offering a higher price make a
commodity dearer, on pain of losing his purchase; no one shall interfere in
another’s business undertaking, or carry on his own on so large a scale as to
ruin other traders.” In Saxony it was much. the same.29 “No shopkeeper shall call away the customers from another’s
shop, nor shall he by signs or motions keep them from buying.”
But to attract customers even without interfering with your
neighbour’s business was regarded as unworthy. As late as the early 18th
century in London itself it was not considered proper for a shopkeeper to dress
his window tastefully, and so lure purchasers. De Foe, no less than his later
editors, did not mince words in expressing his contempt for such a course, of
which, as he mentions apparently with some satisfaction, only a few bakers and
toymen were guilty.30
To the things that were not permitted belonged also advertising
your business and praising your wares. The gentle art of advertising first
appeared in Holland sometime about the middle of the 17th century, in England
towards its end, in France much later. The Ghentsche Post-Tijdingen, founded
in 1667, contained the first business advertisement in its issue of October 3rd
of that year.31 At this time none of the
London news-sheets published advertisements; even after the Great Fire not one
business thought of advertising its new address. It was not until 1682, when
John Houghton established The Collection for the Improvement of Husbandry
and Trade, that the merchant community of London became accustomed to
utilizing the Press as a medium for advertising.32
This had been preceded by the practice, in a small way, of distributing
bills in the streets to passers-by.
Two generations later Postlethwayt33
gave currency to the then existing views. “Advertising in the
newspapers, in regard to matters of trade and business, is now grown a pretty
universal practice all over the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland; …
and however mean and disgraceful it was looked upon a few years since, by
people of reputation in trade, to apply to the public by advertisements in the
papers; at present (1751) it seems to be esteemed quite otherwise; persons of
great credit in trade experiencing it to be the best, the easiest and the
cheapest method of conveying whatever they have to offer to the knowledge of
the whole kingdom.”
They were not quite so far advanced in France at that time. In
his Dictionary (1726) Savary34 says
nothing of the economic aspect of the term reclame. Not until six years
later—in 1732, when his supplement was published—does he add: “A poster
exhibited in public thoroughfares to make something generally known.” And what
does he instance? The sale of ships; the time of sailing; the announcement by
the big trading companies of the arrival of goods from distant parts, but only
in cases where they are to be publicly sold; the establishment of new
factories; change of address. The business advertisement in its most elementary
form is lacking. It is lacking also in the newspapers of the period until the
second half of the 18th century. Surprising as it may seem, the first issue of
the famous advertisement sheet, Les Petites Affiches, which appeared on
To praise your goods or to point out wherein your business was
superior to others was equally nefarious. But the last word in commercial
impropriety was to announce that your prices were lower than those of the man
opposite. ‘To undersell” was most ungentlemanly: “No blessing will come from harming
your neighbour by underselling and cutting prices.”36
Bad as underselling itself was in the eyes of the people of those
days, it was beneath contempt to advertise it. “Since the death of our author,”
say the editors of the fifth edition (1745) of De Foe’s Complete English
Tradesman,37 “this underselling
practice is grown to such a shameful height that particular persons publickly
advertise that they undersell the rest of the trade.” It may be asked, Why were
the editors so concerned about the matter? The reason is manifest in a
subsequent passage, “We have had grocers advertising their underselling one
another at a rate a fair trader cannot sell for and live.” It is the old cry:
fixed profits, a fixed livelihood, a fixed production and fixed prices.
We possess a French instance which shows even more strikingly how
heinous this offence was thought to be, even in Paris. An Ordinance of 176138 proclaimed to all and sundry in the French
capital that to advertise that you are selling your goods at a price below the
customary one must be regarded as the last resource of a merchant in
difficulties, and that such action deserved severe condemnation. The Ordinance
proceeded to forbid the traders of Paris and its suburbs “to run after one
another trying to find customers, and above all, to distribute hand-bills
calling attention to their wares.”
Like the producers, the consumers also received attention. In a
certain sense the consumer received even more, for the naive conception that
all production was in the interests of consumption had not yet disappeared.
Hence the stress laid on good wares, on the principle that commodities
should really be what they pretended; and innumerable were the ordinances that
were everywhere promulgated to this intent, more especially in the 17th and
18th centuries.
It was long before the purely capitalistic notion gained
acceptance that the value in exchange of any commodity was what influenced the
undertaker most. We may see how slow its progress was from the conflicting
opinions on the subject in England in the 18th century. Sir Josiah Child
appears to have been in the minority on this, as on most other questions, when
he formulated the demand that every manufacturer should be allowed to judge for
himself as to the kind of commodity, and the quality, that he brought into the
market. It is curious enough nowadays to read Child’s plea for the right of the
manufacturer to make shoddy goods. “If ,we intend to have the trade of the
world,” he cries,39 “we must imitate the
Dutch, who make the worst as well as the best of all manufactures, that we may
be in a capacity of serving all markets and all humours.”
In a world of economic ideas such as these, the theory of “just
price” was an organic element Price was not something in the formation of which
the individual had a say. Price was determined for him; it was a subject to
religious and ethical principles as everything else in economic life. It was to
be such as would make for the common good, as well of the consumer as of the
producer. Different ages had their own standard for determining it; in Luther’s
day, for example, the cost of production was the deciding factor. But as
commercial intercourse widened, the doctrine of the just price was found to be
more and more impossible, and the view that price must be determined by the
factors in the market40 found general
acceptance. But be that as it may, the point to accentuate is that price was
based on ethical and not (as was held to be the case later) on natural
principles. Then people said that the individual must not determine
price at his own will; whereas later the view was that he could not so
determine it.
What manner of world was that in which opinions such as these
predominated? If we had to describe it in a word, we should say that it was
“slow.” Stability was its bulwark and tradition its guide. The individual never
lost himself in the noise and whirl of business activity. He still had complete
control of himself; he was not yet devoid of that native dignity, which does
not make itself cheap for the sake of profit. Trade and commerce were
everywhere carried on with a dash of personal pride. And all this to a greater
extent in the country than in the large towns, where advancing capitalism made
itself soonest felt. “The proud and haughty demeanour of the country merchant”
is noted by a keen observer of his time.41 We
can almost see the type, in his kneebreeches and long coat, his head bewigged
and his manner somewhat stiff. Business with him was an even process; he got
through it without much thought or worry, serving his circle of customers in
the traditional way, knowing nothing of excitement, and never complaining that
the way was too short.
To-day one of the best signs of a flourishing trade is a
universal hurry and scurry, but towards the end of the 18th century that was
regarded as .a sure token of idleness. The man of business was deliberately
slow of stride. “In Paris people are in one continuous haste—because there is
nothing to do there; here (in Lyons, the centre of the silk industry, and a
town of some commercial importance) our walk is slow because every one is
busy.” Such is the verdict of the observer,42 already
mentioned, in the year of grace 1788.
In this picture the Nonconformist, the Quaker, the Methodist, is
a fitting figure, even though we are accustomed to think of him as one of the
first to be associated with capitalistic ideas. As his inner life, so was his
outward bearing to be. “Walk with a sober pace, not tinkling with your feet,”
was a canon of the Puritan rule of life.43 “The
believer hath, or at least ought to have, and, if he be like himself, will
have, a wellordered walk, and will be in his carriage stately and princely.”44
This was the world the Jews stormed. At every step they offended
against economic principles and the economic order. That seems clear enough
from the unanimous complaints of the Christian traders everywhere.
But were the Jews the only sinners in this respect? Was it fair
to single out “Jewish dealing” and to stigmatize it as inclined to be dishonest,
as contrary to law and practice, as characterized by lying and deception? There
can be little doubt that the practices of Christian manufacturers and traders
were not always blameless in the matter of being opposed to custom and
regulation. Human nature being what it is, this was only to be expected. But
apart from that, the age with which we are concerned could not boast of a very
high standard of commercial morality. Else why the necessity for the plethora
of ordinances and prohibitions which touched economic activities at every
point? Contemporary evidence certainly leaves no doubt on the subject.
We have already mentioned the Cheating Lexicon which was
published at the beginning of the 18th century. It must have been widely read,
for in the space of a few years several editions were issued. Turn to its
pages, and you will ask in amazement whether there was any honesty left in the
world. True, this impression is created by the concentration within a small
space of very many instances and illustrations of cheating and swindling. But
even making allowance for this fact, the impression cannot be eradicated that
there must have been a good deal of questionable conduct in those days. And if
any doubt still lurks on this point other witnesses soon obliterate it. “You
can find but few wares nowadays (1742) that have not been adulterated,” is the
plaint of one German writer.45 Numerous
are the prohibitions of the evil; imperial edicts (such as that of 1497),
police regulations (such as that of Augsburg, of 1548) and rules originating in
merchant circles (such as that of Lübeck, of 1607) all deal with the practice.
But falsification was by no means limited to the production of commodities; it
was not unknown in commerce too. Fraudulent bankruptcies must have occurred
very frequently in the 17th and 18th centuries, and must have formed a problem
difficult of solution. Again and again there were complaints about their
uninterrupted reappearance.46 Indeed, the
loose commercial morality of English merchants in the 17th century was
proverbial.47 Cheating and falsifying were
said to be “the besetting sin of English tradesmen.” “Our merchants,” says a
17th-century writer,48 “by their infinite
over-asking for commodities proclaim to the world that they would cheat all if
it were in their power.”
Such being the case, what reason was there for marking out the
Jews? And can we really speak of something specially characteristic in the
conduct of Jews over against the established principles of the time? I believe
we can. I believe that the specifically Jewish characteristic consisted in that
it was not an individual here and there who offended against the prevailing
economic order, but the whole body of Jews. Jewish commercial conduct reflected
the accepted point of view among Jewish traders. Hence Jews were never
conscious of doing wrong, of being guilty of commercial immorality; their
policy was in accordance with a system, which for them was the proper one. They
were in the right; it was the other outlook that was wrong and stupid. We are
not here speaking of capital delinquencies generally acknowledged to be wrong,
and generally condemned. For a ‘distinction must be drawn between the
fundamental regulations of any legal institution (e.g., property), and
those which vary with the progress of society. Stealing will be looked upon as
a capital offence as long as property exists; but there will be much difference
of opinion from age to age on the question of taking interest. The first falls
under the former category; the second under the latter.
No doubt, in their peculiar commercial activity, Jews were guilty
of both sorts of misdemeanours. In early times Jews committed wrongs which were
universally regarded as such. They were constantly accused, for example, of
receiving and dealing in stolen property.49 But
Jews, as a body, themselves condemned practices of this kind; and for that
matter, there were honest and dishonest Jews as there were honest and dishonest
Christians. If any Jews were addicted to systematic cheating, they in so far
set themselves up against the majority of Jews and Christians, both of whom
were agreed that such conduct was not in accord with the accepted standards of
right. We are not without records that illustrate this very forcibly. The
history of the Jews in Hamburg is an instance. In the 17th century, the
Portuguese Jews undertook to a certain extent to be responsible to the
authorities for the proper commercial conduct of the newly arrived German Jews.
As soon as the Tedescos came into the city, they had to promise their
Portuguese brethren not to buy stolen property, nor otherwise to carry on shady
business. On one occasion the Elders of the German Jews were summoned before
the Mahamad [The governing body of the Portuguese Jewish congregation.
The term is still used among the Spanish and Portuguese Jews in London.—Trans.]
and warned because several of them had broken their pledge; on another occasion
because they had bought stolen goods from soldiers.50
The point I am emphasizing must be remembered in considering the
accusations hurled against the Jews in the early capitalistic age, accusations
which, on the whole, were not unfounded. Universally accepted offences, such as
stealing or receiving stolen property, must not be included under this heading.
Jews equally with Christians abhorred such crimes. The practices, however,
common to all Jews, which overstepped law and custom, but which Jews did not
feel as being wrong, the practices which may be looked upon as being the result
of a specifically Jewish outlook, these must come within our ken. And what do
we find on examining them?
We find that the Jew rises before us unmistakably as more of a
business-man than his neighbour; he follows business for its own sake; he
recognizes, in the true capitalistic spirit, the supremacy of gain over all
other aims.
I know of no better illustration than the Memoirs of Glückel
von Hamein, a mine of information, by the way, about Jewish life and
thought in the early capitalistic age. Glückel, the wife of a merchant in
Hamburg, lived between 1645 and 1724, the period when the Jewish communities of
Hamburg and Altona shot up to a position of prosperity, and in almost every
respect we may regard this remarkable woman as a type of the Jew of that day.
Her narrative grips the reader because of its natural simplicity and freshness.
As I read these Memoirs, in which a complete personality is revealed to
us in a life rich in experience, I was again and again reminded of the famous
Frau Rat (Goethe’s mother).
If I cite just this splendid book in order to show the
predominating interest of money among Jews in those days, it is because I
believe that this characteristic must have been general, seeing that even in so
gifted a woman as Glückel it also stands out. In very truth, money is the be-all
and end-all with her, as with all the other people of whom she has anything to
say. Accounts of business enterprise occupy but a small space in the book, but
on no less than 609 occasions (in 313 pages) does the authoress speak of money,
riches, gain and so forth. The characters and their doings are mentioned only
in some connexion or other with money. Above all, we are told of good
matches—good from the financial point of view. To marry her children is in fact
the chief object of Glückel’s business activities. “He also saw my son, and
they were almost on the point of coming to terms, but they could not close
because of a thousand marks.” Incidents of this kind abound in the book. Of her
second marriage she says, “in the afternoon my husband wedded me with a
valuable gold ring an ounce in weight.” I cannot help regarding the peculiar
conception of marriage-making, which used to be current among Jews, as
symptomatic of the way they looked upon money, and especially the tendency
among them of appraising even the most precious things in life from a purely
business point of view. Children, for example, have their value. That was a
matter of course among Jews in those days. “They are all my darling children,
and may they all be forgiven, as well those on whom I had to spend a lot of
money as those on whom I spent nothing,” writes Glückel. It was as marriageable
persons that they had a price, which varied with the state of the market.
Scholars, or the children of scholars, were much in demand. In one case we are told
that a father speculated in his children. The fortunes of Solomon Maimon, as
related by Graetz, are well known and frequently cited in this connexion. “At
eleven years of age he had so complete a mastery of the Talmud that he ...
became much sought after as a possible husband. His needy father, in a
speculating spirit, provided him with two brides at once, without his being
able to see … either of them.” Similar incidents are abundant enough to warrant
the conclusion that they must have been typical.
But the objection may be urged that among Christians also money
was no less valued, only the fact was not admitted; people were hypocritical.
There is perhaps a certain. element of truth in this objection. In that case I
should say what was specifically Jewish was the naivete with which money was
made the pivot of life; it was a matter of course; no attempt was made to hide
it.
What light does contemporary opinion in the 17th and 18th
centuries shed upon the characteristic to which we have called attention? There
appears to be universal agreement on the subject, which lends support to our
theory. The Jew in those days of undeveloped capitalism was regarded as the
representative of an economic outlook, wherein to obtain profit was the
ultimate goal of all commercial activity. Not his “usury” differentiated him
from the Christian, not that he sought gain, not that he amassed wealth; only
that he did all this openly, not thinking it wrong, and that he scrupulously
and mercilessly looked after his business interests. But more awful things are
related of Christian “usurers” who “are worse than Jews.” “The Jews wears his
soul on his sleeve and is not ashamed, but these carry on their devil’s trade
with hypocritical Christian countenances.”51
One or two more contemporary opinions must be quoted. “These
people have no other God but the unrighteous Mammon, and no other aim than to
get possession of Christian property … they... look at everything for their
profit.”52 Such is the verdict of the Rev.
John Megalopolis, who wrote on March 18th, 1655. Another judgment is harsher
still.53 “No trust should be put in the
promises made there (in Brazil) by the Jews, a race faithless and
pusillanimous, enemies to all the world and especially to all Christians,
caring not whose house burns so long as they may warm themselves at the coals,
who would rather see a hundred thousand Christians perish than suffer the loss
of a hundred crowns.” The statement of Savary,54 who
was amicably disposed towards the Jews, is also to the point. “A usurious
merchant or one too keen, who tries to get a mean advantages and flays those
who have dealings with him, is termed ‘a real Jew.’ People say ‘he has fallen
into the hands of Jews’ when those with whom a man does business are hard,
immovable and stingy.” It is true that a very Christian merchant first coined
the phrase “Business is business,” but Jews undoubtedly were the first to mould
their policy in accordance with it.
In this connexion we ought to mention also that the proverbs of
all nations have always depicted the Jew as the gain-seeker, who had a special
love of money. “Even to the Jew our Lady Mary is holy” (Hungarian)—in reference
to the Kremnitzer gold ducats. “Yellow is the colour that suits the Jew best”
(Russian). “Yellow is the dearest colour for the Jew” (German).
This profit-seeking, which the Jew held to be legitimate, will
account for his business principles and practices, of which complaints were so
frequently made. In the first place, he paid no attention to the strict
delimitation of one calling or of one handicraft from another, so universally
insisted on by law and custom. Again and again we hear the cry that Jews did
not content themselves with one kind of activity; they did whatever they could,
and so disturbed the order of things which the gild system wished to see
maintained. Their aim was to seize upon all commerce and all production; they
had an overpowering desire to expand in every direction. “The Jews strive to
destroy the English merchants by drawing all trade towards themselves,” is a
further complaint of the Rev. John Megalopolis in 1655.’55 ‘The Jews are a subtil people prying into all kinds of trade,”
said Sir Josiah Child.56 And Glückel von
Hamein thus describes her father’s business: “He dealt in precious stones, and in
other things—for every Jew is a Jack-of-all-trades.”
Innumerable were the occasions when the German gilds complained
of this Jewish ubiquitousness in trade, which paid no heed to the demarcation
of all economic activities into strictly separate categories. In 1685, the city
authorities of Frankfort-on-the-Main were loud in their cry that Jews had a
share in all kinds of business—e.g., in linen and silk retailing, in
cloth and book selling.” In the other Frankfort (on the Oder)58 Jews were blamed for selling foreigp braid to
the detriment of the goldlace makers, and so forth.
Perhaps the reason for this tendency to universal trading may be
found in that a large number of miscellaneous articles, all forfeited pledges,
brought together by mere chance, collected in the shops of Jews, and their sale
would naturally enough interfere with the special business of all manner of
dealers. The very existence of these second-hand shops—the prototype of the
stores in modern times—was a menace to the prevailing order of commerce and
industry. A vivid picture of such a collection of second-hand goods is given in
an old Ratisbon song, dating from the 15th century,59
and the details could not but have become more well-marked as time went
on.
No handicraft however mean,
But the Jew would damage it i’ the extreme.
For if any one had need of raiment
To the Jew he’d hie with payment;
Whether ‘twas silver or linen or tin,
Or aught his house was lacking in,
The Jew was ready to serve his need,
With pledges he held—right many indeed.
For stolen goods and robbers’ plunder
They and the Jew were seldom asunder.
*******
Mantle, hose or damsel’s veil,
The Jew he had them all for sale.
To the craftsman, then, there came but few,
For all the world dealt with the Jew.
Here an interesting question presents itself. Is there any
connexion between the breach of gild regulations and the stress laid on pure
business ends on the part of the Jews, and their hostile attitude to
mercantilism? Was it their aim to
establish the principle that trade should be untrammelled, regardless of the
commercial theory which guided the mercantilist States? It looks like it.
“Jewish trade,” was the term applied to the commerce of Frankfort in the 18th
century, because it was mostly import trade, “which gives useful employment to
but few German hands and flourishes only by reason of home consumption.”60 And when in the early 19th century Germany
was flooded with the cheap products of England, which were sold for the most
part at auctions, Jews were held to be the mainstay of this import trade. The
Jew almost monopolized the auctions. “Since dealing in manufactured articles is
to a great extent in the hands of Jews, the commerce of England is for the most
part with them.” The Jew had “his shop full of foreign hats, shoes, stockings,
leather gloves, lead and copper ware, lacquer work, utensils, readymade
clothing of all sorts—all brought over by English ships.”61 It was the same story in France.62 Nor was this all. The Jews were guilty of
another deadly sin in the mercantilist calendar: they imported raw materials. 63
We see, then, that the Jews, in following their business
interests, gave as little heed to the barriers between States as to those
between industries. Still less did they have regard to the prevailing code of etiquette
in any industry. We have already seen how custom-chasing was looked upon in the
early capitalistic age. Here the Jews were continual offenders. Everywhere they
sought out sellers or buyers, instead of waiting for them in their shops, as
commercial custom prescribed. Of this we have abundant proof.
A complaint was lodged by the furriers of Konigsberg64 in 1703 against “the Jews Hirsch and Moses,
who with their agents are always first in the field in buying raw material and
selling the ready-made furs, whereby they (the supplicants) suffer much loss.”
In 1685 the jewellers and goldsmiths of Frankfort had a similar experience.65 They were forced to buy all the old gold and
silver they needed from Jews, who, by means of their numerous “spies,” snapped it
away from under the very noses of the Christians. A few years previously the
whole of the trading body of that town had protested against Jews “spying out
the business of Christian merchants.” Earlier still, in 1647, the tailors of
Frankfort petitioned66 that the Jews
should be forbidden to engage in the sale of new clothing. “A source of bitter
weeping it is, that the Jews may freely wander up and down the streets, laden
with all manner of goods and cloth, like so many camels and asses, running to
meet every newcomer to Frankfort, be he of high or low degree, and offering to
sell him what he wants; and so deprive us of our daily bread.”67 Still earlier even than this, in 1635, was
the petition of the silk merchants, who bemoaned the fact that the Jews “wait
about in the city outside the bounds of the Jewish quarter, in inns and
wherever opportunity offers; they run through many a street, both openly and in
secret, to meet the soldiers and their officers, when these come to town. They
have arranged with certain master-tailors to give them facilities for
exhibiting their wares at their shops when troops march past.”68
In 1672 a complaint is heard from Brandenburg.69 “Jews go about as chapmen among the villages
and in the towns and force their wares on people.” A similar story comes from
Frankfort-on-the-Oder,70 wherein the
details are fuller. Jews run after customers—the travellers to their hotels,
the nobility to their castles and the students to their lodgings. And in
Nikolsburg, in Austria, we are told71 that
“the Jews have drawn to themselves all the trade, all the money, all the goods.
They wait outside the city, try to strike up an acquaintance with travellers
while they are yet on the road, and endeavour to take away their custom from
Christian citizens.”
How the Jews were ever on the look-out for new customers is
described by a well-informed writer of the early 19th century.72 It was a practice with them, he says, “to pay
frequent visits to all and sundry places of public resort where, by reading the
many news-sheets, they sought to obtain knowledge of possibilities for doing
business, and especially of noting what strangers were expected to arrive; and
by listening to every conversation, to find out whose houses were in danger in
order to make bargains or contracts with them.”
The streets in which the Jewish old clo’ men lived were the
scenes of similar activities, the end in view always being the same. In fact,
the dealers sometimes seized the passer-by by the arm and tried to force him to
make purchases. This method of carrying on business is not unknown in our
modern cities; it was known in the Paris of the 18th century, where it was
associated with the fripiers, the old clo’ dealers, who, as we are
informed,74 were for the most part Jews.
One description of such a scene is too good not to be quoted.” “The touts of
these disorderly shops call to you uncivilly enough; and when one of them has
invited you, all the other shopkeepers on your road repeat the deafening
invitation. The wife, the daughter, the servant, the dogs, all howl in your
ears. … Sometimes these fellows seize an honest man by the arm, or by his
shoulder, and force him to enter in spite of himself; they make a pastime of
this unseemly game.…”
We hear the same tale from a traveller who journeyed in Western
Germany about that time. “To walk in the streets of those places where there
are many Jews has become a nuisance. You are badgered by them every minute and
at every turn. You are constantly being asked. Can I sell youanything? Won’t
you buy this, that or the other?”75
Or they turn into wandering traders in order to sweep in custom.
“The Jew thinks nothing of turning the seats in the porches into a shop
counter, often extending them by means of planks; he places a form or table
against the wall of any house he can get at, or even makes the front passage
into a shop; or, he hires a cart which becomes his moving shop, and often
enough he has the bad manners to pull up in front of a shop which sells the
same wares as he.”76
“Get hold of the customers”—that was the end and aim. Is it not
the guiding principle of the big industries of to-day? Is not the splendid
organization of a concern like the Allgemeine Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft, for
example, directed to the same object?
The policy was first systemized when advertising was resorted to.
The “deafening invitation” which, as we have just noted, came from the small fripier,
is now made by the million-voiced advertisements of our business life. If
the Jews are to be considered the originators of the system of “getting hold of
the customers,” their claim to be the fathers of modern advertising is equally
well established. I am, however, unable to adduce conclusive evidence for this.
What is needed is a careful study of the files of the earliest newspapers, in
order to discover the names of the people who advertised. As a matter of fact,
the whole subject of advertising has as yet been dealt with but scantily. The
only branch which has received adequate attention is the history of business
announcements. Nevertheless, I am able to give one or two instances which show
the connexion of Jews with the practice of advertising.
The very earliest advertisement with which I am acquainted is to
be found in No. 63 of the Vossische Zeitung, of
The first known advertisement in the text of the paper dates from
1753, and hails from Holland. The advertiser was an eye-specialist of the name
of Laazer.77 A very old advertisement in
the United States—whether the oldest I cannot say—appeared on
Finally, the Jews are the founders of the modern Press, i.e., the
machinery for advertising, more especially of the cheap newspapers.79 Polydore Millaud, who established the Petit
Journal, was the father of the “half-penny Press.”
But to obtain likely addresses, to intercept travellers on their
way, to sing the praises of your wares—that was only one side of the game of
catching customers. It was supplemented by another, which consisted in so
decking-out the goods for sale as to attract people. In this art the Jews were
great adepts. Nay more, there is sufficient evidence that they were the first
to stand up for the general principle, that it is the right (and the duty) of
every trader to carry on his business in such a way as will obtain for him as
much of the available custom as possible, or by creating new demands, will
increase the circle of buyers.
Now in a community where quality was regulated, the only
effective means of achieving this end was price-cutting. We shall therefore not
be surprised to find the Jews availing themselves of this weapon, and we shall
see that it was just this that made them so disliked among Christian traders,
whose economic outlook was all for maintaining prices. The Jew undersells; the
Jew spoils prices; the Jew tries to attract customers by low prices—that was
the burden of the complaints heard in the 17th and 18th centuries wherever Jews
did business.
Our pages would be overloaded did we attempt to cite all the
proofs on this point. A few, therefore, will have to suffice.
First for England where, in 1753, the storm burst forth against
the Jews on the passing of the Naturalization Bill. One of the principal fears
was that if they became recognized citizens, they would oust the natives from
their means of livelihood by underselling them.80
Next for France. “The stuffs … which the Jews bring to the fairs
… are worth more at the price at which they sell them than those in the
traders’ shops,” is the reply81 of the
Intendant of Languedoc to the plaints of the merchants of Montpelier (May 31,
1740). The merchants of Nantes82 were of
opinion that the public, which dealt with Jews under the impression that they
were making a good bargain, were generally duped. At the same time, they admit
that prices at Jewish shops are lower than elsewhere. The same admission is
made by the Paris traders: the Jews sell even more cheaply than the factories.83 Concerning a Fürth Jew, of the name of
Abraham Ouhnan,84 the bronze-dealers of
Paris reported that “he sells the same bronzes below the price for which they
are sold in this country.” In Lyons the master silk-weavers passed a resolution
(October 22, 1760) in which they ascribed the bad times to the influence of the
Jews, who had cut prices, and thereby made themselves masters of the silk
industry in all the provinces.85
The Swedish Parliament in 1815 debated the question whether the
Jews should be allowed entire liberty of trade, and one of the chief reasons
which prevailed against themotion was that Jews lowered prices.86
From Poland the same strains reach us. Jews tell Christian
traders that if they (the latter) sold their goods as cheaply as the Jews, they
too would attract customers.87
It is no different in Germany. From Brandenburg (1672),88 from Frankfort (17th century),89 from Madgeburg (1710)90 the old story is repeated. A Wallachian traveller in Germany91 about the same time reports the ubiquity of
this accusation. The General Prussian Edict of 1750 takes cognizance of it.
“The merchants of our towns ... complain ... that the Jewish traders who sell
the same goods do them great harm, because they sell at a lower price.” Right
up to the 19th century it is still met with. In the Supplication of the
Augsburg wholesale merchants against the admission of the Jews92 (1803) we may read that “the Jews understand
how to derive advantages from the general depression of trade. They obtain
goods from people who need money badly at shameful prices, and then spoil the
market by selling them at a cheaper rate.”
In many branches of industry Christian manufacturers and
merchants even to-day regard the cutting of prices by Jews as a serious
endangering of their trade. That this is an open secret and often enough
discussed, is well known. I hope to touch upon the matter again in due course.
One more instance from the history of Finance, as showing that
the Jews had the reputation of making lower terms. When the Austrian Government
early in the 18th century determined on raising another loan, as usual, in
Holland, an order was issued (December 9, 1701) to Baron Pechmann, who was
negotiating the matter, to make private enquiries whether, in view of the fact
that the Hungarian Copper Mines were being pledged to guarantee the loan, a
greater sum might not be raised. More especially was he to communicate with the
Portuguese Jews in Holland, since the other subjects of the United Provinces
asked for an additional guarantee beside the general one.93 In a report of the Court Chancery of Vienna
(May 12, 1762) the view is expressed that “it is advisable to come to terms
with the Jews in reference to contracts for the army … seeing that they are
prepared to quote lower prices than others.”
Here, then, was a problem for all the wiseacres to put their
heads together and try to solve. They did, asking each other again and again,
at their work and in their shops, on Sunday afternoons in their walks outside
the city rampart, and in the evenings at the social pint of beer: How is it
possible? How on earth is it done? How can the Jew carry through his “dirty
trick” of underselling? What was the reason for it?
The answer differed in accordance with the capacity and the
prejudice of each enquirer. And so the numberless explanations on record cannot
be accepted without testing their value; unlike the assertion that Jews lowered
prices, which, in view of its unanimity, there is no reason to doubt. In any
case, for the present only those opinions will be of interest to us which give
indication of a special way of carrying on business, or of a special commercial
morality.
The commonest explanation is that of dishonesty, and the
conclusion was arrived at in some such way as this. Seeing that the Jews have
the same expenses, seeing that the cost of production is also the same, if the
price is below the current one, everything is not quite above-board. The Jews
must have obtained possession of their wares by dishonest means. They were
doubtless stolen goods. The bad reputation of the Jews generally must have
given probability to this explanation, and the low prices must have lent
support to the accusation levelled against them that they were receivers.
I have no intention of citing instances where this line of
argument is taken, for in reality it is the least interesting of any. In many
cases, no doubt, it was correct. But if that were the only reason forthcoming
to account for low prices among Jewish traders, there would be no need to
mention the matter at all, for then it would not have the significance which it
actually possesses.
As a matter of fact, even the extremists among gild members could
not but cast about for other causes to account for the underselling of Jewish
traders, and they found them close at hand, not in actual breach of the law,
but in practices that were not all they should be. And what were these? That
the Jews dealt in prohibited articles (contraband of war, etc.); in lapsed
pledges; in goods that had been confiscated (e.g., by customs
officials); in goods that had been bought for a mere song from the owners, who
were deep in debt and whose necessity, therefore, was great,94 or from those who needed money badly;95 in old goods, bought for next to nothing at
auctions; in bankrupt stock;96 in goods
the quality of which was not up to the standard of the ordinances of the
industrial code;97 or, finally, that the Jew
cut prices with the intention of going into bankruptcy himself.98
To what extent instances such as these—“the miserable methods of
the Jews” as they were termed by the traders of Metz99—were general or only sporadic, it is difficult to say. Nor
does it much matter for our purpose. As to their probability, it is hardly
likely that they were all pure inventions. The important thing to note,
however, is that shady practices such as those enumerated were laid to the
Jews’ door. And even if only a minute proportion were in accordance with actual
fact, that would be enough to make them symptomatic, and they would be very
useful as supporting the result obtained in other ways. I shall return to this
question later. Here we will continue the catalogue of reasons which were urged
in explanation of the Jews’ lower prices.
Side by side with those already mentioned was the accusation that
the commodities sold by the Jews were of an inferior quality. So frequently is
this statement met with that its correctness can hardly be doubted. An official
report from Magdeburg, a petition from Brandenburg, a complaint from Frankfort100—all harp on this same string. And the Traders’
Lexicon, to which I have already more than once referred as a reliable
authority, states that Jews sold inferior goods “which they know how to polish
up, to colour anew, to show off at their best, to provide with a fresh cover,
smell and taste that even the greatest connoisseur is often taken in.”
This is repeated almost verbally in the Report of the merchants
of Nantes, with which we are by this time so well acquainted. The goods of the
Jews are really dear, despite their cheapness. For they sell things that are
out of fashion or that cannot be used any longer. Silk stockings they re-dye,
pass them through a calender, and then sell them as new. But they cannot be
worn more than once. The silk weavers of Lyons tell the same tale:101 the Jews have ruined the silk industry
because, in order to be able to sell at low prices, they order goods of
second-rate quality only. So, too, the Governor of Bohemia in 1705:102 “The Jews have got hold of all manual
occupations and all commerce, but as for the most part they make only poor
stuff, there is no chance for a profitable export trade to spring up.” The
opinion of Wegelin in the Swedish Parliament (1815), likewise referred to
already, is only in accord with the preceding. “It is true,” he said, “that the
Jews alone engaged in calico-printing, but they have completely spoiled this
branch of industry because of their low quality goods—the so called “Jews’
calico.”
This complaint, which started in the early capitalistic period,
has not yet ceased. The cry of the Christian manufacturers that the Jews cut
prices has been followed by the corollary that, in order to maintain low prices
at all costs, Jews lowered the quality of goods.
Summing up all the facts adduced, we shall perceive that the Jews
originated the principle of substitution.
What was called inferior quality in the wares of the Jews was not
in reality so. It was not as if the articles were of the same sort as those of
other traders, except that they were worse in quality. It was rather that they
were new articles, intended for similar use as the old, but made of a cheaper
material, or by new processes which lessened the cost of production.. In other
words, the principle of substitution was brought into play, and Jews may thus
be regarded as the pioneers in its application. The most frequent cases
occurred in textile fabrics; but other instances are also on record—for
example, substitutes for coffee. In one sense, too, dyeing must be mentioned in
this connexion. Jewish influence aided its growth. Originally, the inventors of
artificial alizarine used expensive chemicals to mix with their red colouring
matter; the Jews introduced cheaper materials, and thus gave an impetus to the
dyeing industry.
There is yet one other, though less frequent, accusation levelled
against the Jews. It was that the Jews could sell more cheaply than Christians
because they gave less weight or short measure.103
They were taunted with this in Avignon, where woollen articles were
mentioned, and in the case of German Jews an actual illustration is given. “The
Jew is on the look-out for the least advantage. If he measured 10 ells there
were only 9%. The Christian (customer) is aware of this, but he says to
himself, ‘Jews’ measure is short, ten ells are never quite ten, but then the
Jew sells cheap.’”104
In all this the point for us to discover is whether, and if so to
what extent, the different courses, which were alleged to have been taken by
the Jewish traders in order to reduce prices, may be traced to some general
business principle characteristic of the Jews. To my mind, the whole case can
be summed up by saying that the Jew to a certain extent held that in business
the means justified the end. His consideration for the other traders and his
respect for legal enactments and social demands were not very great, while on
the other hand, the idea of value in exchange in relation to goods, and the
idea that all business activity had reference to wealth and to that only—these
became keen. What I have elsewhere described as the inherent tendency in
capitalism to obtain profit, regardless of all else, is here seen in its early
origin.
But we have not yet done with the inventory of methods adopted by
Jews to lower prices. We now turn to those which were of equal fundamental
importance with the others already mentioned, but which differed from them
materially. While the first brought about only apparent reductions, or actual
reductions at other people’s expense, these produced lower prices really and
absolutely. What were they? Innovations which decreased the total cost of
production in some way or other. Either the producer or the dealer was content
with less for himself, or the actual expenses of production were reduced in
that wages were lowered or the manufacturing and distributing processes made
more efficient.
That all these means of cheapening commodities were adopted by
Jews, and by them first, is amply evidenced by records in our possession.
First, the Jew could sell more cheaply because he was satisfied
with less than the Christian trader. Unprejudiced observers remarked this fact
on many occasions, and even the competitors of the Jews admitted its truth. Let
us once again quote the Magdeburg official report. The Jews sell cheaply,
“whereby the merchants must suffer loss. For they need more than the Jew, and,
therefore, must carry on their business in accordance with their requirements.”105 In another document it is also stated that
“the Jew is satisfied with a smaller profit than the Christian.” 106 And what did the Polish Jews tell the
Christian Poles?107 That if they (the
Poles) did not live so extravagantly, they would be able to sell their goods at
the same prices as the Jews. A keen-eyed traveller in Germany towards the end
of the 18th century came to the same conclusion. “The reason for the complaint
(that Jews sell cheaply) is apparent: it lies in the extravagant pride of the
haughty shopkeeper, who in his dealings requires so much for mere show, that he
cannot possibly charge low prices. The Jew, therefore, deserves the gratitude
of the public, to whom he brings gain by his frugal habits, and forces the
shopkeeper with his large expenditure either to be more economical, or to go to
the wall.”108 The Report of the Vienna
Court Chancery (May 12, 1762) was of the same opinion. The Jews can deliver at
a lower rate than the Christians “because they are more thrifty and live more
cheaply.” The tale was repeated in a Hungarian document of
No less explicit on the point is Sir Josiah Child for the England
of his age. ‘They are a penurious people, living miserably,” he says,110 “and therefore can, and do afford to trade
for less profit than the English.” By the middle of the 18th century this
belief was still current, for the cry went up that the Jews by reason of their
extreme frugality were able to undersell the natives.111 The identical view prevailed in France. “It is my firm.
belief,” said the Intendant of Languedoc,112 in
reply to the chronic complaints of the traders of Montpellier, “that Jewish
commerce... does less harm to the merchants of Montpellier than their own lack
of attention to the requirements of the public, and their rigid determination
to make as large profits as they can.”
But this is not all. There were people who asserted—and they must
have been gifted with no little insight—that the Jews had discovered yet
another trick, by means of which they succeeded in obtaining as great, or even
greater, profits than their Christian neighbours despite their comparatively
low prices—they increased their turnover. As late as the early part of the 19th
century this was regarded as a specifically “Jewish practice”113—“small profits with a frequent turnover of
your capital pay incomparably better than big profits and a slow turnover.”
This is no isolated opinion; it occurs very frequently indeed.114
Small profits, quick returns—obviously this was a breaking away
from the preconceived idea of an economic organization of society, where one of
the cardinal doctrines was to produce for subsistence only. And the Jews were
the fathers of this new business-principle. Profit was considered as something
fixed by tradition; hence-forward it was determined by each individual trader.
That was the great novelty, and again it emanated from Jews. It was a Jewish
practice to settle the rate of profit as each trader thought fit; it was a
Jewish practice to decide whether to sell at a profit at all, or for a time to
do business without making profits in order to earn more afterwards.115
Lastly, we have still to mention the taunt levelled against Jews,
that they sought to reduce the cost of production, either by employing the
cheapest labour, or by utilizing more economical methods.
With regard to the first, numerous plaints abound. The woollen
manufacturers of Avignon,118 the merchants
of Montpellier,117 the civic authorities
of Frankfort-on-the-Oder118 and the
Tailors’ Craft of the other Frankfort are a few cases in point. But none of
these disaffected people could realize that the Jews were the earliest
undertakers in industries with capitalistic organizations, and, consequently,
utilized new forms of production, just as they had utilized them in commerce.
And here we must not pass over another characteristic of Jewish
business methods, one, however, which is not mentioned in the literature of the
early capitalistic period, probably because it was developed at a later date. I
refer to the conscious endeavour of attracting new customers by some device or other—whether
it was the placing of goods for sale in a new juxtaposition, or a new system of
payment, or a new combination of departments, or the organization of some new
service. It would be a most fascinating study to compile a list of all the
inventions (exclusive, of course, of technical inventions) which trade and
commerce owe to the Jews. Let me refer to a few, about which we are tolerably
certain that they are of Jewish origin. I say nothing as to whether Jews were
merely the first to apply them, or whether they were actually created by Jews.
First in order I would mention the trade in old and damaged
goods, the trade in remnants and rubbish—the Jews were able “here and there to
maintain themselves and make a profit out of the commonest articles, which
before had no value whatever, such as rags, rabbit-skins and gall-nuts.”119 In short, we may term the Jews the
originators of the waste-product business. Thus, in the 18th century in Berlin,
Jews were the first feather-cleaners, the first vermin-killers and the
inventors of the so-called “white beer.”120
To what extent the general store owes its existence to the Jew it
is impossible to say. Anyhow, the Jews, in that they held pledges, were the
first in whose shops might be found a conglomeration of wares. And is it not
one of the distinguishing marks of a modern store to have for sale articles of
various kinds, intended for various uses? The result is that the owner of the
store is but little concerned with what he sells, so long as he does sell. His
aim is to do business, and this policy is in accordance with the Jewish spirit.
But apart from that, it is well-known that to-day stores in the United States121 and in Germany122
are for the most part in the hands of Jews.
An innovation of no little importance in the organization of
retail trading at the time of its introduction was the system of payment by
installments when goods to a large amount or very costly goods were sold. In
Germany, at any rate, it is possible to say with tolerable certainty, that in
this, too, Jews were pioneers. “There is a class of shopkeeper among Jews,” we
may read in an early 19th-century writer, “indispensable to the ordinary man,
and of exceeding great benefit to trade. They are the people who sell clothes
or material for clothes to the ordinary customer, and receive payment for it in
small instalments.”123
Of Jewish origin also are a number of innovations in the catering
business. Thus, the first coffee-house in England (perhaps the first in the
world) was opened in Oxford in 1650, or 1651, by a Jew of the name of Jacobs.124 It was not until 1652 that London obtained
its first coffeehouse. And to come to a later period, everybody knows that a
new era dawned in catering when Kempinsky [Kempinsky is the Lyons of Berlin.—Trans.]
introduced the standardization of consumption and of prices as the guiding
principles of the business.
In all these instances it is not so much the innovations
themselves that interest us, as the tendency to which they bear witness—that a
new business ideal had come into existence: the adoption of new tricks. Hence
my treatment of this subject in the present chapter, which deals with the
Jewish spirit, Jewish commercial morality and the specifically Jewish economic
outlook.
Reviewing the ground we have traversed, we see clearly the strong
contrast between the Jewish and the non-Jewish outlooks in the early
capitalistic period. Tradition, the subsistence ideal, the overpowering
influence of status—these were the fundamentals of the latter. And the
former—wherein lay its novelty? How may it be characterized? I believe one
all-comprehensive word will serve our purpose, and that word is “modern.” The
Jewish outlook was the “modern” outlook; the Jew was actuated in his economic
activities in the same way as the modern man. Look through the catalogue of
“sins” laid at the door of the Jews in the 17th and 18th centuries, and you
will find nothing in it that the trader of to-day does not regard as right and
proper, nothing that is not taken as a matter of course in every business.
Throughout the centuries the Jews championed the cause of individual liberty in
economic activities against the dominating views of the time. The individual
was not to be hampered by regulations of any sort, neither as to the extent of
his production nor as to the strict division between one calling and another:
he was to be allowed to carve out a position for himself at will, and be able
to defend it against all comers. He should have the right to push forward at
the expense of others, if he were so able; and the weapons in the struggle were
to be cleverness, astuteness, artfulness; in economic competition there should
be no other consideration but that of overstepping the law; finally, all
economic activities should be regulated by the individual alone in the way he
thinks best to obtain the most efficient results. In other words, the idea of
free-trade and of free competition was here to the fore; the idea of economic
rationalism; in short, the modern economic outlook, in the shaping of which Jews
have had a great, if not a decisive influence. And why? It was they who
introduced the new ideas into a world organized on a totally different basis.
Here a pertinent question suggests itself. How are we to explain
that even before the era of modern capitalism, Jews showed a capacity for
adopting its principles? The question must be expanded into a much larger one.
What was it that enabled the Jew to exercise so decisive an influence in the
process that made modern economic life what it is, an influence such as we have
observed in the foregoing enquiry?
Before us lies a great problem. We are to explain why the Jews
played just the part they did in the economic life of the last two or three
centuries. That this is a problem will be admitted with but few
exceptions by all. There are a few faddists who deny that the Jews occupied any
special position in modern economic life, asserting as they do that there are
no Jews. These will object. Then, too, there is that other small category of
people who hold that the Jews were economically of such slight import that they
were without any influence whatever on modern economic life. But we shall pay
little heed to either class in our considerations, which are for all those who
think with me that the Jews had a decisive influence on the structure of modern
economic life.
I have spoken of the aptitude of the Jews for modern capitalism.
If our researches are to be fruitful of results we shall have to make two
things absolutely clear: (1) their aptitude—for what? and (2) their
aptitude—how developed?
Their aptitude for what? For everything which in the first part
of the book we have seen them striving to achieve—founding and promoting
international trade, modern finance, the Stock Exchange and the
commercialization generally of all economic activities; supporting unrestricted
intercourse and free competition, and infusing the modern spirit into all
economic life. Now in my superscription of this part of our subject all these
activities are summed up in the word “capitalism.” In a special chapter (the
ninth) we shall show that all the single facts that have been mentioned hang
together, and that they are kept together by means of capitalistic organization.
The essentials of the latter, at least in their outline, will therefore also
have to be dealt with, in order to demonstrate the special functions of the
individual in the capitalistic system. This method will give the death-blow to
such vague conceptions, usually met with in connexion with the Jewish problem,
as “economic capacity,” “aptitude for commerce and haggling” or other equally
dilettante phrases, which have already done too much mischief.
As for the second point, how, by what means, is it possible to
achieve any result? If any one rescues a drowning man, it may be that it was
because he happened to be standing at the water’s edge, just where a boat was
tied, or on a bridge, where a life-belt was ready to hand. In a word, his
accidental presence in a particular spot made it possible for him to do the
deed, by rowing out in the boat to the man in danger, or by throwing the
life-belt to him. Or he may have done it because he was the only one among the
crowd on the shore who had the courage to jump into the water, swim out to the
sinking man and bring him safely to land. In the first case we might term the
circumstances “objective,” in the second “subjective.” The same distinction can
be applied to the Jews in considering their aptitude for capitalism: it may be
due to objective or to subjective circumstances.
My immediate business will be to deal with the first set of
causes, and for many reasons. To begin with, every explanation that is put
forward must be closely scrutinized, in order to make sure that no unproved
hypothesis is its basis, and that what has to be proved is not a dogma.
Dangerous in most cases, it is particularly so in the problem before us, in
which racial and religious prejudices may work havoc, as, indeed, they have
done in the writings of the great majority of my precursors on this question. I
shall do my utmost to avoid their error in this respect, and shall be at great
pains to see to it that my considerations are above criticism. My aim is to
discover the play of cause and effect as it really was, without any
preconceived idea influencing my reasoning, and I shall adduce my proofs in
such a way, that they may be easily followed by all—by the assimilationist Jew
no less than by the Nationalist; by him who pins his faith to the influence of
race as by the warmest supporter of the doctrine of environment; by the
anti-Semite as by his opponent. Hence my starting-point will always have to be
from facts admitted on all hands. That will preclude any appeal to “special
race characteristics” or arguments of that ilk.
Any one who does not admit that the Jews have special gifts may
demand that the part played by this people in modern economic life should be
explained without any reference to national peculiarities, but rather from the
external circumstances in which Jews were placed by the accident of history. I
shall endeavour to satisfy this demand in the tenth chapter.
Finally, if it becomes apparent that the contribution of the Jews
to modern economic life cannot be entirely explained by the conditions of their
historic situation, then will be the time for looking to subjective causes, and
for considering the Jews’ special characteristics. This shall be the purpose of
the twelfth chapter.
Capitalism1 is the name
given to that economic organization wherein regularly two distinct social
groups co-operate—the owners of the means of production, who at the same time
do the work of managing and directing, and the great body of workers who
possess nothing but their labour. The co-operation is such, that the
representatives of capital are the subjective agents, that is, they decide as
to the “how” and the “how much” in the process of production, and they
undertake all risks.
Now what are the mainsprings of the whole system? The first, and
perhaps the chiefest, is the pursuit of gain or profit. This being the case,
there is a tendency for undertakings to grow bigger and bigger. Arising from
that, all economic activities are strictly logical. Whereas in the pre-capitalistic
period quieta non movere was the watchword and Tradition the guiding
star, now it is constant movement. I characterize the whole as “economic
rationalism,” and this I would term the second mainspring of the capitalistic
system.
Economic rationalism expresses itself in three ways. (1) There is
a plan, in accordance with which all things are ordered aright. And the
plan covers activities in the distant future. (2) Efficiency is the test
applied in the choice of all the means of production. (3) Seeing that the “cash
nexus” regulates all economic activity, and that everywhere and always a
surplus is sought for, exact calculations become necessary in every
undertaking.
Everybody knows that a modern business is not merely, say, the
production of rails or cotton or electric motors, or the transport of stones or
of people. Everybody knows that these are but parts in the organization of the
whole. And the characteristics of the undertaker are not that he arranges for
the carrying out of the processes named. They are to be found elsewhere, and
for the present we may put it roughly that they are a constant buying and
selling of the means of production, of labour or of commodities. To vary the
phrase somewhat, the undertaker makes contracts concerning exchanges, wherein
money is the measure of value.
When do we speak of having accomplished a successful piece of
business? Surely when the contract-making has ended well. But what is meant
precisely by “well”? It certainly has no reference to the quality or to the
quantity of the goods or services given or received; it refers solely and only
to the return of the sum of money expended, and to a surplus over and above it
(profit). It is the aim of the undertaker so to manipulate the factors over
which he has control as to bring about this surplus.
Our next step must be to consider what functions the capitalistic
undertaker (the subjective economic factor) has in the sphere of capitalism,
seeing that our purpose is to show the capacity of the Jews in this direction.
We shall try to discover what special skill is necessary in order to be
successful in the competitive struggle. In a word, we shall seek for the type.
To my mind, the best picture of the modern capitalistic
undertaker is that which paints him as the combination of two radically
different natures in one person. Like Faust, he may say that two souls dwell
within his breast; unlike Faust’s, however, the two souls do not wish to be
separated, but rather, on the contrary, desire to work harmoniously together. What
are these two natures? The one is the undertaker (not in the more limited sense
of capitalistic undertaker, but quite generally), and the other is the trader.
By the undertaker I mean a man who has an object in view to which
he devotes his life, an object which requires the cooperation of others for its
achievement, seeing that its realization is in the world of men. The undertaker
must thus be differentiated from the artist or the prophet. Like them he has a
mission; unlike them he feels that he must bring it to realization. He is a
man, therefore, who peers into the distant future, whose every action is
planned and done only in so far as it will help the great whole. As an instance
of an undertaker in this (non-capitalistic) sense we may mention an African or
a North Pole explorer. The undertaker becomes a capitalistic undertaker when he
combines his original activities with those of the trader.
And what is a trader? A man whose whole being is set upon doing
profitable business; who appraises all activities and all conditions with a
view to their money value, who turns everything into its gold equivalent. The
world to such a man is one great market-place, with its supply and demand, its
conjunctures—good and bad—and its profits and losses. The constant question on
his lips is, “What does it cost? What can I make out of it?” His last question
would in all probability be, “What is the price of the universe?” The circle of
his thoughts is circumscribed by one piece of business, to the successful issue
of which he devotes all his energies.
In the combination I have endeavoured to sketch, the undertaker
is the constant factor, the trader the variant one.
Constant the undertaker must be, for, having set his heart upon
some far-distant goal, he is of necessity bound to follow some plan in order to
reach it. Change in his policy is contrary to his nature. Constancy is the
basis of his character. But the trader is changeable, for his conduct wavers
with the conditions of the market. He must be able to vary his policy and his
aim from one moment to another if the prevailing conjuncture so demands it.
“Busy-ness” marks him out above all else.
This theory of the two souls in one body is intended to clarify
our conception of the capitalistic undertaker. But we must analyse the
conception still further, this time into its actual component parts.
In the undertaker I perceive the following four types:—
(1) The Inventor—not merely in the technical sense, but in that
of the organizer introducing new forms which bring greater economies into
production, or transport, or marketing.
(2) The Discoverer—of new means of selling his commodities,
either intensively or extensively. If he finds a new sphere for his
activities—let us say he sells bathing-drawers to Eskimos, or gramophones to
Negroes—we have a case of extensive discovery; if he creates new demands in
markets where he already has a footing, we may speak of intensive discovery.
(3) The Conqueror. An undertaker of the right kind is always a
conqueror, with the determination and will-power to overcome all the
difficulties that beset his path. He must also be able to risk much, to stake
his all (that is to say, his fortune, his good name, even his life), if need
be, to achieve great results for his undertaking. It may be the adoption of new
methods in manufacture, the extension of his business though his credit is
unstable, and so on.
(4) The Organizer. Above all else the undertaker must be an organizer;
i.e., he must be able so to dispose of large numbers of individuals as
to bring about the most successful result; must be able to fit the round man
into the round hole and the square man into the square; must be able to give a
man just the job for which he is best equipped, so as to obtain the maximum of
efficiency. To do this satisfactorily demands many gifts and much skill. For
example, the organizer must be able to tell at a glance what a man can do best,
and which man among many will best suit his purpose. He must be able to let
others do his work—i.e., to place in positions of trust such persons as
will be able to relieve him of responsibility. Finally, he must be able to see
to it that the human factors in the work of production are sufficient for the
purpose, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and that their relationship to
each other is harmonious. In short, the management of his business must be the
most efficient possible.
Now business organization means a good deal more than the skilful
choice of men and methods; it means taking into consideration also
geographical, ethnological and accidentalcircumstances of all sorts. Let me
illustrate my point. The Westinghouse Electric Company is one of the best
organized concerns in the United States. When the Company decided to capture
the English market it set up a branch in this country, the organization of
which was modelled exactly on that of the parent concern. After a few years,
what was the result? The financial break-up of the English branch, chiefly
because sufficient allowance had not been made for the difference in English
conditions.
This leads us to the activities of the trader. A trader has no
definite calling; he has only certain well-defined functions in the body
economic. But they are of a very varied kind. For example: to provision ships
and supply them with men and ammunition, to conquer wild lands in distant
parts, to drive the natives from hearth and home and seize their goods and
chattels, to load the ships with these latter and bring them home in order to
sell them at public auctions to the highest bidder—all this is a form of
trading.
Or, it may be a different form—as when a dealer obtains a pair of
old trousers from a needy man of fashion, to whose house he comes in vain five
times in succession, and then palms those same trousers off on a stupid yokel.
Or, again, it may take the form of arbitrage dealing on the Stock
Exchange.
Clearly there are differences in these instances, as there were
between trading in modern and in mediaeval times. In the pre-capitalistic
period, to trade meant to trade on a big scale, as the “royal merchants” did in
the Italian and German cities, and the trader had to be an undertaker (in the
general, and not merely in the capitalistic sense). “Each (of the citizens of
Genoa) has a tower in his house; if civil war breaks out, the battlements of
these towers are the scenes of conflict. They are masters of the sea; they
build them ships, called galleys, and roam for plunder in the most distant
parts, bringing the spoil back to Genoa. With Pisa they live in continual
enmity.” “Royal merchants” these, if you like; but not traders in my sense.
I regard those as traders who set out with the intention of doing
good business; who combine within themselves two activities—calculation and
negotiation. In a word, the trader must be (1) a speculating calculator, and
(2) a business man, a negotiator.
As a speculating calculator, he must buy in the cheapest market
and sell in the dearest. Which means that he must obtain his labour and his raw
material at as low a rate as possible, and not waste anything in the process of
manufacture. And when the commodity is ready for sale, he must part with it to
the man whose credit is sound, and so forth. For all this he must calculate,
and he must speculate. By speculation in this sense I mean the drawing of
several conclusions from particular instances—let us call it the power of
economic diagnosis, the complete survey of the market, the evaluation of all
its symptoms, the recognition of future possibilities and the choice of that
course which will have the greatest utility in the long run.
To this end the dealer must have a hundred eyes, a hundred ears
and a hundred feelers in all directions. Here he may have to search out a needy
nobleman, or a State bent on war, in order to offer them a loan at the
psychological moment; there, to put his hand on a labour group that is willing
to work a few pence below the prevailing rate of wages; here he may have to
form a right estimate of the chances that a new article is likely to have with
the public; there, to appraise the true effect of a political crisis on the
Stock Exchange. In every case the trader expresses the result in terms of
money. That is where the calculation comes in. “A wonderfullyshrewd calculator”
is a term common in the United States for an adept in this direction.
But a discerning eye for a profitable piece of business is not
sufficient: the trader must also possess the capacity for doing business. In
this, his negotiating powers will come into play, and he will be doing
something very much more akin to the work of an arbitrator between two
litigants. He will talk to his opponent, urge reasons and counterreasons in
order to induce him to embark on a certain course. To negotiate is to fence
with intellectual weapons.
Trading, then, means to negotiate concerning the buying and
selling of some commodity, be it a share, a loan, or a concern. Trading must be
the term applied to the activity of the hawker at the back-door, trying to sell
the cook a “fur” collar, or to that of the Jewish old do’ man, who talks for an
hour to the bucolic driver to persuade him to purchase a pair of trousers. But
it must be equally applied to the activities of a Nathan Rothschild, who
negotiated with the representative of the Prussian Government for a loan of a
million. The difference is not one of kind, but of extent, for the essence of
all trading is negotiation, which need not necessarily be by word of mouth. The
shopkeeper who recommends his goods to the public, be his method what you will,
is in reality negotiating. What is all advertisement but “dumb show”
negotiation? The end in view is always the same—to convince the possible buyer
of the superiority of a particular set of goods. The ideal of the seller is
realized when everybody purchases the article he has recommended.
To create interest, to win confidence, to stir up a desire to
buy—such is the end and aim of the successful trader. How he achieves it is of
little moment. Sufficient that he uses not outward force but inner forces, his
customers coming to him of their own free will. He wins by suggestion, and one
of the most effective is to arouse in the heart of the buyer the feeling that
to buy at once will be most advantageous. “We shall have snow, boys, said the
Finns, for they had Aander (a kind of snowshoe) to sell,” we read in the Magnus
Barford Saga (1006 A.D.). This is the prototype of all traders and
the suggestion of the Finns the prototype of all advertising—the weapon with
which the trader fights. No longer does he dwell in fortified towers, as did
his precursor in Genoa in the days of Benjamin of Tudela, nor does he wreck the
houses of the natives with his guns if they refuse to “trade” with him, as did
the early East India settlers in the 17th century.
Now that we know what a capitalist undertaker is our next
question must be. What were the outward circumstances that made it possible for
the Jews to do so much in shaping the capitalistic system? To formulate an
answer we shall have to review the position of the Jews of Western Europe and
America from the end of the 15th century until the present time—the period,
that is, in which capitalism took form.
How can that position be best characterized?
The Governor of Jamaica in a letter he wrote (December 17, 1671)
to the Secretary of State was happy in his phraseology.1 “He was of opinion,” he said, “that His Majesty could not have
more profitable subjects than the Jews: they had great stocks and
correspondence.” These two reasons, indeed, will account in large measure
for the headway made by Jews. But we must also bear in mind their peculiar
status among the peoples with whom they dwelt. They were looked upon as
strangers and were treated not as full, but as “semi-citizens.”
I would therefore assign four causes for the success of the Jews:
(1) their dispersion over a wide area, (2) their treatment as strangers, (3)
their semi-citizenship, and (4) their wealth.
The fact of primary significance is that the Jews were scattered
all over the world. Scattered they had been from the time of the first Exile;
they were scattered anew after their expulsion from Spain and Portugal, and
again when great masses of them left Poland. We have already accompanied them
on their wanderings during the last two or three centuries, and have noted how
they settled in Germany and France, in Italy and in England, in the Near East
and in the Far West, in Holland, in Austria, in South Africa and in Eastern
Asia.
One result of these wanderings was that off-shoots of one and the
same family took root in different centres of economic life and established
great world-famed firms with numerous branches in all parts. Let us instance a
few cases.2
The Lopez family had its seat in Bordeaux, and branches in Spain,
England, Antwerp and Toulouse. The Mendes family, well-known bankers, also
hailed from Bordeaux, and were to be found in Portugal, France and Flanders.
The Gradis, relatives of the Mendes, were also settled in all directions. So,
too, the Carceres in
What all this means is obvious enough. What Christian business
houses obtained only after much effort, and even then only to a much less
degree, the Jews had at the very beginning—scattered centres from which to
carry on international commerce and to utilize international credit; “great
correspondence” in short, the first necessity for all international
organization.
Let us recall what I observed about the participation of the Jews
in Spanish and Portuguese trade, in the trade of the Levant, and in the
economic growth of America. It was of great consequence that the great majority
of Jews settling in different parts hailed from Spain; they were thus agents in
directing colonial trade, and to an even greater extent the flow of .silver,
into the new channels represented by Holland, England, France and Germany.
Was it not significant that the Jews directed their footsteps
just to these countries, all on the eve of a great economic revival, and were
thus the means of allowing them to benefit by Jewish international connexions?
It is well known that Jews turned away the flow of trade from the lands that
expelled them to those that gave them a hospitable reception. Was it not
significant that they were predominant in Leghorn, which in the 18th century
was spoken of as “one of the great depots in Europe for the trade of the
Mediterranean,”3 significant that they
forged a commercial chain binding North and South America together, which
assured the North American Colonies of their economic existence, significant
above all, that by their control of the Stock Exchanges in the great
European centres they were the means of internationalizing public credit?
It was their distribution over a wide area which enabled them to
do all this.
An admirable picture of the importance of the Jews from this
point of view was drawn by a clever observer who made a study of that people
two hundred years ago. The picture has lost none of its freshness; it may be
found in the Spectator of
They are so disseminated through all the trading Parts of the
World, that they are become the Instruments by which the most distant Nations
converse with one another and by which mankind are knit together in a general
correspondence. They are like the pegs and nails in a great building, which
though they are but little valued in themselves, are absolutely necessary to
keep the whole frame together.
How the Jews utilized for their own advantage the special
knowledge that their scattered position gave them, how they regulated their
activities on the Stock Exchange, is related in all detail in a Report of the
French Ambassador in The Hague, written in the year 1698.5 Our informant is of opinion that the dominance
of the Jews on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange was due in a large degree to their
being so well-informed. This piece of evidence is of such great value that I
shall translate the whole of the passage:—
They carry on a correspondence on both these subjects (news and
commerce) with those they call their brotherhoods (congregues). Of these,
Venice is considered to be the most important (although neither the richest nor
the most populous) because it is the link, by way of the brotherhood of
Salonica, between the East and the West as well as the South. Salonica is the
governing centre for their nation in these two parts of the world and is
responsible for them to Venice, which together with Amsterdam, rules the
northern countries (including the merely tolerated community of London, and the
secret brotherhoods of France). The result of this association is that on the
two topics of news and commerce they receive, one might almost say, the best
information of all that goes on in the world, and on this they build up their
system every week in their assemblies, wisely choosing for this purpose the day
after Saturday, i.e., the Sunday, when the Christians of all
denominations are engaged in their religious exercises. These systems, which
contain the minutest details of news received during the week, are, after
having been carefully sifted by their rabbis and the heads of their
congregations, handed over on the Sunday afternoon to their Jewish stockbrokers
and agents. These are men of great cleverness, who after having arranged a
preconcerted plan among themselves, go out separately to spread news which
should prove the most useful for their own ends; ready to start manipulations
on the morrow, the Monday morning, according to each individual’s disposition:
either selling, buying, or exchanging shares. As they always hold a large
reserve of these commodities, they can always judge of the most propitious
moment, taking advantage of the rise or fall of the securities, or even
sometimes of both, in order to carry out their plans.
Equally beneficial was their dispersion for winning the
confidence of the great. Indeed, the progress of the Jews to la haute
finance was almost invariably as follows. In the first instance their
linguistic ability enabled them to be of service to crowned heads as
interpreters, then they were sent as intermediaries or special negotiators to
foreign courts. Soon they were put in charge of their employer’s fortunes, at
the same time being honoured through his graciousness in allowing them to
become his creditors. From this point it was no long step to the control of the
State finances, and in later years of the Stock Exchanges.
It is no far-fetched assumption that already in ancient times
their knowledge of languages and their acquaintance with foreign civilizations
must have made them welcome visitors at the courts of kings and won for them
royal confidence. Think of Joseph in Egypt; of the Alabarch Alexander (of whom
Josephus tells), the intimate of King Agrippa and of the mother of the Emperor
Claudius; think of the Jewish Treasurer of Queen Candace of Ethiopia, of whom
we may read in the Acts of the Apostles (viii. 27).
As for the Court Jews in the Middle Ages, we have definite
information that they won their spurs in the capacity of interpreters or
negotiators. We know it of the Jew Isaac, whom Charlemagne sent to the court of
the Caliph Haroun al Rashid; of Kalonymus, the Jewish friend and favourite of
the Emperor Otto II; of the famous Chasdai Ibn Shaprut (915–70), who achieved
honour and renown as the diplomatic representative of the Caliph Abdul-Rahman
III in his negotiations with the Christian courts of Northern Spain.6 Similarly when the Christian princes of the
Iberian Peninsula required skilful negotiators they sought out Jews. Alphonso
VI is a good example. Intent on playing off the petty Mohammedan rulers against
each other, he chose Jewish agents, with their linguistic abilities and their
insight into foreign ways, to send to the courts of Toledo, Seville and
Granada. In the period which followed, Jewish emissaries are met with at all
the Spanish courts, including those Jews, learned in ethnography, whom James II
commissioned to travel into Asia in order to supply his spies with information
and who tried to discover the mythical country of Prester John;7 including also the many interpreters and
confidential agents associated with the discovery of the New World.8
Considering the importance of the Spanish period in Jewish
history not only from the general, but also from the special economic point of
view, these cases are worthy of note in that they clearly show the reason for
the rise of Jews to influential positions. But they are not limited to the
Spanish period; they abound in subsequent epochs also. Thus, Jewish
diplomatists were employed by the States-General in their intercourse with the
Powers; and names like Delmonte, Mesquita9 and
others are well-known. Equally famous is the Seigneur Hebraeo, as Richelieu
called the wealthy Ildefonso Lopez, whom the French statesman sent on a secret
mission to Holland, and on his return bestowed upon him the tide of “Conseiller
d’Etat ordinaire.”10
Finally, the dispersion of the Jews is noteworthy in another way.
Their dispersion internationally was, as we have seen, fruitful enough of
results; but their being scattered in every part of some particular country had
consequences no less potent. To take one instance—the Jews were army-purveyors
(and their activities as such date from the days of antiquity, for do we not
read that when Belisarius besieged Naples, the Jewish inhabitants offered to
supply the town with provisions?).11 One
reason was surely that they were able to accumulate large quantities of
commodities much more easily than the Christians, thanks to their connexions in
the different centres. “The Jewish undertaker,” says one 18th-century writer,
“is free from these difficulties. All he need do is to stir up his brethren in
the right place, and at a moment’s notice he has all the assistance he requires
at his disposal.”12 In truth, the Jew at
that time never carried on business “as an isolated individual, but always as a
member of the most extended trading company in the world.”13 In the words of a petition of the merchants
of Paris in the second half of the 18th century,14
“they are atoms of molten money which flow and are scattered, but which
at the least incline reunite into one principal stream.”
During the last century or two Jews were almost everywhere
strangers in the sense of being new-comers. They were never old-established in
the places where their most successful activities were manifest; nor did they
arrive in such centres from the vicinity, but rather from distant lands,
differing in manners and customs, and often in climate too, from the countries
of their settlements. To Holland, France and England they came from Spain and
Portugal and then from Germany; they journeyed to Hamburg and Frankfort from
other German cities; later on they dispersed all over Germany from Russian
Poland.
The Jews, then, were everywhere colonists, and as such learned
the lesson of speedy adaptation to their new surroundings. In this they were
ahead of the European nations, who did not become masters of this art until the
settlements in America were founded.
New-comers must have an observant eye in order to find a niche
for themselves amid the new conditions; they must be very careful of their
behaviour, so that they may earn their livelihood without let or hindrance.
While the natives are still in their warm beds the new-comers stand without in
the sharp morning air of dawn, and their energy is all the keener in
consequence. They must concentrate their thoughts to obtain a foothold, and all
their economic activities will be dictated by this desire. They must of
necessity determine how best to regulate their undertakings, and what is the
shortest cut to their goal—what branches of manufacture or commerce are likely
to prove most profitable, with what persons business connexions should be
established, and on what principles business itself should be conducted. What
is all this but the substitution of economic rationalism for time-honoured
Tradition? That the Jews did this we have already observed; why they were
forced to do it becomes apparent when we recall that everywhere they were
strangers in the land, new-comers, immigrants.
But the Jews were strangers among the nations throughout many
centuries in yet another sense, which might be termed psychological and social.
They were strangers because of the inward contrast between them and their
hosts, because of their almost caste-like separation from the peoples in whose
midst they dwelt. They, the Jews, looked upon themselves as a peculiar people:
and as a peculiar people the nations regarded them. Hence, there was developed
in the Jews that conduct and that mental attitude which is bound to show itself
in dealings with “strangers,” especially in an age in which the conception of
world-citizenship was as yet nonexistent. For in all periods of history
innocent of humanitarian considerations the mere fact that a “stranger” was
being dealt with was sufficient to ease the conscience and loosen the bonds of
moral duty. In intercourse with strangers people were never quite so
particular. Now the Jews were always brought into contact with strangers, with
“others,” especially in their economic activities, seeing that everywhere they
were a small minority. And whereas the “others” dealt with a stranger, say,
once in ten times or even in a hundred, it was just the reverse with the Jews,
whose intercourse with strangers was nine out of the ten or ninety-nine out of
the hundred times. What was the consequence? The Jew had recourse to the
“ethics for strangers” (if I may use this term without being misunderstood) far
more frequently than the non-Jew; for the one it was the rule, whilst for the
other it was only the exception. Jewish business methods thus came to be based
on it.
Closely interwoven with their status as strangers was the special
legal position which they occupied everywhere. But this has an importance of
its own, and we shall therefore assign an independent section to it.
At first glance the legal position of the Jews would appear to
have had an immense influence on their economic activities in that it limited
the callings to which they might devote themselves, and generally closed the
avenues to a livelihood. But I believe that the effect of these restrictions
has been over-estimated. I would even go so far as to say that they were of no
moment whatever for the economic growth of Jewry. At least, I am not aware that
any of the traces left by Jews on the development of the modern economic system
were due to the restraining regulations. That these could not have left a very
deep impress is obvious, seeing that during the period which is of most
interest to us the laws affecting Jews differed greatly according to locality.
For all that we note a remarkable similarity in Jewish influence throughout the
whole range of the capitalistic social order.
How varied the laws in restraint of Jews were is not always
sufficiently realized. To begin with, there were broad differences between
those of one country and of another. Thus, while the Jews in Holland and
England were in a position of almost complete equality with their Christian
neighbours so far as their economic life was concerned, they laboured under
great disabilities in other lands. But even in these last their treatment was
not uniform, for in certain towns and districts they enjoyed entire economic
freedom, as, for example, in the papal possessions in France.15 Moreover, even the disabilities varied in
number and in kind in each country, and sometimes in different parts of the
same country. In most instances they appeared to be quite arbitrary; nowhere
was there any underlying principle visible. In one place Jews might not be
hawkers, and in another they were not allowed to be shopkeepers. Here they
received permission to be craftsmen; there this right was denied them. Here
they might deal in wool, there they might not. Here they might sell leather,
there it was forbidden them. Here the sale of alcoholic liquors was farmed out
to them, there such an idea seemed preposterous. Here they were encouraged to
start factories, there they were strictly enjoined to desist from all
participation in capitalistic undertakings. Such examples might be continued
indefinitely.
Perhaps the best is furnished by Prussia’s treatment of her Jews
in the 18th century. Here in one and the same country the restrictive
legislation for one locality was totally opposed to that of another. The
revised General Privileges of 1750 (Article 2) forbade Jews the exercise of
handicrafts in many places; yet a royal order of
Again, while the Jews of Berlin were forbidden (by Articles 13
and 15 of the General Privileges of 1750) to sell meat, beer and brandy to
non-Jews, all the native-born Jews of Silesia had complete freedom of trade in
this respect (in accordance with an Order of
The list of commodities in which they were allowed or forbidden
to trade seems to have been drawn up with an arbitrariness that passes
comprehension. Thus, the General Privileges of 1750 allowed the Jews to deal in
foreign or home leather prepared though undyed, but not in raw or dyed leather;
in raw calf and sheep skins, but not in raw cow or horse hides; in all manner
of manufactured woollen and cotton wares, but not in raw wool or woollen
threads.
The picture becomes still more bewildering when we take into
consideration the varying legal status of the different classes of Jews. The
Jewish community of Breslau, for instance, was (until the Order of
The first class included those Jews who were on an equal footing
with Christians so far as trade and commerce were concerned, and whose rights
in this respect were hereditary. In the second were comprised such Jews as had
“special (limited) privileges” given them, wherein they were allowed to trade
in certain kinds of goods specifically mentioned. But their rights did not pass
to their children, though the children received preference when privileges of
this kind were being granted. The third class was composed of Jews who had the
right of living in Breslau, but whose economic activities were even more
limited than those in the second class. As for the fourth, it contained the
Jews who received permission to dwell in the town for a temporary period only.
But even of such rights as they had they were never sure. In
1769, for example, the Silesian Jews who lived in country districts were
allowed to receive in farm the sale of beer, brandy and meat; in 1780 the
permission was withdrawn; in 1787 it was renewed.
Yet in all this it must not be forgotten that regulations in
restraint of industry and commerce during the last two or three centuries were
for the most part a dead letter; as a matter of fact, capitalistic interests
found ways and means of getting round them. The simplest method was to overstep
the law, a course to which as time went on the bureaucratic State shut its
eyes. But there were lawful means too of circumventing inconvenient paragraphs:
concessions, privileges, patents, and the whole collection of documents
granting exceptional treatment which princes were always willing to issue if
only an additional source of income accrued therefrom. The Jews were not slow
in obtaining such privileges. The proviso mentioned in the Prussian Edicts of
1737 and 1750—that all restraints referring to Jews might be removed by a
special royal order—was tacitly held to apply in all cases. Some way out must
have been possible, else how could the Jews have engaged in those trades (e.g.,
leather, tobacco) which the law forbade them?
At one point, however, industrial regulations made themselves
felt as very real checks to the progress of the Jew, and that was wherever
economic activities were organized on a corporate basis. The gilds were closed
to them; they were kept back by the crucifix which hung in each gild-hall, and
round which members assembled. Accordingly, if they wished to engage in any
industry or trade monopolized by a gild, they were forced to do so as
“outsiders,” interlopers and free traders.
But a still greater obstacle in their path were the laws
regulating their position in public life. In all countries there was a
remarkable uniformity in these; everywhere the Jew was shut out from public
offices, central or local, from the Bar, from Parliament, from the Army, from
the Universities. This applied to the States of Western Europe—France, Holland,
England—and also to America. But there is no need to consider with any degree
of fullness the legal status of the Jews in the preemancipation era, seeing
that it is fairly generally known. Only this we would mention here—that their
condition of semi-citizenship continued in most countries right into the 19th
century. The United States was the first land in which they obtained civil
equality; the principle was there promulgated in 1783. In France the famous
Emancipation Law dates from 27th September 1791; in Holland the Batavian
National Assembly made the Jews full citizens in 1796. But in England it was
not until 1859 that they were granted complete emancipation, while in the
German States it took ten years longer. On 3rd July 1869 the North German
Confederation finally set the seal on their civil equality; Austria had already
done so in 1867, and Italy followed suit in 1870.
Equally well-known is it that in many cases the emancipation laws
have become dead letters. Open any Liberal paper in Germany (to take a good
instance) and day by day you will find complaints that Jews are never given
commissions in the Army, that they are excluded from appointments to the Bench,
and so on.
This set-back which the Jews received in public life was of great
use to industry and commerce in that the Jew concentrated all his ability and
energy on them. The most gifted minds from other social groups devoted
themselves to the service of the State; among the Jews, in so far as they did
not spend themselves in the Beth Hamidrash [the Communal House of
Study], such spirits were forced into business. Now the more economic life
aimed at profit-making and the more the moneyed interests acquired influence,
the more were the Jews driven to win for themselves by means of commerce and
industry what was denied them by the law—respect and power in the State. It
becomes apparent why gold (as we have seen) was appraised so highly among Jews.
But if exclusion from public life was of benefit to the economic
position of the Jews in one direction, giving them a pull over their Christian
neighbours, it was equally beneficial in another. It freed the Jews from
political partisanship. Their attitude towards the State, and the particular
Government of the day, was wholly unprejudiced. Thanks to this, their capacity
to become the standard-bearers of the international capitalistic system was
superior to that of other people. For they supplied the different States with money,
and national conflicts were among the chief sources from which Jews derived
their profit. Moreover, the political colourlessness of their position made it
possible for them to serve successive dynasties or governments in countries
which, like France, were subjected to many political changes. The history of
the Rothschilds illustrates the point. Thus the Jews, through their inferior
civil position, were enabled to facilitate the growth of the indifference of
capitalism to all interests but those of gain. Again, therefore, they promoted
and strengthened the capitalistic spirit.
Among the objective conditions which made possible the economic
mission of the Jews during the last three or four centuries must be reckoned
that at all times and in all places where their role in economic life was no
mean one, they disposed of large sums of money. But this assertion says nothing
about the wealth of the whole body of Jews, so that it is idle to urge the
objection that at all periods there were poor Jews, and very many of them. Any
one who has ever set foot in a Jewish congregation on the Eastern borders of
Germany, or is acquainted with the Jewish quarter of New York, knows that well
enough. But what I maintain—a more limited proposition—is that much wealth and
great fortunes were to be found, and still are to be found, among Jews ever
since the 17th century. Put in a slightly different way, there were always many
wealthy Jews, and certainly the Jews on an average were richer than the
Christians round them. It is beside the mark to say that the richest man in
Germany or the three richest in America are not Jews.
A good many of the exiles from the Pyrenean Peninsula must have
been very wealthy indeed. We are informed that their flight brought with it an
“exodo de capitaes,” a flow of capital from the country. However, in many
instances they sold their property, receiving foreign bills in exchange.16 The richest among the fugitives probably made
for Holland. At any rate it is recorded that the first settlers in that
country—Manuel Lopez Homen, Maria Nunez, Miguel Lopez and others—had great
possessions.17 Whether other wealthy
Spaniards followed in the 17th century, or whether those already resident added
to their fortunes, it is not easy to discover. But certain it is that the Jews
of Holland in the 17th and 18th centuries were famed for their riches. True,
there are no statistics to illustrate this, but an abundance of other weighty
evidence exists. Travellers could not sufficiently admire the splendour and the
luxury of the houses of these refugees who dwelt in what were really palaces.
And if you turn to a collection of engravings of that period, do you not very
soon discover that the most magnificent mansions in, say, Amsterdam or The
Hague were built by Jews or inhabited by them—those of Baron Delmonte, of the
noble Lord de Pinto, of the Lord d’Acoste and others? (At the close of the 17th
century de Pinto’s fortune was estimated at 8,000,000 florins.) Of the princely
luxury at a Jewish wedding in Amsterdam, where one of her daughters married,
Gliickel von Hamein draws a vivid picture in her Memoirs.18
It was the same in other lands. For 17th and 18th century France
we have the generalization of Savary, who knew most things. “We say,” these are
his very words, “we say that a tradesman is ‘as rich as a Jew’ when he has the
reputation of having amassed a large fortune.”19
As for England, actual figures are extant concerning the wealth
of the rich Sephardim soon after their arrival. A crowd of rich Jews followed
in the train of Catharine of Braganza, Charles II’s bride, so that while in
1661 there were only 35 Jewish families in London, two years later no less than
57 new-comers were added to the list. In 1663, as appears from the books of
Alderman Blackwell, the following was the half-yearly turnover of the wealthy
Jewish merchants:20 Jacob Aboab, £13,085;
Samuel de Vega, £18,309; Duarte de Sylva, £41,441; Francisco da Sylva, £14,646;
Fernando Mendes da Costa, £30,490; Isaac Dazevedo, £13,605; George and Domingo
Francia, £35,759; and Gomez Rodrigues, £13,124.
The centres of Jewish life in Germany in the 17th and 18th
centuries were, as we have already observed, Hamburg and Frankfort-on-the-Main.
For both cities it is possible to compute the wealth of the resident Jews by
the aid of figures.
In Hamburg, too, it was Spanish and Portuguese Jews who were the
first settlers. In 1649, 40 of their families participated in the foundation of
the Hamburg Bank, which shows that they must have been fairly comfortably off.
Very soon complaints were made of the increasing wealth and influence of the
Jews. In 1649 they were blamed for their ostentatious funerals and for riding
in carriages to take the air; in 1650 for building houses like palaces. In the
same year sumptuary laws forbade them too great a show of magnificence.21 Up to the end of the 17th century the
Sephardic Jews appear to have possessed all the wealth; about that time,
however, their Ashkenazi brethren also came quickly to the fore. Glückel von
Hamein states that many German-Jewish families which in her youth were in
comparative poverty later rose to a state of affluence. And Glückel’s
observations are borne out by figures dating from the first quarter of the 18th
century.22 In 1729 the Jewish community in
Altona was composed of 279 subscribing members, of whom 145 were wealthy,
possessing between them 5,434,300 mark [£271,715], that is, an average of more
than 37,000 mark [£1850] per head. The Hamburg community had 160 subscribing
members, 16 of whom together were worth 501,500 mark [£25,075]. These figures
appear to be below the actual state of things, if we compare them with the
particulars concerning each individual. In 1725 the following wealthy Jews were
resident in Hamburg, Altona and Wandsbeck: Joel Solomon, 210,000 mark; his
son-in-law, 50,000; Elias Oppenheimer, 300,000; Moses Goldschmidt, 60,000; Alex
Papenheim, 60,000; Elias Salomon, 200,000; Philip Elias, 50,000; Samuel
Schiesser, 60,000; Berend Heyman, 75,000; Samson Nathan, 100,000; Moses Hamm, 75,000;
Sam Abraham’s widow, 60,000; Alexander Isaac, 60,000; Meyer Berend, 400,000;
Salomon Berens, 1,600,000; Isaac Hertz, 150,000; Mangelus Heymann, 200,000;
Nathan Bendix, 100,000; Philip Mangelus, 100,000; Jacob Philip, 50,000; Abraham
Oppenheimer’s widow, 60,000; Zacharias Daniel’s widow and widowed daughter,
150,000; Simon del Banco, 150,000; Marx Casten, 200,000; Abraham Lazarus,
150,000; Carsten Marx, 60,000; Berend Salomon, 600,000 rthlr.; Meyer Berens,
400,000; Abraham von Halle, 150,000; Abraham Nathan, 150,000.
In view of this list it can scarcely be doubted that there were
many rich Jews in Hamburg.
Frankfort presents the same picture; if anything the colours are
even brighter. The wealth of the Jews begins to accumulate at the end of the
16th century, and from then onwards it increases steadily. In 1593 there were 4
Jews and 54 Christians (making 7.4 per cent.) in Frankfort who paid taxes on a
fortune of over 15,000 florins; in 1607 thennumber had reached 16 (compared
with 90 Christians, i.e., 17.7 per cent.).28
In 1618 the poorest Jew paid taxes on 100 florins, the poorest Christian
on 50. Again, 300 Jewish families paid as garrison and fortification taxes no
less than 100,900 florins in the years 1634 to 1650.24
The number of taxpayers in the Frankfort Jewish community rose to
753 by the end of the 18th century, and together they possessed at least
6,000,000 florins. More than half of this was in the hands of the twelve
wealthiest families:25 Speyer, 604,000
florins; Reiss-Ellissen, 299,916; Haas,Kann, Stem, 256,500; Schuster, Getz,
Amschel, 253,075; Goldschmidt, 235,000; May, 211,000; Oppenheimer, 171,500;
Wertheimer, 138,600; Florsheim, 166,666; Rindskopf, 115,600; Rothschild,
109,375; Sichel, 107,000.
And in Berlin the Jews in the early 18th century were not by any
means poor beggars. Of the 120 Jewish families resident in the Prussian capital
in 1737 only 10 owned less than 1000 thalers, the rest all had 2000 to 20,000
thaler, and over.26
That the Jews were among the richest people in the land is thus
attested, and this state of affairs has continued through the last two or three
hundred years right down to our own day, except that to-day it is perhaps more
general and more widespread. And its consequence? It can scarcely be
overestimated for those countries which offered a refuge to the wanderers. The
nations that profited by the Jews’ sojourn with them were well equipped to help
forward the development of capitalism. Hence it should be specially noticed
that the wanderings of the Jews had the effect of shifting the centre where the
precious metals had accumulated. Obviously it could not but influence the trend
of economic life that Spain and Portugal were emptied of then: gold and England
and Holland enriched.
Nor is it difficult to prove that Jewish money called into
existence all the large undertakings of the 17th century and financed them.
Just as the expedition of Columbus wouldhave been impossible had the rich Jews
left Spain a generation earlier, so the great India Companies might never have
been founded and the great banks which were established in the 17th century
might not so quickly have attained their stability had it not been that the
wealth of the Spanish exiles came to the aid of England, Holland and Hamburg;
in other words, had the Jews been expelled from Spain a century later than was
actually the case.
This in fact was why Jewish wealth was so influential. It enabled
capitalistic undertakings to be started, or at least facilitated the process.
To establish banks, warehouses, stock and share-broking—all this was easier for
the Jew than for the others because his pockets were better lined. That, too,
was why he became banker to crowned heads. And finally, because he had money he
was able to lend it. This activity paved the way for capitalism to a greater
degree than anything else did. For modern capitalism is the child of
money-lending. Money-lending contains the root idea of capitalism; from
moneylending it received many of its distinguishing features. In money-lending
all conception of quality vanishes and only the quantitative aspect matters. In
money-lending the contract becomes the principal element of business; the
agreement about the quid pro quo, the promise for the future, the notion
of delivery are its component parts. In money-lending there is no thought of
producing only for one’s needs.In money-lending there is nothing corporeal (i.e.,
technical), the whole is a purely intellectual act. In money-lending
economic activity as such has no meaning; it is no longer a question of
exercising body or mind; it is all a question of success. Success, therefore,
is the only thing that has a meaning. In money-lending the possibility is for
the first time illustrated that you can earn without sweating; that you may get
others to work for you without recourse to force.
In fine, the characteristics of money-lending are the
characteristics of all modern capitalistic economic organizations.
But historically, too, modern capitalism owes its being to
moneylending. This was the case wherever it was necessary to lay out money for
initial expenses, or where a business was started as a limited company. For
essentially a limited company is in principle nothing but a matter of
money-lending with the prospect of immediate profit.
The money-lending activities of the Jews were thus an objective
factor in enabling the Jews to create, to expand and to assist the capitalistic
spirit. But our last remarks have already touched upon a further problem, going
beyond objective considerations. Is there not already a specific psychological
element in the work of the money-lender? But more than this. It may be asked,
Can the objective circumstances alone entirely explain the economic role of the
Jews? Are there not perhaps special Jewish characteristics which must be taken
into account in our chain of reasoning? Before proceeding to this chapter,
however, we must turn to an influence of extreme importance in this
connexion—to the Jewish religion.
Three reasons have actuated me in devoting a special
chapter to the consideration of the religion of the Jewish people and the
demonstration of its enormous influence on Jewish economic activities. First,
the Jewish religion ca be fully appreciated in all its bearings from the
economic standpoint only when it is studied in detail and by itself; secondly,
it calls for a special method of treatment; and thirdly, it occupies a position
midway between the objective and the subjective factors of Jewish development.
For, in so far as any religion is the expression of some particular spiritual
outlook, it has a “subjective” aspect; in so far as the individual is born into
it, it has an objective aspect.
That the religion of a people, or of a group within a people, can
have far-reaching influences on its economic life will not be disputed. Only
recently Max Weber demonstrated the connexion between Puritanism and
Capitalism. In fact. Max Weber’s researches are responsible for this book. For
any one who followed them could not but ask himself whether all that Weber
ascribes to Puritanism might not with equal justice be referred to Judaism, and
probably in a greater degree; nay, it might well be suggested that that which
is called Puritanism is in reality Judaism. This relationship will be discussed
in due course.
Now, if Puritanism has had an economic influence, how much more
so has Judaism, seeing that among no other civilized people has religion so
impregnated all national life. For the Jews religion was not an affair of
Sundays and Holy Days; it touched everyday life even in its minutest action, it
regulated all human activities. At every step the Jew asked himself.
Will this tend to the glory of God or will it profane His name? Jewish law
defines not merely the relation between man and God, formulates not merely a
metaphysical conception; it lays down rules of conduct for all possible
relationships, whether between man and man or between man and nature. Jewish
law, in fact, is as much part of the religious system as are Jewish ethics. The
Law is from God, and moral law and divine ordinances are inseparable in
Judaism.1 Hence in reality there are no
special ethics of Judaism. Jewish ethics are the underlying principles of the
Jewish religion.2
No other people has been so careful as the Jews in providing for
the teaching of religion to even the humblest. As Josephus so well put it: Ask
the first Jew you meet concerning his “laws” and he will be able to tell you
them better than his own name. The reason for this may be found in the
systematic religious instruction given to every Jewish child, as well as in the
fact that divine service partly consists of the reading and explanation of
passages from Holy Writ. In the course of the year the Torah is read through
from beginning to end. Moreover, it is one of the primary duties of the Jew to
study the Torah. “Thou shalt speak of them when thou sittest in thine house and
when thou walkest by the way and when thou liest down and when thou risest up”
(Deut. vi. 5).3
No other people, too, has walked in God’s ways so conscientiously
as the Jews; none has striven to carry out its religious behests so thoroughly.
It has indeed been asserted that the Jews are the least religious of peoples. I
shall not stay to weigh the justice of this remark. But certain it is that they
are the most “God-fearing” people that ever were on the face of the earth. They
lived always in trembling awe, in awe of God’s wrath. “My flesh trembleth for fear
of Thee, and I am afraid of Thy judgments,” said the Psalmist (Ps. cxix. 120),
and the words may be taken as applicable to the Jews in every age. “Happy is
the man that feareth alway” (Prov. xxviii. 14). “The pious never put away their
fear” (Tanchuma Chukkath, 24 ).4 One
can understand it when one thinks of the Jewish God—fearful, awful,
curse-uttering Jehovah. Never in all the world’s literature, either before or
since, has humanity been threatened with so much evil as Jehovah promises (in
the famous 28th chapter of Deuteronomy) to those who will not keep His
commandments.
But this mighty influence (the fear of God) did not stand alone.
Others combined with it, and together they had the tendency of almost forcing
the Jews to obey the behests of their religion most scrupulously. The first of
these influences was their national fate. When the Jewish State was destroyed
the Pharisees and Scribes—i.e., those who cherished the traditions of
Ezra and strove to make obedience to the Law the end and aim of life—the
Pharisees and Scribes came to the head of affairs and naturally directed the
course of events into channels which they favoured. Without a State, without
their sanctuary, the Jews, under the leadership of the Pharisees, flocked
around the Law (that “portable Fatherland,” as Heine calls it), and became a
religious brotherhood, guided by a band of pious Scribes, pretty much as the
disciples of Loyola might gather around them the scattered remnants of a modern
State. The Pharisees now led the way. Their most distinguished Rabbis looked
upon themselves as the successors of the ancient Synhedrium, and were indeed so
regarded, becoming the supreme authority in spiritual and temporal affairs for
all the Jews in the world.5 The power of
the Rabbis originated in this fashion, and the vicissitudes of the Jews in the
Middle Ages only helped to strengthen it. So oppressive did it eventually
become that the Jews themselves at times complained of the burden. For the more
the Jews were shut off, or shut themselves off, from the people among whom they
dwelt, the more the authority of the Rabbis increased, and the more easily
could the Jews be forced to be faithful to the Law. But the fulfilment of the
Law, which was urged upon them by the Rabbis, must have been a necessity for
the Jews for inner reasons: it satisfied their heart’s desire, it appeared the
most precious gift that life had to offer. And why? Because amid all the
persecution and suffering which was meted out to the Jews on all sides, that
alone enabled them to retain their dignity, without which life would have been
valueless. For a very long period religious teaching was enshrined in the
Talmud, and hence Jews through many centuries lived in it, for it and through
it. The Talmud was the most precious possession of the Jew; it was the breath
of his nostrils, it was his very soul. The Talmud became a family history for
generation after generation, with which each was familiar. “The thinker lived
in its thought, the poet in its pure idealism. The outer world, the world of
nature and of man, the powerful ones of the earth and the events of the times,
were for the Jew during a thousand years accidents, phantoms; his only reality
was the Talmud.”6 The Talmud has been well
compared (and the comparison to my mind applies equally to all religious
literature) to an outer shell with which the Jews of the Diaspora covered
themselves; it protected them against all influences from without and kept
alive their strength within.7
We see, then, what forces were at work to make the Jews right
down to modern times a more God-fearing people than any other, to make them
religious to their inmost core, or, if the word “religious” be objected to, to
keep alive among high and low a general and strict observation of the precepts
of their religion. And for our purpose, we must regard this characteristic as
applicable to all sorts and conditions of Jews, the Marannos of the 16th, 17th
and 18th centuries included. We must look upon these too as orthodox Jews. Says
the foremost authority on that period of Jewish history,8 “The great majority of the Marannos were Jews to a much larger
extent than is commonly supposed. They submitted to force of circumstance and
were Christians only outwardly. As a matter of fact they lived the Jewish life
and observed the tenets of the Jewish religion.… This admirable constancy will
be appreciated to the full only when the wealth of material in the Archives of
Alcalia de Henares, Simancas and other places has been sorted and utilized.”
But among professing Jews the wealthiest were often enough
excellent Talmudic scholars. Was not a knowledge of the Talmud a highway to
honour, riches and favour among Jews? The most learned Talmudists were also the
cleverest financiers, medical men, jewellers, merchants. We are told, for
example, of some of the Spanish Ministers of Finance, bankers and court
physicians that they devoted to the study of the Holy Writ not only the Sabbath
day but also two nights of each week. In modern times old Amschel Rothschild,
who died in 1855, did the same. He lived strictly according to Jewish law and
ate no morsel at a stranger’s table, even though it were the Emperor’s. One who
knew the Baron well says of him that “he was looked upon as the most pious Jew
in all Frankfort. Never have I seen a man so afflict himself—beating his
breast, and crying to Heaven—as Baron Rothschild did in the synagogue on the
Day of Atonement. The continual praying weakens him so that he falls into a
faint. Odorous plants from his garden are held to his nose to revive him.”9 [Sombart in the German text quotes this as an
occurrence on the Sabbath. It is obvious that the description refers to the Day
of Atonement.—Trans.] His nephew William Charles, who died in 1901 and
who was the last of the Frankfort Rothschilds, observed all the religious
prescriptions in their minutest detail. The pious Jew is forbidden to touch any
object which under certain circumstances has become unclean by having been
already touched by some one else. And so a servant always walked in front of this
Rothschild and wiped the door-handles. Moreover, he never touched paper money
that had been in use before; the notes had to be fresh from the press.
If this was how a Rothschild lived, it is not surprising to come
across Jewish commercial travellers who do not touch meat six months in the
year because they are not absolutely certain that the method of slaughtering
has been in accordance with Jewish law.
However, if you want to study orthodox Judaism you must go to
Eastern Europe, where it is still without disintegrating elements—you must go
there personally or read the books about it. In Western Europe the orthodox
Jews are a small minority. But when we speak of the influence of the Jewish
religion it is the religion that held sway until a generation ago that we mean,
the religion that led the Jews to so many victories.
Mohammed called the Jews “the people of the Book.” He was right.
There is no other people that lived so thoroughly according to a book. Their
religion in all its stages was generally incorporated in a book, and these
books may be looked upon as the sources of the Jewish religion. The following
is a list of such books, each originating at a particular time and
supplementing some other.
1. The Bible, i.e., the Old Testament, until the
destruction of the Second Temple. It was read in Hebrew in Palestine and in
Greek (Septuagint) in the Diaspora.
2. The Talmud (more especially the Babylonian Talmud), from the
2nd to the 6th century of the Common Era, the principal depository of Jewish
religious teaching.
3. The Code of Maimonides, compiled in the 12th century.
4. The Code (called the Turim) of Jacob ben Asher
(1248–1340).
5. The Code of Joseph Caro—the Shulchan Aruch (16th
century).
These “sources” from which the Jewish religion drew its life
appear in a different light according as they are regarded by scientific
research or with the eyes of the believing Jew. In the first case they are seen
as they really are; in the second, they are idealized.
What are they in reality? The Bible, i.e., the Old
Testament, is the foundation upon which the entire structure of Judaism was
built up. It was written by many hands at different periods, thus forming, as
it were, a piece of literary mosaic.10 The
most important portion of the whole is the Torah, i.e., the Pentateuch.
It received its present shape by the commingling of two complete works some
time in the period after Ezra. The one was the old and the new (the
Deuteronomic) Law Book (650 B.C.) and the other, Ezra’s Law Book (440 B.C.).[I.e.
Deut. v. 45–xxvi, 69 (about 650 B.C.) and Exod. xii. 25–31, xxxv to Lev. xv; Numb.
i–x; xv– xix; xxvii–xxxvi. (about 445 B.C.).] And its special character the Torah owes
to Ezra and Nehemiah, who introduced a strict legal system. With Ezra and the
school of Soferim (scribes) that he founded, Judaism in the form which
it has to-day originated; from that period to the present it has remained
unchanged.
Beside the Torah we must mention the so-called Wisdom
Literature—the Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes, Ecclesiasticus and the Proverbs. This
section of Jewish literature is wholly postexilic; only in that period could it
have arisen, assuming as it did the existence of the Law, and the prevailing
belief that for obeying the Law God gave Life, for transgressing it Death. The
Wisdom Literature, unlike the Prophetic Books, was concerned with practical
life. Some of the books contain the crystallized wisdom of many generations and
are of a comparatively early date. The Book of Proverbs, for example, the most
useful for our purpose, dates from the year 180 B.C.11
Two streams flow from the Bible. The one, chiefly by way of the
Septuagint, ran partly into Hellenistic philosophy and partly into Pauline
Christianity. That does not concern us further.
The other, chiefly by way of the Hebrew Bible current in
Palestine, ran into Jewish “Law,” and the course of this we shall have to
follow.
The specifically Jewish development of the Holy Writ already
began as early as Ezra’s day; it was due to the first schools of Soferim (scribes),
and the later schools of Hillel and Shammai only extended and continued the
work. The actual “development” consisted of explanations and amplifications of
the Holy Writ, arrived at as the result of disputation, the method in vogue in
the Hellenistic World. The development was really a tightening of the legal
formalism, with the view of protecting Judaism against the inroads of
Hellenistic Philosophy. Here, as always, the Jewish religion was the expression
of a reaction against disintegrating forces. The Deuteronomic Law was the
reaction against Baal worship; the Priestly Code against Babylonian influences;
the later Codes of Maimonides and Rabbenu Asher and Caro against Spanish
culture; and the teaching of the Tannaim [Tannai—teacher] in the century
preceding and that commencing the Common Era against the enervating doctrines
of Hellenism.12
The old oral tradition of the “Wise” was codified about the year
200 A.D.
by R. Judah Hanassi (the Prince), usually called Rabbi. His work is the Mishna.
Following on the Mishna are further explanations and additions which were
collected and given a fixed form in the 6th century (500-550 A.D.) by
the Sdboraim [Saborai—those who give opinions]. Those portions which had
reference to the Mishna alone were termed the Gemara, the authors of
which were the Amoraim [Amorai—speaker], Mishna and Gemara together form
the Talmud, of which there are two versions, the Palestinian and the
Babylonian. The latter is the more important.13
The Talmud, as edited by the Saboraim, has become the chief
depository of Jewish religious teaching, and its universal authority resulted
from the Mohammedan conquests. To begin with, it became the legal and
constitutional foundation for Jewish communal life in Babylon, at the head of
which stood the “Prince of the Captivity” and the Presidents of the two
Talmudic colleges, the Gaonim [Gaon—Excellency]. As Islam spread further
and further afield the Jewish communities in the lands that it conquered came
into closer relation with the Gaonate in Babylon; they asked advice on
religious, ethical and common law questions and loyally accepted the decisions,
all of which were based on the Talmud. Indeed, Babylonian Jewry came to be
regarded as the new centre of Jewish life.
As soon as the Gemara was written down, and so received permanent
form, the development of Judaism ceased. Nevertheless we must mention the three
codes which in the post-Talmudic period embodied all the substance of the
religion, first, because they presented it in a somewhat different garb, and
secondly, because in their regulation of the religious life they could not but
pay some heed to changed conditions. All the three codes are recognized by Jews
as authoritative side by side with the Talmud, and the last, the Shulchan
Aruch, is looked upon today by the orthodox Jew as containing the official
version of religious duties. What is of interest to us in the case of all the
codes is that they petrified Jewish religious life still more. Of Maimonides
even Graetz asserts as much. “A great deal of what in the Talmud is still
mutable, he changed into unmodifiable law. ... By his codification he robbed
Judaism of the power of developing.… Without considering the age in which the
Talmudic regulations arose, he makes them binding for all ages and
circumstances.” R. Jacob ben Asher went beyond Maimonides, and Joseph Caro
beyond Jacob ben Asher, reaching the utmost limit. His work tends to
ultra-particularism and is full of hair-splitting casuistry. The religious life
of the Jews “was rounded off and unified by the Shulchan Aruch, but at
the cost of inwardness and unfettered thought. Caro gave Judaism the fixed form
which it has retained down to the present day.”14
This, then, is the main stream of Jewish religious life; these
the sources from which Judaism drew its ideas and ideals. There were, of
course, tributary streams, as, for instance, that of the Apocalyptic literature
of the pre-Christian era, which stood for a heavenly, a universal, an
individualistic Judaism;15 or that of the
Kabbala, which busied itself with symbols and arithmetical figures. But these
had small share in the general development of Jewish life, and may be neglected
so far as their effect on historic Judaism is concerned. Nor were they ever
recognized by “official” Judaism as sources of the Jewish religion.
So much for the realistic conception of these sources. But what
of that current in orthodox Jewish circles? In many respects the belief of the
pious Jew touching the origin of the Jewish system is of much more consequence
than its real origin. We must therefore try and acquaint ourselveswith that
belief.
The traditional view, which every orthodox Jew still holds, is
that the Jewish system has a twofold birth: partly through Revelation and
partly in the inspiration of the “Wise.” Revelation refers to the written and
the oral tradition. The former is contained in the holy books of the Bible—the
Canon as it was fixed by the members of the Great Synagogue. It has three parts16:—the Torah or Pentateuch, the Prophetical
Books and the “Writings” (the remaining books). The Torah was given to Moses on
Sinai and he “gradually instructed the people in it during their forty years’
wandering in the wilderness. ... It was not until the end of his life that he
finished the written Torah, the five books of Moses, and delivered them unto
Israel, and we are in duty bound to consider every letter, every word of the
written Torah as the Revelation of God.”17 The
remaining books were also the outcome of divine revelation, or, at any rate,
were inspired by God. The attitude towards the Prophetical literature and the
Hagiographa, however, is somewhat freer than that towards the Torah.
The Oral Tradition, or the Oral Torah, is the explanation of the
written one. This, too, was revealed to Moses on Sinai, but for urgent reasons
was not allowed to be written down at once. That took place at a much later
date—only after the destruction of the second Temple—and was embodied in Mishna
and Gemara, which thus contain the only correct explanation of the
Torah, seeing that they were divinely revealed. In the Talmud are included also
rabbinic ordinances and the Haggada, i.e., the interpretation of those
portions of Holy Writ other than the legal enactments. The interpretation of
the latter was called the Halacha, and Halacha and Haggada supplemented
each other. Beside these were placed the collection of decisions, i.e., the
three codes already referred to.
What was the significance of all this literature for the
religious life of the Jews? What was it that the Jew believed, what were the
commands he obeyed?
In the first place it must be premised that so far as I am aware
there is no system of dogmas in Judaism.18 Wherever
compilation of such a system has been attempted it was invariably the work of
non-Jews.19 The nature of the Jewish
religion and more especially the construction of the Talmud, which is
characterized by its lack of order, is inconsistent with the formulation of any
dogmatic system. Nevertheless certain principles may be discovered in Judaism,
and its spirit will be found expressed in Jewish practices. Indeed, it will not
be difficult to enumerate these principles, since they have remained the same
from the very beginning. What has been termed the “spirit of Ezekiel” has been
paramount in Judaism from Ezra’s day to ours. It was only developed more and
more, only taken to its logical conclusions. And so to discover what this
“spirit” is we need only refer to the sources of the religion—the Bible, the
Talmud and the later Rabbinic literature.
It is a harder task to determine to what extent this or that
doctrine still finds acceptance. Does, for example, the Talmudic adage, “Kill
even the best of the Gentiles,” still hold good? Do the other terrible
aphorisms ferreted out in Jewish religious literature by Pfefferkom,
Eisenmenger, Rohling, Dr. Justus and the rest of that fraternity, still find
credence, or are they, as the Rabbis of to-day indignantly protest, entirely
obsolete? It is obvious, of course, that the single doctrines were differently
expressed in different ages, and if the whole literature, but more especially
the Talmud, is referred to on particular points, opposite views, the “pros” and
the “cons,” will be found. In other words, it is possible to “prove” absolutely
anything from the Talmud, and hence the thrust and counter-thrust between the
anti-Semites and their Jewish and non-Jewish opponents from time immemorial;
hence the fact that what the one proved to be black by reference to the Talmud
the others proved to be white on the same authority. There is nothing
surprising in this when it is remembered that to a great extent the Talmud is
nothing else than a collection of controversies of the different Rabbinical
scholars.
To discover the religious ordinances which regulated actual life
we must make a distinction which, to my mind, is very real—the distinction
between the man who by personal study strives to find out the law for himself,
and the one who accepts it on the authority of another. In the case of the
first, the thing that matters is that some opinion or other is found expressed.
It is of no consequence that its very opposite may also be there. For the pious
Jew who obtains edification by the study of his literature the one view was
enough. It may have been the spur to a particular course of action; or it may
have provided him with an additional reason for persisting in a course upon
which he had already entered. The sanction of the book was sufficient in either
event, most of all if it was the Bible or, better still, the Torah. Since all
was of divine origin, one passage was as binding as another. This held good
whether applied to the Bible, to the Talmud or to the later Rabbinic writings.
The matter assumes a different aspect if the individual does not,
or cannot, study the sources himself but relies on the direction of his
spiritual adviser or on books recommended by him. Such a one is confronted with
only one opinion, arrived at by the proper interpretation of contradictory
texts. Obviously these views must have varied from time to time, in accordance
with the Rabbinic traditions in each epoch. Hence, to find the laws that in any
period were binding we much search for its Rabbinic traditions—no great task
since the publication of the Rabbinic law-books. From the llth to the 14th century
we have the Yad Hachawka [“Strong Hand”] of Maimonides, from the 14th to
the 16th the Tur of R. Jacob ben Asher, and after the 16th the Shulchan
Aruch of Caro. Each of these gives the accepted teachings of the age, each
is the decisive authority. For the last three hundred years the Shulchan
Aruch has thus laid down the law wherever there were differences of
opinion. As the text-book I have already quoted says, “First and foremost the Shulchan
Aruch of R. Joseph Caro, together with the notes of R. Moses Isserlein and
the other glosses, is recognized by all Israel as the Code on which we model
our ritual observances.” The Law is also summed up in the 613 precepts which
Maimonides derived from the Torah and when even to-day are still in force.
“According to the tradition of our Teachers (of blessed memory) God gave Israel
by the hand of Moses 613 precepts, 248 positive and 365 negative. All these are
binding to all eternity; only those which have reference to the Jewish State
and agricultural life in Palestine and to the Temple service in Jerusalem are
excepted, as they cannot be carried out by the Jews of the Diaspora. We can
obey 369 precepts, 126 positive and 243 negative; and in addition the seven
Rabbinic commands.”20
The lives of Orthodox Jews were governed by these manuals during
the last century and still are so to-day, in so far as the guidance of the
Rabbinic law was followed and opinions based on a personal study of the sources
were not formed. From the manuals we have mentioned, therefore, we must gather
the ordinances which were decisive for each individual instance in religious
life. Hence Reformed Judaism is of no concern to us, and books trimmed to suit
modern ideas, such as the great majority of the latest expositions of the
“Ethics of Judaism,” are absolutely useless for our purpose—which is to show
the connexion between capitalism and genuine Jewish teaching, and its
significance in modern economic life.
Let me avow it right away: I think that the Jewish religion has
the same leading ideas as Capitalism. I see the same spirit in the one as in
the other.
In trying to understand the Jewish religion—which, by the way,
must not be confused with the religion of Israel (the two are in a sense
opposites)—we must never forget that a Safer was its author, a rigidly
minded scribe, whose work was completed by a band of scribes after him. Not a
prophet, mark you; not a seer, nor a visionary nor a mighty king; a Safer it
was. Nor must we forget how it came into being: not as an irresistible
force, not as the expression of the deepest needs of contrite souls, not as the
embodiment of the feelings of divinely inspired votaries. No; it came into
being on a deliberate plan, by clever deductions, and diplomatic policy which
was based on the cry “Its religion must be preserved for the people.” The same
calm consideration, the same attention to the ultimate goal were responsible in
the centuries that followed for the addition of line to line and precept to
precept. That which did not fit in with the scheme of the Soferim from
before the days of Ezra and that which grew up afterwards, fell away.
The traces of the peculiar circumstances which gave it birth are
still visible in the Jewish religion. In all its reasoning it appeals to us as
a creation of the intellect, a thing of thought and purpose projected into the
world of organisms, mechanically and artfully wrought, destined to destroy and
to conquer Nature’s realm and to reign itself in her stead. Just so does
Capitalism appear on the scene; like the Jewish religion, an alien element in
the midst of the natural, created world; like it, too, something schemed and
planned in the midst of teeming life. This sheaf of salient features is bound
together in one word: Rationalism. Rationalism is the characteristic trait of
Judaism as of Capitalism; Rationalism or Intellectualism—both deadly foes alike
to irresponsible mysticism and to that creative power which draws its artistic
inspiration from the passion world of the senses.
The Jewish religion knows no mysteries, and is perhaps the only
religion on the face of the globe that does not know them. It knows not the
ecstatic condition wherein the worshipper feels himself at one with the
Godhead, the condition which all other religions extol as the highest and
holiest. Think of the Soma libation among the Hindoos, think of entranced Indra
himself, of the Homa sacrifice of the Persians, of Dionysus, the Oracle of
Greece and of the Sibylline books, to which even the staid Romans went for
advice, only because they were written by women who in a state of frenzy
prophesied the future.
Down to the latest days of the Roman Empire the characteristic of
religious life which remained the same in all aspects of heathenism continued
to manifest itself—the characteristic which spread far and wide and infected
large masses of people, of working yourself up by sheer force to a pitch of
bodily or mental excitement, often becoming bacchanalian madness, and then
regarding this as the deity’s doing and as part of his service. It was a
generally accepted belief that certain sudden impulses or bursts of passion or
resolutions were roused in the soul of a man by some god or other; and conduct
of which a man was ashamed or which he regretted, was usually ascribed to the
influence of a god.21 “It was the god who
drove me to it”—so, in Plautus’s comedy, the young man who had seduced a maiden
excused himself to his father.
The same thing must have been experienced by Mohammed in his
morbid condition when his fits of ecstasy were upon him, and there is a good
deal of mysticism in Islam. At least Mohammedanism has its howling dervishes.
And in Christianity, too, so far as it was not Judaism, room was
found for emotional feeling—witness the doctrine of the Trinity, the sweet cult
of Mariolatry, the use of incense, the communion. But Judaism looks with proud
disdain on these fantastic, mystical elements, condemning them all. When the
faithful of other religions hold converse with God in blissful convulsions, in
the Jewish synagogue, called a Shool [i.e., School] not without
significance, the Torah is publicly read. So Ezra ordained, and so it is done
most punctiliously. “Ever since the destruction of the State, study became the
soul of Judaism, and religious observances without knowledge of the ordinances
which enjoined them was considered as being of little worth. The central
feature of public service on Sabbaths and Holy Days was the lesson read from
the Law and the Prophets, the translation of the passages by the Targumists [Interpreters]
and the homiletic explanation of them by the Haggadists [Preachers].”
Radix stultitiae, cui frigida sabbata cordi
Sed cor frigidus relligione sua
Septima quaeque dies turpi damnato vetemo
Tanquam lassati mollis imago dei.
[The Sabbath—monstrous folly!—fills the need
Of hearts still icier than their icy creed,
Each seventh day in shameful sloth they nod,
And ape the languor of their weary God.]
Such was the Roman view.22
Judaism then looked askance at
mysteries. With no different eye did it regard the holy enthusiasm for the
divine in the world of feeling. Astarte, Daphne, Isis and Osiris, Aphrodite,
Fricka and the Holy Virgin—it would have none of them. It banished all
pictorial art from its cult. “And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of
the fire: ye heard the sound of words but ye saw no form” (Deut. iv. 12).
“Cursed be the man that maketh a graven or molten image, an abomination unto
the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman.…” (Deut. xxvii. 15). The
command, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” finds acceptance
to-day, and the pious Jew has no statues made, nor does he set them up in his
house.23
The kinship between Judaism and Capitalism is further illustrated
by the legally regulated relationship—I had almost said the businesslike
connexion, except that the term has a disagreeable connotation—between God and
Israel. The whole religious system is in reality nothing but a contract between
Jehovah and His chosen people, a contract with all its consequences and all its
duties. God promises something and gives something, and the righteous must give
Him something in return. Indeed, there was no community of interest between God
and man which could not be expressed in these terms—that man performs some duty
enjoined by the Torah and receives from God a quid pro quo. Accordingly,
no man should approach God in prayer without bringing with him something of his
own or of his ancestors’ by way of return i for what he is about to ask.24
The contract usually sets forth that man is rewarded for duties
performed and punished for duties neglected; the rewards and punishments being
received partly in this and partly in the next world. Two consequences must of
necessity follow: first, a constant weighing up of the loss and gain which any
action needs must bring, and secondly, a complicated system of bookkeeping, as
it were, for each individual person.
The whole of this conception is excellently well illustrated by
the words of Rabbi [164–200 A.D.]: “Which is the right course for a man to
choose? That which he feels to be honourable to himself and which also brings
him honour from mankind. Be heedful of a light precept as of a grave one, for
you do not know what reward a precept brings. Reckon the loss incurred by the
fulfilment of a precept against the reward secured by its observance, and the
gain gotten by a transgression against the loss it involves. Reflect on three
things and you will not come within the power of sin. Know what is above thee—a
seeing eye, and a hearing ear, and all your deeds written in a book.”25 So that whether one is accounted “righteous”
or “wicked” depends on the balance of commands performed against commands
neglected. Obviously this necessitates the keeping of accounts, and each man
therefore has his own, in which his words and his deeds, even the words spoken
in jest, are all carefully registered. According to one authority (Ruth
Rabba, 33a) the prophet Elijah keeps these accounts; according to another (Esther
Rabba, 86a) the duty is assigned to angels.
Every man has thus an account in heaven: Israel a particularly
large one (Sifra, 446). And one of the ways of preparing for death is to
have your “account” ready (Kohelet Rabba, Tic). Sometimes “extracts”
from the accounts are forthcoming (by request). When the angels brought an
accusation against Ishmael, God asked, “What is his position at present? Is he
a righteous man or a wicked?” (i.e., do the commands performed outweigh
those neglected?). And the angels replied, “He is a righteous man.” When Mar
Ukba died, he asked for a statement of his account (of the money he had given
to charity). It totalled 7000 zuzim. As he was afraid that this would not
suffice for his salvation he gave away half of his fortune in order to be on
the safe side (Kethuboth, 25; Baba Bathra, 7). The final decision
as to the righteousness or wickedness of any man is made after his death. The
account is then closed, and the grand total drawn up. The result is inserted in
a document (Shetar) which is handed to each individual after it has been
read out.26
It is not difficult to perceive that the keeping of these
accounts was no easy matter. In Biblical times, so long as rewards and
punishments were meted out in the life on earth, the task was no great one. But
in the period that followed, when rewards and punishments were granted partly
in this life and partly in life everlasting, the question grew to be
troublesome, and in the Rabbinic theology an intricate and artistic system of
bookkeeping was evolved. This distinguished between the capital sum or the
principal, and the fruits or the interest, the former being reserved for the
future world, the latter for this. And in order that the reward which is laid
up in heaven for the righteous may not be diminished, God does not lessen the
stock when He grants him ordinary earthly benefits. Only when he receives
extraordinary, i.e., miraculous, benefits on earth does the righteous
man suffer a diminution of his heavenly reward. Moreover, the righteous is
punished for his sins at once on earth, as the wicked is rewarded for his good
deeds, so that the one may have only rewards in heaven and the other only
chastisements.27
Another conception is bound up with this of divine bookkeeping
and is closely akin to a second fundamental trait of capitalism—the conception
of profit. Sin or goodness is regarded as something apart from the sinner.
Every sin, according to Rabbinic theology, is considered singly and by itself.
“Punishment is according to the object and not the subject of the sin.”28 The quantity of the broken commandments alone
counts. No consideration whatever is had for the personality of the sinner or
his ethical state, just as a sum of money is separated from persons, just as it
is capable of being added to another abstract sum of money. The ceaseless
striving of the righteous after well-being in this and the next world must
needs therefore take the form of a constant endeavour to increase his rewards.
Now, as he is never able to tell whether at a particular state of his
conscience he is worthy of God’s goodness or whether in his “account” the
rewards or the punishments are more numerous, it must be his aim to add reward
after reward to his account by constantly doing good deeds to the end of his
days. The limited conception of all personal values thus finds no admission
into the world of his religious ideas and its place is taken by the endlessness
of a pure quantitative ideal.
Parallel with this tendency there runs through Jewish moral
theology another which regards the getting of money as a means to an end. The
conception is frequently found in books of religious edification, the authors
of which realizing but seldom that in their warnings against the acquisition of
too much wealth they are glorifying this very practice. Usually the treatment of
the subject is under the heading “covetousness,” forbidden by the tenth
commandment. “A true Israelite,” remarks one of the most popular of modern
“helps to faith,”29 “avoids covetousness.
He looks upon all his possessions only as a means of doing what is pleasing in
the sight of God. For is not the entire purpose of his life to use all his
possessions, all enjoyment as the means to this end? Indeed it is a duty ... to
obtain possessions and to increase one’s enjoyments, not as an end in
themselves but as a means to do God’s will on earth.”
But if it is urged that this is no conclusive proof of the
connexion between the religious idea and the principle of getting gain, a
glance at the peculiar ordering of divine service will soon be convincing. At
one stage in the service there is a veritable public auction. The honorary
offices connected with the reading of the law are given to the highest bidder.
Before the scrolls are taken from the Ark, the beadle walks round the central
platform (the Almemor) and cries out:
“Who will buy Hazoa vehachnosa? (i.e., the act of
taking the scrolls from the Ark and of replacing them). Who will buy Hagboha?
(the act of raising the scroll in the sight of the people). Who will buy Gelilah?”
(the act of rolling up the scroll when the reading is finished). These
honours are knocked down to the highest bidder, and the money given to the
synagogue poor-box. It need hardly be said that to-day this practice has long
been eliminated from synagogue worship. In days of long ago it was quite general.30 Again, the words of some of the Talmudic
doctors, who at times dispute over the most difficult economic questions with
all the skill of experienced merchants, cannot but have a curious connotation,
and must needs lead to the conclusion that they preached the getting of gain.
It would be fascinating to collect those passages of the Talmud wherein the
modern practice of making profit is recommended by this or that Rabbi, in many
cases themselves great traders. I will quote an instance or two. “R. Isaac also
taught that a man should always have his money in circulation.” It was R.
Isaac, too, who gave this piece of good advice. A man should divide his fortune
into three parts, investing one in landed property, one in moveable goods, and
holding the third as ready cash (Baba Mezia, 42a). “Rav once said to his
son. Come let me instruct thee in worldly matters. Sell your goods even while
the dust is yet upon your feet.” (What is this but a recommendation to have a
quick turnover?) “First open your purse and then unloose the sack of wheat.…
Have you got dates in the box? Hasten at once to the brewer” (Pesachim, 113a).
What is the meaning of this parallelism between the Jewish
religion and capitalism? Is it a mere chance? A stupid joke perpetrated by
Fate? Is the one the effect of the other, or are both traceable to the same
causes? Questions such as these naturally suggest themselves to us, and I hope
to answer them as we proceed. Here it will suffice to have called attention to
them. Our next step will be the comparatively simpler one of showing how
individual customs, conceptions, opinions and regulations of the Jewish
religion influenced the economic conduct of Jews, of showing whether they
facilitated the extension of capitalism by the Jews, and, if so, to what
degree. We shall limit ourselves in this to primary psychological motives,
avoiding all speculative difficulties. Our first problem will be to discover
the goal set up by the Jewish religion and its influence on economic life, and
the next section is devoted to it
The idea of contract, which is part and parcel of the underlying
principles of Judaism, must perforce have the corollary that whoever carries
out the contract receives reward, whoever breaks it receives punishment. In
other words, the legal and ethical assumption that the good prosper and the
evil suffer punishment was in all ages a concept of the Jewish religion. All
that changed was the interpretation of prosperity and punishment.
The oldest form of Judaism knows nothing of another world. So,
weal and woe can come only in this world. If God desires to punish or to
reward, He must do so during man’s lifetime. The righteous therefore is
prosperous here, and the wicked here suffer punishment. Obey my precepts, says
the Lord, “so that thou mayest live long and prosper in the land which the Lord
thy God hath given unto thee.” Hence the bitter cry of Job, “Wherefore do the
wicked live, becomeold, yea, wax mighty in power? … But my way He hath fenced
up, that I cannot pass ... He hath broken me down on every side ... He hath
also kindled His wrath against me” [Job xxi. 7; xix. 8, 10, 11]. “Why hath all
this evil come upon me, seeing that I walked in His path continually?”
A little after Ezra’s time the idea of another world (Olam
Habo) finds currency in Judaism, the idea, too, of the immortality of the
soul and of the resurrection of the body. These beliefs were of foreign origin,
coming probably from Persia. But like all other alien elements in Judaism they,
too, were given an ethical meaning, in accordance with the genius of the
religion. The doctrine grew up that only the righteous and the pious would rise
up after death. The belief in eternity was thus made by the Soferim to
fit in with the old teaching of rewards and punishments, in order to heighten
the feeling of moral responsibility, i.e., of the fear of the judgment
of God.”
The idea of prosperity on earth is now extended. It is no longer
the only reward of a good life, for a reward in the world to come is added to
it. Still, God’s blessing in this world is no small part of the total reward.
Moreover, the very fact that a man is prosperous here was proof positive that
his life was pleasing to God, and that therefore he might expect reward in the
next world also. Then, too, the idea of a blind fate is no longer troublesome.
What appeared as such is now regarded as God’s punishment on earth to the
righteous for his transgressions, so that his heavenly recompense may suffer no
diminution.
The “doctrine of possession” (if the term may be allowed in
connexion with the Jewish religion) received some such shape as this, more
especially through the Wisdom Literature. The great aim of life is to obey
God’s commandments. Earthly happiness apart from God has no existence. Hence it
is folly to seek to obtain earthly possessions for their own sake. But to
obtain them in order to use them for divine ends, so that they become at one
and the same time the outward symbols and guarantees of God’s pleasure, as
signs of His blessing—such a course is wise. Now earthly possessions in this
view of them include a well-appointed house and material well-being—in a word,
wealth.
Look through Jewish literature, more especially through the Holy
Writ and the Talmud, and you will find, it is true, a few passages wherein
poverty is lauded as something higher and nobler than riches. But on the other
hand you will come across hundreds of passages in which riches are called the
blessing of the Lord, and only their misuse or their dangers warned against.
Here and there, too, we may read that riches alone do not necessarily bring
happiness, other things are essential in addition (such as health, for
example), that there are “goods” (in the broadest use of the word) more
valuable or as valuable as riches. But in all this nothing is said against riches;
and never is it stated that they are an abomination to the Lord.
I once gave expression to this view in a public lecture, and it
was severely criticized on all sides. Just this point more than any other was
controverted—the statement that riches are in the Jewish religion accounted as
a valuable good. Many of my critics, among them several distinguished Jewish
rabbis, went to the trouble of compiling lists of passages from the Bible and
Talmud which confuted my opinion. I admit that there are many places in the
Bible and the Talmud which regard wealth as a danger to the righteous, and in
which poverty is extolled. There are some half-dozen of them in the Bible; the
Talmud has rather more. But the important thing is that each of these passages
may be capped by ten others, which breathe a totally different spirit. In such
cases numbers surely count.
I put the question to myself in this way. Let us imagine old
Amschel Rothschild on a Friday evening, after having “earned” a million on the
Stock Exchange, turning to his Bible for edification. What will he find there
touching his earnings and their effect on the refinement of his soul, an effect
which the pious old Jew most certainly desired on the eve of the Sabbath? Will
the million bum his conscience? Or will he not be able to say, and rightly say,
“God’s blessing rested upon me this week. I thank Thee, Lord, for having
graciously granted the light of Thy countenance to Thy servant. In order to
find favour in Thy sight I shall give much to charity, and keep Thy
commandments even more strictly than hitherto”? Such would be his words if he
knew his Bible, and he did know it.
For his eye would rest complacently on many a passage in the Holy
Writ. In his beloved Torah he would be able to read again and again of the
blessing of God. “And He will love thee and bless thee and multiply thee. He
will also bless the fruit of thy body and the fruit of thy ground, thy corn and
thy wine and thine oil ... thou shalt be blessed above all peoples” (Deut. vii.
13-15). And how moved he would be when he reached the words, “For the Lord, thy
God, will bless thee, as He promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many
nations, but thou shalt not borrow” (Deut. xv. 6). Then suppose he turns to the
Psalms, what would he find there?
O fear the Lord, ye His saints: for there is no want to them
that fear Him (Psa. xxxiv. 10).
Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord.... Wealth and riches are in his house
(Psa. xc. 1–3).
Our garners are full, affording all manner of store, our sheep bring forth
thousands and ten thousands in our fields (Psa. cxliv. 13).
He would rejoice with Job when on concluding the story of his
trials he found that his latter end was more blessed than his beginning, and
that “he had 14,000 sheep, 6000 camels, 1000 yoke of oxen and 1000 she-asses”
and the rest. (Happily our friend Amschel knew nothing of modern Biblical
criticism, and was not aware therefore that this particular portion of Job is a
later interpolation in the story.)
The prophets also promised Israel earthly rewards if it kept to
God’s way and walked therein. If Amschel turned to the 60th chapter of Isaiah
he would find the prophecy that one day the Gentiles should bring their gold
and silver to Israel.
But perhaps Amschel’s favourite book would be Proverbs,32 “which expresses in a most pregnant form the
ideas of life current in Israel” (as a rabbi wrote to me who quoted this book
in proof of my error, Prov. xxii. 1, 2; xxiii. 4; xxviii. 20, 21; xxx. 8). Here
he would be warned that riches alone do not bring happiness (xxii. 1, 2), that
God must not be denied amid great wealth (xxx. 8), that “he that maketh haste
to be rich shall not be unpunished” (xxviii. 20). (Perhaps he will say to
himself that he does not “hasten” to be rich.) The only verse that may
disquieten him is when he reads “Weary not thyself to be rich; cease from thine
own wisdom” (xxiii. 4). But only for a moment, for his mind will be eased when
he observes the connexion with the preceding passage. Possibly these six little
words may not after all trouble him much when he remembers the numerous
passages in this very book which commend riches. So numerous indeed that it may
be said they give the tone to the whole of Proverbs.33 A few only shall be quoted:—
Length of days are in her right hand; in her left are riches and
honour (iii. 16).
Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness” (viii.
18).
The rich man’s wealth is his strong city (x. 15).
Their riches are a crown unto the wise (xiv. 24).
The reward of humility and the fear of the Lord is riches and honour and life
(xxii. 4).
The Wisdom Literature included Ecclesiastes and the Wisdom of
Solomon. The first34 certainly does not
breathe a uniform spirit; the many accretions of later times make it full of
contradictions. Yet even here the pious Jew found never a passage which taught
him to despise wealth. On the contrary, wealth is highly valued.
Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and
hath given him power to eat thereof … this is the gift of God (v. 19).
A feast is made for laughter and wine maketh glad the life: and money answereth
all things (x. 19).
The Wisdom of Solomon likewise praises riches. No less
does the Book of Jesus, the son of Sirach, that fund of wise saws, which old
Amschel must have conned with delight. If any Rabbi had told him that Ben
Sirach’s books regard the wealthy man almost as a sinner and wealth as the
source of evil, instancing chapters x–xiii in proof, Amschel would have
replied, “My dear Rabbi, you are mistaken. Those passages are a warning against
the dangers of wealth. But a rich man who avoids the dangers is thereby the
more righteous. ‘Blessed is the rich that is found without blemish ... his
goods shall be established and the congregation shall declare his alms’ (xxxi.
8, 11). And why, my dear Rabbi” (so Amschel might continue), “do you not
mention the passages which speak of the man who has amassed millions, passages
like the following?
Better is he that laboureth and aboundeth in all things, than he
that boasteth himself and wanteth bread (x. 27).
The poor man is honoured for his skill, and the rich man is honoured for his
riches (x. 30).
Prosperity and adversity, life and death, poverty and riches come of the Lord’
(xi. 14).
Gold and silver make the foot stand sure (xl. 25). Riches and strength lift up
the heart (xl. 26). Better it is to die than to beg (xl. 28).
“Should I be ashamed of my millions, my dear Rabbi” (Amschel
would conclude the imaginary conversation), “should I not rather look upon them
as God’s blessing? Recall what the wise Jesus ben Sirach said of great King
Solomon (xlvii. 18): “By the name of the Lord God, which is called the Lord God
of Israel, thou didst gather gold as tin, and didst multiply silver as lead.’ I
also will go, Rabbi, and in the name of the Lord God will gather gold as tin
and silver as lead.”
In the Talmud the passages that express the same point of view
are frequent enough. Riches are a blessing if only their owner walk in God’s
ways, and poverty is a curse. Hardly ever are riches despised. Let us quote a
few Talmudic sayings on the subject.
Seven characteristics are there which are “comely to the
righteous and comely to the world.” One of them is riches (Aboth. vi. 8).
In prayer a man should turn to Him who owns wealth and possessions.... In
reality both come not from business, but according to merit” (Kidushin, lxxxiiia).
R. Eleazer said, “The righteous love their money more than their bodies” (Sota,
xiia).
Rabba honoured the wealthy, so did R. Akiba (Erubin, lxxxvia).
In time of scarcity a man learns to value wealth best (Aboth de Rabbi
Nathan).
Doctrines concerning wealth such as these could not but encourage
a worldly view of life. This the Jewish view was, despite the belief in another
world. There were indeed attempts at ascetic movements in Judaism (e.g., in
the 9th century the Karaites combined to live the life of monks; [Sombart is
mistaken in this. The characteristic of the Karaites was that they accepted and
lived by the letter of the Torah.—Trans.] in the 11th century
Bachja ibn Pakuda preached asceticism in Spain), but none of them ever took
root. Judaism even in times of great affliction was always optimistic. In this
the Jews differ from the Christians, whose religion has tried to rob them all
it could of earthly joys. As often as riches are lauded in the Old Testament
they are damned in the New, wherein poverty is praised. The whole outlook of
the Essenes, turning its back upon the world and the flesh, was incorporated in
the Gospels. One can easily recall passage after passage to this effect. (Cf.
Matt. vi. 24; x. 9, 10; xix. 23, 24.) “It is easier for a camel to go through a
needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.” This is the
keynote of Christianity on the point, and the difference between it and Judaism
is clear enough. There is no single parallel to the saying of Jesus in the
whole of the Old Testament, and probably also none in the entire body of
Rabbinic literature.
There is no need to expatiate on the different attitude of the
good Jew and the good Christian towards economic activities. The Christian is
forced by all manner of mental gymnastics to interpret away the Essene
conception of riches from his Scriptures. And what anxious moments must the rich
Christian live through as he thinks of heaven locked against him! Compare with
him the position of the rich Jew, who, as we have seen, “in the name of the
Lord God” gathers gold as tin and silver as lead.
It is well known that the religion of the Christians stood in the
way of their economic activities. It is equally well known that the Jews were
never faced with this hindrance. The more pious a Jew was and the more
acquainted with his religious literature, the more he was spurred by the
teachings of that literature to extend his economic activities. A beautiful
illustration of the way religion and business were fused in the mind of pious
Jews may be found in the delightful Memoirs of Glückel von Hamein, to
which we have already referred. “Praise be to God, who gives and takes, the
faithful God, who always made good our losses,” she says. And again, “My
husband sent me a long, comforting letter, urging me to calm my soul, for God,
whose name be blessed, would restore to us what we had lost. And so it was.”
Since Judaism rests upon a contract between God and His people, i.e.,
upon a two-sided legal agreement, each party must have definite
responsibilities. What were those of the Jews?
Again and again was the answer to this question given by God
through His servant Moses. Again and again the Israelite was informed that two
great duties were his. He was to be holy and to obey God’s law. (Cf. Exod. xix.
6; Deut. iv. 56.) God did not require sacrifices of him; He demanded obedience
(Jer. vii. 22, 23).
Now it is generally known that in the course of events the Jews
came to regard righteousness as a minute fulfilment of the Law. The inward
holiness that may have existed in early days soon vanished before formalism and
legalism. Holiness and observation of the Law became interchangeable terms. It
is generally known, too, that this legalism was a device of the Rabbis to
protect the Jews against the influences first, of Hellenism, then of
Christianity, and finally, when the Second Temple was destroyed, to maintain by
its means the national consciousness. The struggle with Hellenism resulted in
Pharisaism; the struggle with Pauline Christianity whichaimed at replacing the
Law by faith, transformed the religion of the Pharisees into that of the Talmud,
and the old policy of the Scribes “to encompass the whole of life with
regulation” made greater progress than ever. In their political isolation the
Jewish communities submitted entirely to the new hierarchy. They desired to see
the end attained and so accepted the means. The school and the Law outlasted
the Temple and the State, and Pharisaic Rabbinism had unlimited sway.
Righteousness henceforth meant living in strict accordance with the Law. Piety,
under the influence of the legally minded Scribes, was given a legal
connotation. Religion became the common law. In the Mishna all this finds
admirable expression. The commands of the Pentateuch and the commands deduced
from these are all divine ordinances which must be obeyed without questioning.
More and more stress is laid on externals, and between important and
insignificant commands there is less and less differentiation.35
So it remained for two thousand years; so it is to-day. Strict
orthodoxy still holds fast to this formalism and the principles of Judaism know
no change. The Torah is as binding to-day in its every word as when it was
given to Moses on Sinai.36 Its laws and
ordinances must be observed by the faithful, whether they be light or grave,
whether they appear to have rhyme or reason or no. And they must be strictly
observed, and only because God gave them. This implicit obedience makes the
righteous, makes the saint. “Saintly or holy in the Torah sense is he who is
able to fulfil the revealed will of God without any struggle and with the same
joy as carrying out his own will. This holiness, this complete fusion of the
will of man with the divine will, is a lofty goal attainable in its entirety by
a few only. Hence the law of holiness refers in the first instance to the
striving towards this goal. The striving all can do; it demands a constant
self-watchfulness and self-education, an endless struggle against what is low
and vulgar, what is sensual and bestial. And obedience to the behests of the
Torah is the surest ladder on which to climb to higher and higher degrees of
holiness.”37
These words show clearly enough how holiness and legalism are
connected; they show that the highest aim of Israel still is to be a kingdom of
priests and a holy nation; and that the path to that end is a strict obedience
to God’s commandments. Once this becomes apparent, we can imagine the
importance the Jewish religion has for the whole of life. In the long run,
external legalism does not remain external; it exercises a constant influence
on the inner life, which obtains its peculiar character from the observance of
the law.
The psychological process which led to the shaping of Judaism
appears to me to be this. At first God’s behests were those that mattered,
regardless of their contents. But slowly the contents must needs make
themselves manifest to the observer, and a clearly defined ideal of Life
evolved itself from the word of God. To follow this ideal, to be righteous, to
be holy was the heart’s desire of each believer.
Before continuing, let us strive to obtain some notion of what
the pious Jew meant, and means, by holiness in the material sense.
Let us recall what was said in the last section about the
“worldliness” of the Jewish religion. In accordance with this it can scarcely
be holy to deny the natural instincts or to crush them, as other religions
teach—e.g.. Buddhism or Primitive Christianity. Other-worldly asceticism
was always antagonistic to Judaism. “The soul which has been given
thee—preserve it, never kill it”—that is the Talmudic maxim on which to build
up the conduct of life and which found currency at all times.38
The negation of life cannot therefore be holiness. Nor can the
exercise of man’s passions and appetites be holiness. For if it were, it could
not be put as an ideal before the righteous; it would then be accessible to
everybody. There remains therefore only one other possibility—to live your life
of set purpose in accordance with some ideal plan based on supernatural rules,
and either utilizing the desires within you or crushing them. In fine, holiness
is the rationalization of life. You decide to replace the natural existence
with its desires and inclinations by the moral life. To be holy is to become
refined, and to realize this is to overcome all your natural tendencies by
means of moral obedience.39
A rugged Dualism—the terrible Dualism which is part and parcel of
our constitution—characterizes the Jewish conception of ethical worth. Nature
is not unholy, neither is she holy. She is not yet holy. She may become holy
through us. All the seeds of sin are in her; the serpent still lurks in the
grass as he did long ago in the Garden of Eden. “God certainly created the evil
inclination, but he also created the Torah, the moral law, an an antidote to
it.”40 The whole of human life is one
great warfare against the inimical forces of Nature: that is the guiding
principle of Jewish moral theology, and it is in accordance with it that the
system of rules and regulations was instituted by which life might be
rationalized, de-naturalized, refined and hallowed without the necessity of
renouncing or stifling it. In this we see the marked difference between the
Christian (Essene) and the Jewish (Pharisaic) ideas of morality. The former
leads quite logically away from the world into the silent hermitage and the
monastery (if not to death); the latter binds its faithful adherent with a
thousand chains to the individual and social life. Christianity makes its
devotee into a monk, Judaism into a rationalist; the first ends in asceticism
outside the world; the second in asceticism within it (taking asceticism to
mean the subjugation of what is natural in man).
We shall gain a clearer insight of what Jewish Ethics (and
therefore also the Jewish religion) stands for if we examine its regulations
one by one.
The effect of Law is twofold. Its very existence has an
influence; so have its contents.
That there is a law at all, that it is a duty to obey it, impels
one to think about one’s actions and to accomplish them in harmony with the
dictates of reason. In front of every desire a warning finger-post is set;
every natural impulse is nullified by the thousand and one milestones and
danger-signals in the shape of directions to the pious. Now, since obedience to
a multifariousness of rules (the well-known commands compiled by Maimonides
numbered 365—of which 243 are still current—and his prohibitions 248) is
well-nigh impossible without a pretty good knowledge of what they are, the
system includes the command to study the Holy Writ, and especially the Torah.
This very study itself is made a means of rendering life holy. “If the evil
inclination seizes hold of you, march him off to the House of Study,” counsels
the Talmud.
The view that all the enactments were for the purpose of
ennobling the life of the faithful was accepted at all times, and is still held
to-day by many orthodox Jews.
God wished to refine Israel, therefore He increased the number
of the commandments (Makkoth, 23b).
The commandments were given by God to ennoble man kind (Vajikra Rabba, 13).41
It would have been better for a man never to have been born, but once he
is in the world let him continually examine his actions (Erubin, 13b).
Every night a man should critically examine his deeds of the day (Magen
Abraham on Orach Chajim, 239, § 7).42
“Observe” and “remember” were ordained in a single utterance.”43
Deum respice et cura44 is
still the motto of the Jew. If he meets a king or sees a dwarf or a Negro,
passes a ruined building or takes his medicine or his bath, notes the coming
storm or hears its roaring thunder, rises in the morning and puts on his
clothes or eats his food, enters his house or leaves it, greets a friend or
meets a foe—for every emergency there is an ordinance which must be obeyed.
Now what of the contents of the ordinances? All of them aim at
the subjugation of the merely animal instincts in man, at the bridling of his
desires and inclinations and at the replacing of impulses by thoughtful action;
in short, at the “ethical tempering of man.”
You must think nothing, speak nothing, do nothing without first
considering what the law about it is, and then apply it to the great purpose of
sanctification. You must therefore do nothing merely for its own sake,
spontaneously, or from natural instinct. You must not enjoy Nature for the
sheer pleasure of it.
You may do so only if you think thereby of the wisdom and the
goodness of God. In the spring when the trees put on their blossom the pious
Jew says, “Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, … who hast made Thy world lacking
in nought, but hast provided therein goodly creatures and trees wherewith to
give delight to the children of men.” At the sight of the rainbow he brings to
mind the Covenant with God. On high mountains, in vast deserts, beside mighty
rivers—in a word, wherever his heart is deeply moved by Nature’s wonders—he
expresses his feelings in the benediction, “Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God,
.. . who hast made the Creation.”
You must not enjoy art for its own sake. Works of plastic art
should be avoided, for they may easily lead to a breach of the second
commandment. But even the poet’s art is not looked upon with favour, except it
refer to God. All reading is good, provided it has some practical end in view.
“It is best to read the books of the Torah or such as refer to them. If we
desire to read for recreation, let us choose books that are able to teach us
something useful. Among the books written for amusement and to while away the
time there are some that may awake sinful wishes within us. The reading of
these books is forbidden.”45
You must not indulge in harmless pleasures. “The seat of the
scornful [Psa. i. I],—the theatres and circuses of the heathen are meant.”
Song, dance and wine, save when they are connected with religious ceremonial,
are taboo. “Rabbi Dosa ben Hyrkanus used to say. Morning sleep and midday wine
and childish talk and attending the houses where the ignorant foregather put a
man out of the world.”46 “He that loveth
pleasure shall be a poor man; he that loveth wine and oil shall not be rich”
(Prov. xxi. 17).
If this be so, those qualities which may lead a man to “unseemly”
conduct are useless or even harmful. Such are enthusiasm (for while a man is in
this state he may do something useless),47 kindness
of heart (you must exercise kindness only because the idea of benevolence
actuates you; you must never let pity carry you away, so that the nobility and
dignity of the ideal law may always be before you);48
a sensual temperament (“the source of passion—and of sin—is in
sensuality”), 49 ingenuousness, in short
anything that marks the natural (and therefore unholy) man.
The cardinal virtues of the pious are, on the other hand,
self-control and circumspection, a love of order and of work, moderation and
abstemiousness, chastity and sobriety.
Self-control and circumspection especially and in regard to your
words is a constant theme of the moralists. “In the multitude of words there
wanteth not transgression: but he that refraineth his lips doth wisely” (Prov.
x. 19).50
No less insistent was the later tradition. “Raba held that whoso carries
on an unnecessary conversation transgresses a command” (Joma, 19b). “Our
sanctification,” says a modern book for popular edification, “depends to a
large extent on the control of our tongues, on the power of holding our peace.
The gift of speech … was given to man for holy purposes. Hence all unnecessary
talk is forbidden by our wise men.”51
But self-control and circumspection generally are urged on the pious
Jew.
Who is the strongest of the strong? He who controls his passions
(Aboth de R. Nathan, xxiii. 1).
The thoughts of the diligent tend only to plenteousness: but every one that is
hasty hasteth only to want (Prov. xxi. 5).
He that hasteth with his feet sinneth (Prov. xix. 2).
And as for industry and thrift, innumerable are the
exhortations to
that end.
The Jew must wake the day, not the day the Jew—so taught the
Rabbis, as a homily on Psalm lvii. 9.52
It is just the strongest instincts of man that must be curbed,
directed into right channels, deprived of their natural force and made to serve
useful ends. In short, they must be rationalized.
Take the instinct which desires to satisfy hunger. It is
forbidden to appease the appetite merely because it happens to be there; it
should be appeased only for the body’s sake. And when the good man sits down to
eat, let him do so according to the precepts of his Maker. Hence the large
number of rules concerning food; hence the command to be serious at meals—to
begin and to close with prayer; hence the advice to be moderate and the appeal
to banish the pleasure of feeding. “It is only through God’s goodness that you
are enabled to use His creatures as food, and therefore if your entire eating
and drinking is not to be beastly, it must be hallowed; it must be looked upon
as the getting of strength for His service.”53 “The
Jew should make the satisfaction of his appetite for food a sacrament; should
regard his table as an altar and the food thereon as sacrifice, which he enjoys
only in order to obtain more strength for the fulfilment of his duties.”54 (Jewish cooking, by the way, is excellent.)
Finally—and this of course matters most—just like hunger, Love
also must be rationalized, that is to say, its natural expression must be held
in check. Nowhere more than in the erotic sphere does the hard dualism show
itself so well. The world, and certainly the civilized nations, owes this
conception of the sexual to the Jews (through the agency of Christianity, which
was infected with the idea). All earlier religions saw something divine in the
expression of sex, and regarded sexual intercourse as of the nature of a
heavenly revelation. All of them were acquainted with Phallus-worship in a
grosser or finer form. None of them condemned what is sensuous, or looked upon
women as a source of sin. But the Jews from Ezra’s day to this held, and hold,
the opposite view.
To sanctify himself, to make himself worthy of his converse with
God, Moses “drew not nigh unto his wife.” And Job mentions as being in his
favour that he made a covenant with his eyes not to look upon a maid. The whole
Wisdom Literature abounds in warnings against women, [Sombart instances Prov.
v. 3–4. But does not the passage clearly refer to bad women?—Trans.]
and the same spirit dominates the Talmud. “Better to die than to be guilty of
unchastity” (Sanhedrim, 75a). Indeed, the three capital crimes
for which even death does not atone are murder, idol-worship and adultery.
“Hast thou business with women? See to it that thou art not with them alone” (Kiddushin,
82a). This dread runs through all the codes. The Eben Ha-ezer condemns
to death by stoning any one who has had guilty intercourse with a woman related
to him within the prohibited degrees. The very clothes or the little finger of
a woman of such close consanguinity must not be looked at “to get pleasure from
it.” It is forbidden a man to allow himself to be waited on by a woman, or to
embrace his aunt or his grown-up sister.
Teachers of to-day are no less explicit. “Guard yourself against
any contact with impurity,” says one of the most popular of them. “Look at
nothing, hear nothing, read nothing, think of nothing which may in any wise
occupy your thoughts unchastely or make you familiar with what is not clean. Do
not walk in the street behind a woman; if you cannot help yourself, look not at
her with desire. [Cf. Robert Louis Stevenson: ‘To remember the faces of women
without desire, ... is not this to know both wisdom and virtue?”—Trans.]
Do not let your eye rest longingly on a woman’s hair, nor your ears on her
voice; do not take pleasure in her form; yea, a woman’s very clothes should not
be looked at if you know who has worn them. In all things go out of the way of
Warnings such as these were not neglected, as may be seen from
the autobiographies of pious Jews, some of which may now be read in modern
languages.56
But the point of it all must not be overlooked. Other religions
also show signs of being terrified at women. Ever since the notion became
prevalent that woman brought sin into the world there have always been morbid
souls who spent their lives exciting themselves with all manner of lascivious
imaginings but avoiding woman as though she were the devil incarnate. In other
religions the man fled to the hermit’s cave in the wilderness or to a
monastery. In either case, his religion forced “chastity” upon him, with all
the horrid resultants well known to students of monastic life. Not so Judaism. Judaism
does not forbid sexual intercourse; it rationalizes it. Not that it does not
regard sexual intercourse as sinful. Sinful it must always be, but its
sinfulness may to some extent be removed by sanctification. Hence
Judaismadvocates early marriages and regulates the relationship between husband
and wife as something “ever in the great Taskmaster’s eye.”
“A man should not be without a wife, nor a woman without a
husband; but both shall see to it that God’s spirit is in their union.” That is
the motto, and in accordance with it the Talmud and the later codes have
multiplied rules and regulations for the guidance of married couples. In the
11th century (to mention but a few) R. Eleazar ben Nathan compiled a special
code on the subject, the Eben Ha-ezer, and in the 13th century R.
Nachman wrote a famous work on the sanctification of marriage.57 The laws of the Eben Ha-ezer were
incorporated in the Shulchan Aruch and together with the glosses upon
them receive recognition to-day. The main ideas throughout are those we have
already considered: hallow thy body’s strength in accordance with God’s will;
be careful of thy manhood; be God’s servant at all times.58
Such was the Jewish view of marriage, which has continued for
more than two thousand years. It is well illustrated by that touching story in
the Book of Tobit, which may form a fitting conclusion to our considerations
under this head.
And after that they were both shut in together, Tobias rose out
of the bed, and said, Sister, arise, and let us pray that God would have pity
on us.
Then began Tobias to say. Blessed art Thou, O God of our fathers, and blessed
is Thy holy and glorious name for ever; let the heavens bless Thee, and all Thy
creatures.
Thou madest Adam, and gavest him Eve his wife for an helper and stay: of them
came mankind: Thou hast said, It is not good that man should be alone; let us
make unto him an aid like unto himself.
And now, O Lord, I take not this my sister for lust, but uprightly therefore
mercifully ordain that we may become aged together.
And she said with him. Amen.
So they slept both that night.—Tobit vii. 4-9.
It may be asked. Why have I treated this aspect of Jewish life at
such great length? My answer is simple. I really believe that the
rationalization of life, and especially of the sexual life, which the Jewish
religion effects cannot be too highly estimated for its influence on economic
activities. If religion is at all to be accounted a factor in Jewish economic
life, then certainly the rationalization of conduct is its best expression,
To begin with, a number of good qualities or virtues which are
indispensable to any economic order owe their existence to rationalization—e.g.,
industry, neatness, thrift. But the whole of life, if lived in accordance
with the ordinances of the “Wise,” ministers to the needs of wealthgetting.
Sobriety, moderation and piety are surely qualities which stand the business
man in good stead. In short, the whole ideal of conduct preached in Holy Writ
and in Rabbinic literature has something of the morality of the small
shopkeeper about it—to be content with one wife, to pay your debts punctually,
to go to church or synagogue on Sunday or Saturday (as the case may be) and to
look down with immeasurable scorn on the sinful world around.
But Jewish moral teaching did not spend itself in the mere
production of this type of the small respectable shopkeeper. It may even be
questioned whether the type is altogether its work. At any rate, it is not of
much consequence for economic development. Middle-class respectability as a
matter of fact owes its origin to the narrow outlook of the petty trading
class. Hence it can have but little to do with capitalism, except in so far as
the qualities which that class possessed were the foundation on which
capitalism could be built up. But capitalism did not grow out of the qualities,
and therefore we must search in other directions for the causes which made the
Jews pioneers of capitalism.
The fast that suggests itself is the cultivation of family life
among Jews, calling forth as it did energies so necessary to economic growth.
The cultivation and refinement of family life was undoubtedly the work of the
Jewish Rabbis, assisted, it must be added, by the vicissitudes of the Jewish
people. In Judaism woman was fast held in that high esteem which is the prime
postulate for the existence of a sound family life and all that it means for
man’s conduct. The Rabbis by thenlaws and regulations affecting marriages, the
marital relationship and the education of children and the rest, did all that
was humanly possible in the way of outward limitation and influence to
establish family life in all its purity. That marriage is considered more
sacred among pious Jews than among people of other denominations is
demonstrated by the statistics of illegitimate births. These are considerably
fewer among Jews than among Christians.59
ILLEGITIMATE BIRTHS
|
Year |
Country |
General |
Jews |
|
1904 |
Prussia |
2.51 |
0.66 |
|
1905 |
Wiirtemberg |
2.83 |
0.16 |
|
1907 |
Hesse |
2.18 |
0.13 |
|
1908 |
Bavaria |
4.25 |
0.56 |
|
1901 |
Russia |
1.29 |
0.14 |
If the figures for
ILLEGITIMATE BIRTHS
|
Year |
Greek Orthodox |
Catholics |
Protestants |
Jews |
|
1868 |
2.96 |
3.45 |
3.49 |
0.19 |
|
1878 |
3.13 |
3.29 |
3.85 |
0.25 |
|
1898 |
2.66 |
3.53 |
3.86 |
0.37 |
|
1901 |
2.49 |
3.57 |
3.76 |
0.46 |
Such then was one result of the family life current among Jews
and introduced by them. The man contributed to it the best that was in him, and
in return he drew from it invigorating strength, courage, and an inducement to
maintain and to expand his position in life. Family life of this kind generated
centres for masculine energy large enough to set in motion such a mighty
economic system as capitalism. For this system calls for great energy, and we
can scarcely imagine it being produced except through the agency of
psychological influences which appeal not only to the social instincts but also
to the family ideal.
It may perhaps be necessary to look below the psychological
influences to the physical ones. How curiously moulded must the constitution of
the Jew have become through the rationalization of his married life! We see
this phenomenon—that a people with strong sexual inclinations (Tacitus speaks
of it as proiectissima ad libidinem gens) is forced by its religion to
hold them in complete restraint. Extra-marital connexions are absolutely
forbidden; every one must content himself with one wife, but even with her
intercourse is restricted.
The result of all this is obvious. Enormous funds of energy were
prevented from finding an outlet in one direction and they turned to others.
Knowing as we do the condition of the Jews throughout the Common Era, we shall
not be wrong in assuming that economic activities were their chief channel. But
we may go further. It is possible to prove that, quite generally, restrained
sexual desires and the chase of profits go hand in hand. For the present we
have had but little scientific investigation of this fact, so important for all
modern sociological problems.60 That a
lordly way of life is usually accompanied by lavishness of money and of love,
whereas such qualities as niggardliness, avarice and a setting of much store by
money are the ubiquitous partners of a stunted sexual life—these are everyday
experiences, and though it would be presumptuous to attempt to solve this most
interesting problem with the aid of observations which must perforce be
limited, yet for the purpose of my argument they ought not to be omitted, at
least as an hypothesis.
We see then that a good deal of capitalistic capacity which the
Jews possessed was due in large measure to the sexual restraint put upon them
by their religious teachers. The effect of the rationalization of the whole of
life on the physical and intellectual powers of the Jew must still be gone into
by scientists;61 at present we have only
beginnings of such studies. I refer to the influence of the very wise
regulations of sexual intercourse, of eating and drinking and so on.
(Incidentally it is worthy of note that Jewish law has long restricted the
marriage of the unfit.)
One other point in conclusion. The rationalization of life
accustomed the Jew to a mode of living contrary to (or side by side with)
Nature and therefore also to an economic system like the capitalistic, which is
likewise contrary to (or side by side with) Nature. What in reality is the idea
of making profit, what is economic rationalism, but the application to economic
activities of the rules by which the Jewish religion shaped Jewish life? Before
capitalism could develop the natural man had to be changed out of all
recognition, and a rationalistically minded mechanism introduced in his stead.
There had to be a transvaluation of all economic values. And what was the
result? The homo capitalisticus, who is closely related to the homo
Judceus, both belonging to the same species, homines rationalistic!
artificiales.
And so the rationalization of Jewish life by the Jewish religion,
if it did not actually produce the Jewish capacity for capitalism, certainly
increased and heightened it.
One of the causes to which the Jew owed his economic progress
was, as the reader will remember, the fact that Israel was for generations a
stranger and an alien. If we seek to account for this aloofness we shall find
its roots in the ordinances of the Jewish religion, shall find that this
religion always maintained and broadened the line of separation. As
Leroy-Beaulieu, who has studied this aspect of Jewish history with great
success, has so well said, “La loi leur donnait l’ésprit de clan.” The very
fact that they had their Law forced the Jews to live apart from the Gentiles.
For if they desired to observe the Law they needs must keep to themselves. The
Jews created the Ghetto, which from the non-Jewish point of view was a
concession and a privilege and not the result of enmity.
But the Jews wished to live separated from the rest because they
felt themselves superior to the common people round them. They were the Chosen
Race, a People of Priests. The Rabbis did all that was required to fan the
flame of pride—from Ezra, who forbade intermarriage as a profanation of Jewish
purity, down to this very day, when the pious Jew says every morning, “Blessed
art Thou, O Lord, King of the Universe, who has not made me a Gentile
(stranger).”
And so they lived separate and apart all through the centuries of
the Diaspora, despite the Diaspora and (thanks to the bands which the Law laid
upon them) because of the Diaspora—separate and apart, and therefore a group by
themselves, or, if you will, a group by themselves and therefore separate and
apart.
A group by themselves—they were that already at the time of the
Babylonian Exile, which in reality established the internationalism of the Jew.
Many of them, especially the wealthier ones, remained behind in Babylon of
their own free will, but they retained their Judaism and professed it
zealously. They kept up a lively intercourse with their brethren who had
returned home, took a sympathetic interest in their fortunes, rendered them assistance
and sent them new settlers from time to time.62
The bonds of union were in no wise relaxed in the Hellenistic
Diaspora. “They kept closely together in the cities and throughout the world.
No matter where they pitched their tents, their connexion with Zion was upheld.
In the heart of the wilderness they had a native land where they were at home
... By means of the Diaspora they entered into the world. In the Hellenistic
cities they adopted the Greek tongue and Greek manners even if only as the outer
garb of their Jewishness” (Wellhausen).
So it continued throughout the centuries of their exile. If
anything the bond became strengthened. “Scis quanta concordia”—“You know
how they hang together!” cries Cicero.63 So
it was; so it still is. “All the Jewries in the Empire and beyond,” we read of
the rebellion of the year 130 A.D., “were stirred and more or less openly
supported the insurgents on the banks of the Jordan.”64 Is it any different to-day when a Jew is expelled from some
Russian town or other?
A group by themselves and therefore separate and apart—this is
true from earliest antiquity. All nations were struck by their hatred of
others, of which they were for the fast time accused by Hekateus of Abdera (300
B.C.)
. Many other ancient writers repeat the indictment,65
almost always in the same words. Perhaps the best known passage is in
Tacitus:
“Apud eos fides obstinata, misericordia in promptu. Sed adversus
omnes alias hostile odium. Separati epulis discreti cubilibus, proiectissima ad
libidinem gens, alienarum concubitu abstinent” (Historia, V, i. 5).
[Amongst themselves they are doggedly faithful and quick to pity, but all
strangers they hate as enemies. They neither eat nor intermarry with strangers;
they are a people of strong passions, yet they withhold themselves from other
men’s wives.]
Jewish apologetics never attempted to combat these views:66 there must therefore have been some
foundation for them.
It is true that the Jews kept together so closely and shut
themselves off very often on account of the unfriendly treatment they received
at the hands of their hosts. But it was not so originally. The Jews wanted to
live secluded from their neighbours because of their religion. That this was so
appears from their attitude in those lands where they were well treated.
Witness one or two instances in the ancient world, of which I have just given
illustrations [Tacitus, etc.]. Witness the same tendency in the Middle Ages.
Take Arabia in the first century. The Jews there at the period named lived
according to the religion which the Tanaim and Amor aim had
formulated—keeping the dietary laws and festivals, the great White Fast and the
Sabbath. “Although they could not complain of anything in this hospitable
country they yet longed for the return to the Holy Land and awaited the advent
of the Messiah every day.… They were in direct communication with the Jews of
Palestine.”67 Or take Moorish Spain. While
the Christians who lived among the Mohammedans forgot their mother tongue
(Gothic Latin), no longer understood their sacred books, and were rather
ashamed of their Christianity, the Spanish Jews were more and more devoted to
their national language, their Holy Writ and their ancient religion.68 This attitude was clearly reflected in the
Jewish poetry and philosophy of the period, the greatest perhaps that mediaeval
Jewry can boast. In the midst of an Arabic-Spanish world in which they lived
and enjoyed the respect of their fellow-citizens, they were strictly
“national,” that is religious; they drew poetic inspiration from the Messianic
hopes and were filled with an unconquerable longing for Zion.69 One need only mention the great Jehuda
Halevy, whose Odes to Zion are the highest expression of the genius of
neo-Hebrew poetry.
Like a cloud sailing in the blue of the sky above, Judaism winds
its way through history, refreshed by the memories of its hoary and holy past
as by a soft breeze. To this very day the pious Jew blesses his children with
the words, “The Lord make thee as Ephraim and Manasseh.”
What was the effect on economic life of this seclusion and
separation of the Jewish social organism? Directly the Jews stepped outside the
Ghetto gates their intercourse was with strangers. We have already dealt with
the point elsewhere; my reason for calling attention to it again is to show
that this attitude was a direct consequence of the teaching of Judaism, that in
treating the people among whom they lived as “others,” the Jews were but
obeying a divine behest. Here, too, their conduct was hallowed, and it received
a sanction from the peculiar system of laws relating to “strangers.”
The most important and most frequently discussed legal ordinance
in this system was that affecting the taking of interest. In the old Jewish
theocracy,70 as in every society in early
civilization, loans without interest were the regular means of rendering
assistance by a man to his neighbour. But it may be observed that even in the
earliest collection of laws interest was allowed to be taken from “strangers.”
The Jewish code was no exception. The best example of this may be
found in Deuteronomy xxiii. 20. Other passages in the Torah that have reference
to interest are Exodus xxii. 25 and Leviticus xxv. 37. They all form the theme
of a lively discussion which has been carried on from the days of the Tanaim
down to the present. The chief instance and at the same time the crux of
the matter is in the Talmud, in Baha Mew, 70b, and my own feeling
is that for the most part it is an attempt to discount the very clear statement
of the Torah by all manner of sophistries. For what does the verse in
Deuteronomy say? “Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy
brother thou shall not lend upon usury.” The only doubt is in the wording of
the original, which may mean with equal grammatical exactitude, “thou mayest
lendupon usury” or “thou shalt lend upon usury.” (It need hardly be
added that “usury” with the translators was nothing more or less than our
“interest.”)
In either case, the pious Jew was allowed to take interest from
non-Jews—that is the significant thing as far as we are concerned. Right
through the Middle Ages he was not oppressed by the burden of the anti-usury
prohibition which weighed upon the Christian. The Jewish law on the subject was
never to my knowledge questioned by the Rabbis. 71
On the other hand, there were periods when the “mayest” in the
Deuteronomic passage was read as “shalt,” periods when the Jew was urged to
become a money-lender.
The authors who have dealt with this subject in modern times
appear to have overlooked the fact that the Deuteronomic command has been
received as one of the laws that regulate the life of the Jew, and that
Tradition sanctions money-lending to a stranger on payment of interest Of the
613 commandments, this is the 198th and may be found likewise in the Shulchan
Aruch. Modem Rabbis72 to whom the
perfectly clear ordinance in Deuteronomy is somewhat inconvenient (one cannot
quite understand why), attempt to explain it away by asserting that “strangers”
in the passage is intended not for all non-Jews but only for heathens or
idol-worshippers. If this be so, let it not be forgotten that there never was
any very distinct conception as to who was, and who was not, an
idol-worshipper. Besides, the pious Jew who has committed the 198th command to memory
is not likely to draw the fine distinction urged by the learned Rabbis.
Sufficient for him that the man to whom he lent money was no Jew, no “brother,”
no neighbour, but a Gentile.
Now think of the position in which the pious Jew and the pious
Christian respectively found themselves in the period in which moneylending
first became a need in Europe, and which eventually gave birth to capitalism.
The good Christian who had been addicted to usury was full of remorse as he lay
a-dying, ready at the eleventh hour to cast from him the ill-gotten gains which
scorched his soul. And the good Jew? In the evening of his days he gazed upon
his well-filled caskets and coffers, overflowing with sequins of which he had
relieved the miserable Christians or Mohammedans. It was a sight which warmed
his heart, for every penny was almost like a sacrifice which he had brought to
his Heavenly Father.
Apart from this particular question, the stranger was accorded
special consideration in the Jewish legal code. Duties towards him were never
as binding as towards your “neighbour,” your fellow-Jew. Only ignorance or a
desire to distort facts will assert the contrary. True, the conception of law
and morality as it affected the “stranger” varied from age to age. But there
was no change in the fundamental idea that you owed less consideration to the
stranger than to one of your own people. That has remained the same from the
day when the Torah first became current to our own. That is the impression that
is conveyed by an unprejudiced study of the law concerning strangers in the
Holy Writ, the Talmud, the Codes and the Responsa literature. There certainly
are passages in the Torah which breathe equality between the home-born and the
stranger (Exod. xii. 49, xxiii. 9; Lev. xix. 33, 34, xxv. 44-6; Deufc x. 18,
19). But in a question of fudacha (legal enactment) such as this is, the
oral tradition cannot be neglected. Secondly, the passages instanced above all
refer to the Ger, the non-Jew who had settled in Palestine, seeing that
the Jews knew the heart of a Ger, “for ye were Gerim in the land
of Egypt.” [In the sentence about interest the word used is Nacharl, some
one from another nation.] As time went on it was but natural that there should
be an increase of the cases in Jewish law in which the non-Jew was at a
disadvantage as compared with the Jew. So much so that in the latest code they
occupy a good deal of space.73
What was the importance in economic life of the laws concerning
strangers? It was twofold. First, intercourse with strangers was bereft of all
considerations, and commercial morality (if I may put it so) became elastic. I
admit that there was no absolute necessity for this to come about, but all the
conditions were given for it to do so, and it must have been an everyday occurrence
in certain circles. “If a non-Jew makes an error in a statement of account, the
Jew may use it to his own advantage; it is not incumbent upon him to point it
out” So we may read in the Tur, and though Joseph Caro did not include
this in his law-book, it crept in later as a gloss from the pen of Isserlein.
Is it not obvious that the good Jew must needs draw the conclusion that he was
not bound to be so particular in his intercourse with non-Jews? With Jews he
will scrupulously see to it that he has just weights and a just measure;74 but as for his dealings with non-Jews, his
conscience will be at ease even though he may obtain an unfair advantage. It is
not to be denied that in some cases honesty towards non-Jews was inculcated.75 But to think that this should have been
necessary! Besides, this is the actual wording of the law: “It is permissible
to take advantage of a non-Jew, for it is written. Thou shalt not take
advantage of thy brother.” (The context refers not to overreaching, but only to
the asking of higher prices from a non-Jew.)
This conception must have been firmly rooted in those districts (e.g.,
in Eastern Europe) where the study of the Talmud and the casuistry it
engendered were universal. The effect it had on the commerce of the Jew has been
described by Graetz, surely no prejudiced witness. “To twist a phrase out of
its meaning, to use all the tricks of the clever advocate, to play upon words,
and to condemn what they did not know … such were the characteristics of the
Polish Jew… Honesty and rightthinking he lost as completely as simplicity and
truthfulness. He made himself master of all the gymnastics of the Schools and
applied them to obtain advantage over any one less cunning than himself. He
took a delight in cheating and overreaching, which gave him a sort of joy of
victory. But his own people he could not treat in this way: they were as
knowing as he. It was the non-Jew who, to his loss, felt the consequences of
the Talmudically trained mind of the Polish Jew.”76
In the second place, the differential treatment of non-Jews in
Jewish commercial law resulted in the complete transformation of the idea of
commerce and industry generally in the direction of more freedom. If we have
called the Jews the Fathers of Free Trade, and therefore the pioneers of
capitalism, let us note here that they were prepared for this role by the
free-trading spirit of the commercial and industrial law, which received an
enormous impetus towards a policy of laissez-faire by its attitude
towards strangers. Clearly, intercourse with strangers could not but loosen the
bonds of personal duties and replace them by economic freedom. Let us glance at
this in greater detail.
The theory of price in the Talmud and the Codes, in so far as it
affected trade between Jew and Jew, is exactly parallel to the scholastic
doctrine of justum pretium which was prevalent in
Be that as it may, the important thing to observe is that already
in the Talmud, and still more distinctly in the Shulchan Aruch, conceptions
of the freedom of industry and enterprise, so entirely alien to the Christian
law of Mediaeval Europe, are met with. It is a subject deserving of close study
and should be taken up by a specialist. For my part, I can do no more here than
refer to a few instances. But few though they be, they seem to me to be
conclusive evidence on the point in question. My first reference is to a
passage in the Talmud which fully recognizes free competition among sellers.
Mishna.—R. Judah was of opinion that a shopkeeper should
not distribute nuts among children, because by so doing he gets them into the
habit of coming to him. But the Rabbis allow it. Moreover, it is not lawful to
spoil prices. But the Rabbis say, “Blessed be his memory.”
Gemara.—The question at once arises, what was the reason
for the attitude of the Rabbis in the first case? The answer is that the
shopkeeper may say to his competitor, “I give the children nuts, you can give
them plums.” And what is the reason of the Rabbis in the second case? The
Mishna forbids price alteration, and yet they say, “Blessed be his memory.” The
answer is, they bless his memory because he reduces prices (Baba Mew, 60a
and b).
In the Codes the reasons have been omitted, and the dry statement
of law only is found. “A shopkeeper is allowed to make presents of nuts and
other things to the children who come to purchase in his shop, in order to win
their custom. Moreover, he may sell at a price below the current one, and the
competing tradesmen can do nothing” (Choshen Mishpat, 225, §18).
Similarly, in the laws regulating the conduct of traders who
bring their goods to the market town, the following may be read: “Should the
strangers sell more cheaply than the native dealers, or should their goods be
of a better quality, the natives may not prevent them, for the Jewish public
derives benefit therefrom” (Choshen Mishpat, 156, §7).
Once more. “If a Jew is prepared to lend money to a non-Jew at a
lower rate of interest than some one else, the latter can do nothing against
it” (Choshen Mishpat, 156, §5).
Finally, Jewish law favours industrial laissez-faire. So we
find in the Shulchan Aruch: “If any one commenced a handicraft in his
street and none of his neighbours protested, and then one of the other
residents in the street wishes to carry on the same calling, the first may not
complain that the new-comer is taking the bread out of his mouth, and try to prevent
him” (Choshen Mishpat, 156, §5).
Clearly, then, free trade and industrial freedom were in
accordance with Jewish law, and therefore in accordance with God’s will. What a
mighty motive power in economic life!
I have already mentioned that Max Weber’s study of the importance
of Puritanism for the capitalistic system was the impetus that sent me to
consider the importance of the Jew, especially as I felt that the dominating
ideas of Puritanism which were so powerful in capitalism were more perfectly
developed in Judaism, and were also of course of much earlier date.
A complete comparison of the two “isms” is not within my province
here. But I believe that if it were made, it would be seen that there is an
almost unique identity of view between Judaism and Puritanism, at least, on
those points which we have investigated. In both will be found the
preponderance of religious interests, the idea of divine rewards and
punishments, asceticism within the world, the close relationship between
religion and business, the arithmetical conception of sin, and, above all, the
rationalization of life.
Let me refer to an instance or two. Take the attitude of Judaism
and Puritanism to the problem of sex. In one of the best hotels of Philadelphia
I found a notice in my room to this effect: “Visitors who may have to transact
business with ladies are respectfully requested to leave the door of their room
open while the lady is with them.” What is this but the old dictum of the
Talmud (Kiddushin, 82a), “Hast thou business with women? See to it that
thou art not with them alone”?
Again, is not the English Sunday the Jewish Sabbath?
I would also recall the words of Heine,78 who had a clear insight into most things. “Are not,” he asks
in his Confessions, “Are not the Protestant Scots Hebrews, with their
Biblical names, their
Puritanism is Judaism.
Whether the first was influenced by the second, and if so, how,
are most difficult questions to answer. It is well known, of course, that in
the Reformation period there was close intercourse between Jews and certain
Christian sects, that the study of Hebrew and the Hebrew Scriptures became
fashionable, and that the Jews in England in the 17th century were held in very
high esteem by the Puritans. Leading men in
Altogether, then, there appears to be sufficient evidence for the
deduction of Puritan doctrines from Jewish sources. The specialists must
decide. Here I have been able to do no more than give a hint or two. And in conclusion
I would draw attention to a little humorous publication, which appeared in the
year 1608 and the contents of which would seem to demonstrate the close
connexion between Judaism and Calvinism (which is only Puritanism). It is
called, Der Calvinische Judenspiegel (the Calvinistic Jewish Mirror),
and on page 33 a comparison is drawn between the two religions in the following
droll fashion. [The old German is delightful.] “If I am to say on my honour why
I am become a Calvinist, I shall have to confess that the one and only reason
which persuaded me was that among all the religions I could find none which
agreed so much with Judaism, and its view of life and faith. (Here follow a
number of parallel statements, partly serious and partly satirical). 8. The
Jews hate the name of Mary and tolerate her only when she is made of gold and
silver, or when her image is impressed on coins. So do we. We too like Mary
farthings and crowns, to which we pay all due respect, for they are useful in
business. 9. The Jews everywhere are at pains to cheat the people. So are we.
For that very reason we left our country to wander in other lands where we are
not known in our true colours, so that by our deceit and cunning ... we might
lead astray the ignorant yokels, cheat them and bring them to us....”
The decision to deal in a work of a scientific character with the
problem suggested by the title of the present chapter has not been arrived at
without a great effort. For it has of late become the fashion to seize upon
anything even but faintly savouring of the psychology of nations as the
plaything for the lighter moods of dilettanti, whilst descriptions of the
Jewish genius have been hailed as the newest form of political sport by coarser
spirits, whose rude instincts cannot but give offence to all those who, in our
gross age, have managed to preserve a modicum of good taste and impartiality.
Unjustifiable juggling with categories in race psychology has already led to
the conclusion that it is impossible to arrive at any scientific results in
this field of study. Read the books of P. Hertz, Jean Finot and others1 and you will lay them down with the feeling
that it is useless to attempt to find common psychological characteristics among
any conglomeration of humans; that French esprit is a myth—in fact that
there are no Frenchmen, just as there are no Jews. But cross the street, and lo
and behold, you are face to face with a specific type; read a book or stand
before a picture and almost unconsciously you say. How very German, how
thoroughly French!
Is this only the imagining of our fancy?2
Nay more. If we think for a moment of human history we must needs
construct for ourselves the hypothesis of a sort of “collective soul.” When,
for example, we talk of the Jewish religion we are bound to connect it with the
Jewish people whose genius gave it birth. Or, when we say the Jews had an
influence on modern economic development, it follows surely that there must
have been something essentially Jewish that brought it about. Otherwise we
might as well assert that it would have made no difference to the economic history
of Western Europe if Eskimos had taken the place of Jews, or perhaps even
gorillas would have done equally well!
This reductio ad absurdum shows plainly enough that there
must be some specifically Jewish characteristic. But let us consider the matter
from a slightly different point of view. Let us glance at the objective
circumstances in the Jewish aptitude for modern capitalism. There was first, as
we have seen, the dispersion of the Jews over a wide area. Now without recourse
to subjective forces the Diaspora can be as little explained as the effects of
the Diaspora. And one thing is evident. The dispersion of a people in itself does
not necessarily have either economic or cultural results; nay, very often
dispersion may lead to fusion and ultimate disappearance.
It has been claimed—and with truth—that it was the dispersion of
the Jews which fitted them to become intermediaries. Granted, but did it also
tend to make of them negotiators and private advisers of princes, callings
which have from time immemorial been the stcppingstones of the interpreter to
higher posts? Were the capacities essential to these new offices not inherent in
the Jews themselves?
We have admitted that the dispersion of the Jews was responsible
for no little of their success in international commerce and credit. But is not
the postulate to this success the fact that the Jews everywhere kept together?
What would have happened if, like so many other scattered races, they had not
maintained their bonds of union?
Lastly, let us not forget that the Jews came among just those
peoples who happened to be mature enough to receive capitalism. But even so, if
Jewish influence was strong (and it is so still) in Holland, in England, in
Germany, in Austria-Hungary—stronger far than their influence on the Spaniards,
Italians, Greeks or Arabs—it was in a large measure due to the contrasts
between them and their hosts. For it would seem that the more slow-witted, the
more thick-skulled, the more ignorant of business a people is, the more
effective is Jewish influence on their economic life. And can this be
satisfactorily accounted for except through special Jewish peculiarities?
No matter what was the origin of their innate dissimilarity from
their hosts, the salient point is that this strangeness should have obtained
lasting influence in economic life. Once more it is impossible to fathom this
without the assumption of inherent Jewish characteristics. That a people or a
tribe is hated and persecuted does not furnish sufficient reason for spurring
them on to redoubled efforts in their activities. On the contrary, in most
cases this contempt and ill-treatment but serve to destroy morals and
initiative. Only where man is possessed of exceptional qualities do these
become, under the stress of circumstances, the source of regenerated energy.
Again, look at their semi-citizenship. Does not the identical
argument hold good here also? It is so obvious as to become almost a truism.
Nowhere did the Jews enjoy the same advantages as their fellow-citizens, and
yet everywhere they achieved economically much more than the rest of the
population. There can be but one explanation for this—the specifically Jewish
characteristics.
On the other hand, the legal position of the Jews varied in
different countries and at different times. In some States they were allowed to
engage in certain occupations; in others these same occupations were forbidden
them; in others again, such as England, they were on a perfectly equal footing
with the rest of the people in this respect. And yet they devoted themselves
almost everywhere to particular callings. In England and America they began
their commercial mission by becoming bullion-merchants or storekeepers. And can
this be accounted for in any other way than by once more pointing to their
peculiar characteristics?
As for the wealth of the Jews, that alone will hardly suffice to
explain their great achievements in the sphere of economic activities. A man
who possesses vast sums must have a number of intellectual qualities in
addition, if his money is to be usefully employed in the capitalistic sense.
That surely requires no proof.
Jewish characteristics must therefore exist. It remains only to
discover what they are.
Our first thought of the Jews as a unit will naturally be
associated with their religion. But before we proceed another step I should
like to premise that on the one hand I shall limit the group lumped together
under the Jewish religion, and on the other hand, I shall enlarge it. I shall
limit it by only considering the Jews since their expulsion from Spain and
Portugal, that is, from the end of the Middle Ages. I shall enlarge it by
including within the circle of my observations the descendants of Jews, even if
they themselves have left the faith.
Moreover, I should like to touch upon the arguments urged against
the existence of Jewish peculiarities.
(1) It has been remarked that the Jews of Western Europe and
America have to a large extent assimilated with the peoples among whom they
dwell. This need not be denied, even if specifically Jewish characteristics
were as clear as daylight. Is it not possible for social groups to intermingle?
A man may be a German, have all the characteristics of a German, and yet be an
individual in the group “international proletariat!” Or take another instance.
Are not the German Swiss at one and the same time Swiss and German?
(2) The Jews in the Diaspora, it is maintained, are not a
“nation” or a “people” in the commonly accepted meaning of the term,3 since they are not a political, cultural or
linguistic community. The reply to this objection is that there are many other
qualifications besides those mentioned (e.g., a common origin) which
must be considered. But speaking generally, it is as well not to press a
definition too closely.
(3) The differences between the Jews themselves have been made
much of. It has been said that there is no homogeneity among Jews, that one
section is bitterly opposed to the other. The Western Jews are different from
the Eastern Jews, the Sephardim from the Ashkenazim, the Orthodox from the
Liberals, the everyday Jew from the Sabbath Jew (to use a phrase of Marx). This
also there is no need to deny. But it does not by any means preclude the
possibility of common Jewish characteristics. Is it so difficult to conceive of
wheels within wheels? Cannot a large group contain lesser groups side by side?
Think of the many groups to which an Englishman may belong. He may be a
Catholic or a Protestant, a farmer or a professor, a northerner or a southerner
and Heaven only knows what else besides. But he remains an Englishman all the
same. So with the Jew. He may belong to one circle within the whole, may
possess certain characteristics that mark all individuals in that circle, but
he retains the specifically Jewish characteristics nevertheless.
Finally, I must make it plain that I have no intention of
outlining all Jewish characteristics. I propose to deal with those only that
have reference to economic life. I shall not content myself with the
old-fashioned expressions, such as the Jewish “commercialism,” the “bartering
spirit” and the like. I say nothing of the practice of some to include the
desire for profit as a characteristic of a social group. The desire for profit
is human—all too human. In fact, I must reject all previous analyses of the
Jewish soul (in so far as they touch economic life), and for the following
reasons. First, what the Jew was well-fitted for was never clearly enough
designated. “For trade” is much too vague a term to be of the slightest use. I
have therefore tried to show, in a special chapter, the circle of economic
activities for which Jews are specifically fitted. Secondly, mere description
is not explanation. If I want to prove that a man has all the capabilities
necessary to make him an admirable speculator on the Stock Exchange, it will
not be enough if I say that he will make a fine jobber. It is like saying
indigence is due to poverty. Yet that is how Jewish economic talents have been
treated. Our method will be different. We shall try to discover certain
properties of the soul which are congenial to the exercise of economic
functions in a capitalistic organism.
And now, having cleared the way, I shall proceed to demonstrate
what the real Jewish peculiarities are.
It is surprising to find that despite the enormity of the problem
there is yet a great degree of unanimity in the different views about the Jews.
In literature no less than in actual life, unprejudiced observers agree on one
or other point of importance. Read Jellinek or Fromer, Chamberlain or Marx,
Heine or Goethe, Leroy-Beaulieu or Picciotto—read the pious or the
non-conforming Jew, the anti-Semitic or the philo-Semitic non-Jew—and you get
the impression that all of them are conscious of the same peculiarities. This
is comforting to one who is about to describe the Jewish genius once more. At
any rate, he will say nothing that other people might not have said, even
though his standpoint be slightly different. In my own case I shall attempt to
show the connexion between the characteristics and the natural gifts of the
Jews and the capitalistic economic system. I shall first try to sketch a
detailed picture of Jewish qualities and then proceed to bring them into
relation with capitalism.
Unlike most other writers on the subject I will begin by noting a
Jewish quality which, though mentioned often enough, never received the
recognition which its importance merited. I refer to the extreme
intellectuality of the Jew. Intellectual interests and intellectual skill are
more strongly developed in him than physical (manual) powers. Of the Jew it may
certainly be said, “l’intelligence prime le corps.” Everyday experience proves
it again and again, and many a fact might be cited in its support. No other
people has valued the learned man, the scholar, so highly as the Jews. “The
wise man takes precedence of the king, and a bastard who is a scholar of a
high-priest who is an ignoramus.” So the Talmud has it. Any one who is
acquainted with Jewish students knows well enough that this over-rating of mere
knowledge is not yet a thing of the past. And if you could not become “wise,”
at least it was your duty to be educated. At all times instruction was
compulsory in Israel. In truth, to learn was a religious duty; and in Eastern
Europe the synagogue is still called the Shool (Schule, School). Study and
worship went hand in hand; nay, study was worship and ignorance was a deadly
sin. A man who could not read was a boor in this world and damned in the next.
In the popular sayings of the Ghetto, nothing had so much scorn poured upon it
as foolishness. “Better injustice than folly,” and “Ein Narr ist ein Gezar” (A
fool is a misfortune) are both well known.4
The most valuable individual is the intellectual individual;
humanity at its best is intellectuality at its highest. Listen to what a
sensible Jew has to say when he pictures the ideal man, the superman if you
like, of the future. He takes it all as a matter of course; those who are
differently constituted must surely tremble at the prospect. “In the place of
the blind instincts … civilized man will possess intellect conscious of
purpose. It should be every one’s unswerving ideal to crush the instincts and
replace them by will-power, and to substitute reflection for mere impulse. The
individual only becomes a man in the fullest sense of the word when his natural
predisposition is under the control of his reasoning powers. And when the
process of emancipation from the instincts is complete we have the perfect
genius with his absolute inner freedom from the domination of natural laws.
Civilization should have but one aim—to liberate man from all that is mystic,
from the vague impulsiveness of all instinctive action, and to cultivate the
purely rational side of his being.”5 Only
think. Genius, the very essence of instinctive expression, conceived as the
highest form of the rational and the intellectual!
One consequence of this high evaluation of the intellect was the
esteem in which callings were held according as they demanded more “headwork”
or more “handwork.” The former were almost in all ages placed higher than the
latter. It is true that there may have been, and still may be, Jewish
communities in which hard bodily labour is done every day, but this hardly
applies to the Jews of Western Europe. Even in Talmud times Jews preferred
those callings which necessitated a lesser expenditure of physical energy. As
Rabbi said, “The world needs both the seller of spices and the tanner, but
happy be who is a seller of spices.” Or again, “R. Men: used to say, A man
should have his son taught a clean and easy handicraft” (Kiddushin, 82b).
The Jews were quite alive to their predominant quality and always
recognized that there was a great gulf between their intellectuality and the
brute force of their neighbours. One or two sayings popular among Polish Jews
express the contrast with no little humour. “God help a man against Gentile
hands and Jewish heads.” “Heaven protect us against Jewish mooch (brains)
and Gentile koach (physical force).” Mooch v. Koach—that is the
Jewish problem in a nutshell. It ought to be the motto of this book.
The predominance of intellectual interests could not but lead in
a people so gifted as the Jews to intellectual skill. “Say what you like about
a Jew, you cannot say he is a fool.” “A gallant Greek, a stupid Jew, an honest
Gipsy—all are unthinkable” is a popular saying among Roumanians. And a Spanish
proverb has it, “A hare that is slow and a Jew who is a fool: both are equally
probable.”6 Who that has had dealings with
Jews but will not confirm that on an average they possess a greater degree of
understanding, that they are more intelligent than other people? I might even
call it astuteness or sagacity, as was remarked by one of the keenest observers
of Jews7 a century or more ago, who
characterized them as “intellectual and endowed with great genius for things of
the present age,” though, he added, “to a less degree than in the past.”
“The Jewish mind is an instrument of precision; it has the
exactness of a pair of scales”: most people will agree with this judgment of
Leroy-Beaulieu. And when H. S. Chamberlain speaks of the under-development of
Jewish “understanding” he must surely be using the term in a special sense. He
cannot possibly mean by it quick thought, precise analysis, exact dissection,
speedy combination, the power of seeing the point at once, of suggesting
analogies, distinguishing between synonymous things, of drawing final
conclusions. The Jew is able to do all this, and Jellinek, who rightly lays
stress8 on this side of the Jewish
character, points out that Hebrew is particularly rich in expressions for
activities demanding qualities of the mind. It has no fewer than eleven words
for seeking or researching, thirty-four for distinguishing or separating, and
fifteen for combining.
There is no doubt that these mental gifts make the Jews prominent
as chess-players, as mathematicians9 and
in all calculating work. These activities postulate a strong capacity for
abstract thought and also a special kind of imagination, which Wundt has so
happily christened the combinatory. Their skill as physicians (ability at
diagnosis)10 may also be traced to their
calculating, dissecting and combining minds, which “like lightning, illuminate
dark places in a flash.”
It is not unknown that often enough Jewish mental ability degenerates
into hair-splitting. (When the mill has no corn to grind it grinds itself.) But
this does not matter so much as another fact. The intellectuality of the Jew is
so strong that it tends to develop at the expense of other mental qualities,
and the mind is apt to become one-sided. Let us take a few instances. The Jew
lacks the quality of instinctive understanding; he responds less to feeling
than to intellect. We can scarcely think of a Jewish mystic like Jacob Bohme,
and the contrast becomes still more striking when we remember the sort of
mysticism found in the Kabbala. In the same way all romance is alien to this
particular view of life; the Jew cannot well sympathize with losing oneself in
the world, in mankind or in nature. It is the difference between frenzied
enthusiasm and sober, matter-of-fact thought.
Akin to this characteristic is that of a certain lack of
impressionability, a certain lack of receptive and creative genius. When I was
in Breslau a Jewish student from the far East of Siberia came to me one day “to
study Karl Marx.” It took him nearly three weeks to reach Breslau, and on the
very day after his arrival he called on me and borrowed one of Marx’s works. A
few days later he came again, discussed with me what he had read, brought back
the book and borrowed another. This continued for a few months. Then he
returned to his native village. The young man had received absolutely no
impressions from his new surroundings; he had made no acquaintances, never
taken a walk, hardly knew in fact where it was that he was staying. The life of
Breslau passed him by completely. No doubt it was the same before he came to
Breslau, and will be the same throughout the future. He will walk through the
world without seeing it. But he had made himself acquainted with Marx. Is this
a typical case? I think so. You may meet with it every day. Are we not
continually struck by the Jew’s love for the inconcrete, his tendency away from
the sensuous, his constant abiding in a world of abstractions? And is it only
accidental that there are far fewer Jewish painters than literary men or
professors? Even in the case of Jewish artists is there not something
intellectual about their work? Never was word more truly spoken than when
Friedrich Naumann compared Max Liebermann [the famous Jewish painter] with
Spinoza, saying, “He paints with his brain.”
The Jew certainly sees remarkably clearly, but he does not see
much. He does not think of his environment as something alive, and that is why
he has lost the true conception of life, of its oneness, of its being an
organism, a natural growth. In short, he has lost the true conception of the
personal side of life. General experience must surely support this view; but if
other proofs are demanded they will be found in the peculiarities of Jewish
law, which, as we have already seen, abolished personal relationships and
replaced them by impersonal, abstract connexions or activities or aims.
As a matter of fact, one may find among Jews an extraordinary
knowledge of men. They are able with their keen intellects to probe, as it
were, into every pore, and to see the inside of a man as only Rontgen rays
would show him. They muster all his qualities and abilities, they note his
excellences and his weaknesses; they detect at once for what he is best fitted.
But seldom do they see the whole man, and thus they often make the mistake of
ascribing actions to him which are an abomination to his inmost soul. Moreover,
they seldom appraise a man according to his personality, but rather according
to some perceptible characteristic and achievement.
Hence their lack of sympathy for every status where the nexus is
a personal one. The Jews’ whole being is opposed to all that is usually
understood by chivalry, to all sentimentality, knight-errantry, feudalism,
patriarchalism. Nor does he comprehend a social order based on relationships
such as these. “Estates of the realm” and craft organizations are a loathing to
him. Politically he is an individualist. A constitutional State in which all
human intercourse is regulated by clearly defined legal principles suits him
well.[Is not this the general modern tendency? Cf. Sir H. Maine’s dictum: The
progress of Society is from status to contract.—Trans.] He is the born
representative of a “liberal” view of life in which there are no living men and
women of flesh and blood with distinct personalities, but only citizens with rights
and duties. And these do not differ in different nations, but form part of
mankind, which is but the sum-total of an immense number of amorphous units.
Just as so many Jews do not see themselves—do they not deny their obvious
characteristics and assert that there is no difference between them and
Englishmen or Germans or Frenchmen?—so they do not see other people as living
beings but only as subjects, citizens, or some other such abstract conception.
It comes to this, that they behold the world not with their “soul” but with
their intellect. The result is that they are easily led to believe that
whatever can be neatly set down on paper and ordered aright by the aid of the
intellect must of necessity be capable of proper settlement in actual life. How
many Jews still hold that the Jewish Question is only a political one, and are
convinced that a liberal regime is all that is required to remove the
differences between the Jew and his neighbour. It is nothing short of
astounding to read the opinion of so soundly learned a man as the author of one
of the newest books on the Jewish Question that the whole of the anti-Semitic
movement during the last thirty years was the result of the works of Marr and
Duhring. “The thousand victims of the pogroms and the million sturdy workers
who emigrated from their homes are but a striking illustration of the power
of—Eugen Duhring” (!).11 Is not this
opposing ink and blood, understanding and instinct, an abstraction and a
reality?
The conception of the universe in the mind of such an
intellectual people must perforce have been that of a structure well-ordered in
accordance with reason. By the aid of reason, therefore, they sought to
understand the world; they were rationalists, both in theory and in practice.
Now as soon as a strong consciousness of the ego attaches itself
to the predominating intellectuality in the thinking being, he will tend to
group the world round that ego. In other words, he will look at the world from
the point of view of end, or goal, or purpose. His outlook will be Ideological,
or that of practical rationalism. No peculiarity is so fully developed in the
Jew as this, and there is complete unanimity of opinion on the subject. Most
other observers start out with the teleology of the Jew; I for my part regard
it as the result of his extreme intellectuality, in which I believe all the
other Jewish peculiarities are rooted. In saying this, however, I do not in the
least wish to minimize the very great ‘importance of this Jewish
characteristic.
Take any expression of the Jewish genius and you will be certain
to find in it this teleological tendency, which has sometimes been called
extreme subjectivity. Whether or no the Indo-Germanic races are objective and
the Semitic subjective,12 certain it is
that the Jews are the most subjective of peoples. The Jew never loses himself
in the outer world, never sinks in the depth of the cosmos, never soars in the
endless realms of thought, but, as Jellinek well puts it, dives below the
surface to seek for pearls. He brings everything into relation with his ego. He
is for ever asking why, what for, what will it bring? Cui bono? His
greatest interest is always in the result of a thing, not in the thing itself.
It is un-Jewish to regard any activity, be it what you will, as an end in
itself; un-Jewish to live your life without having any purpose, to leave all to
chance; un-Jewish to get harmless pleasure out of Nature. The Jew has taken all
that is in Nature and made of it “the loose pages of a text-book of ethics
which shall advance the higher moral life.” The Jewish religion, as we have
already seen, is teleological in its aim; in each of its regulations it has the
ethical norm in view. The entire universe, in the Jew’s eyes, is something that
was made in accordance with a plan. This is one of the differences between
Judaism and heathenism, as Heine saw long ago. “They (the heathens) all have an
endless, eternal ‘past,’ which is in the world and develops with it by the laws
of necessity; but the God of the Jews was outside the world, which He created
as an act of free-will.”
No term is more familiar to the ear of the Jew than Tachlis, which
means purpose, aim, end or goal. If you are to do anything it must have a tachlis;
life itself, whether as a whole or in its single activities, must have some
tachlis, and so must the universe. Those who assert that the meaning of
Life, of the World, is not tachlis but tragedy, the Jew will reckon as
foolish visionaries.
How deeply the teleological view of things is embedded in the
nature of the Jew may be seen in the case of those of them who, like the
Chassidim, pay no attention to the needs of practical life because “there is no
purpose in them.” There is no purpose in making a living, and so they let their
wives and children starve, and devote themselves to the study of their sacred
books. But we may see it also in all those Jews who, with a soul-weariness
within them and a faint smile on their countenances, understanding and
forgiving everything, stand and gaze at life from their own heights, far above
this world. I have in my mind such choice spirits among the literary men of our
day as George Hirschfeld, Arthur Schnitzler and George Hermann. The great charm
of their work lies in this world-aloofness with which they look down on our hustle
and bustle, in the quiet melancholy pervading all their poetry, in their
sentiment. Their very lack of will-power is only strength of will in a kind of
negative form. Through all their ballads sounds the same soft plaint of grief:
how purposeless and therefore how sad is the world! Nature herself is tinged
with this sorrow; autumn always lurks in ambush though wood and meadow be
bright with gay spring blossoms; the wind plays among the fallen leaves and the
sun’s golden glory, be it never so beautiful, must go down at last.
Subjectivity and the conception that all things must have an aim (and the two
are the same) rob the poetry of Jewish writers of naiveté, freshness and
directness, because Jewish poets are unable simply to enjoy the phenomena of
this world, whether it be human fate or Nature’s vagaries; they must needs
cogitate upon it and turn it about and about. Nowhere is the air scented with
the primrose and the violet, nowhere gleams the spray of the rivulet in the
wood. But to make up for lack of these they possess the wonderful aroma of old
wine and the magic charm of a pair of beautiful eyes gazing sadly into the
distance.
When this attitude of mind that seeks for a purpose in all things
is united with a strong will, with a large fund of energy (as is generally the
case with the Jew), it ceases to be merely a point of view; it becomes a
policy. The man sets himself a goal and makes for it, allowing nothing whatever
to turn him aside from his course; he is determined, if you like, stiff-necked.
Heine in characterizing his people called it stubbornness, and Goethe said that
the essence of the Jewish character was energy and the pursuit of direct ends.
My next point is mobility, but I am not quite sure whether this
can be ascribed to all Jews or only to the Ashkenazi (German) Jews. Writers who
have sung the praises of the Sephardim (Spanish Jews) always lay stress on a
certain dignified air which they have, a certain superciliousness of bearing.13 Their German brethren, on the other hand,
have always been described as lively, active and somewhat excitable.14 Even to-day you may meet with many Spanish
Jews, especially in the Orient, who strike you as being dignified, thoughtful
and self-restrained, who do not in the least appear to have that mobility, moral
or physical, which is so often noticeable in European Jews. But mobility of
mind—quick perception and mental versatility—all Jews possess.
These four elements, intellectuality, teleology, energy and
mobility, are the corner-stones of Jewish character, so complicated in its
nature. I believe that all the qualities of the Jew may be easily traced to one
or more of these elements. Take two which are of special import in economic
life—extreme activity and adaptability.
The Jew is active, or if you will, industrious. In the words of
Goethe, “No Jew, not even the most insignificant, but is busy towards the
achievement of some worldly, temporary or momentary aim.” This activity often
enough degenerates into restlessness. He must for ever be up and doing, for ever
managing something and carrying it to fruition. He is always on the move, and
does not care much if he makes himself a nuisance to those who would rest if
they could. All musical and social “affairs” in our large towns are run by
Jews. The Jew is the born trumpeter of progress and of its manifold blessings.
And why? Because of his practical-mindedness andhis mobility combined with his
intellectuality. The last more especially, because it never strikes deep root.
All intellectuality is in the long run shallowness; never does it allow of
probing to the very roots of a matter, never of reaching down to the depths of
the soul, or of the universe. Hence intellectuality makes it easy to go from
one extreme to the other. That is why you find among Jews fanatical orthodoxy
and unenlightened doubt side by side; they both spring from one source.
But to this shallow intellectuality the Jew owes perhaps the most
valuable of his characteristics—his adaptability—which is unique in history.
The Jews were always a stiff-necked people, and their adaptability no less than
their capacity to maintain their national traits are both due to the one cause.
Their adaptability enabled them to submit for the time being, if circumstances
so demanded, to the laws of necessity, only to hark back to their wonted ways
when better days came. From of old the Jewish character was at one and the same
time resistant and submissive, and though these traits may appear contradictory
they only seem so. As Leroy-Beaulieu well said, “The Jew is at once the most
stubborn and the most pliant of men, the most self-willed and the most
malleable.”
The leaders and the “wise” men of the Jewish people were in all
ages fully alive to the importance, nay the necessity, of this flexibility and
elasticity, if Israel was to continue, and they were therefore never tired of
insisting upon it. Jewish literature abounds in instances. “Be as pliant as the
reed which the wind blows in this direction and in that, for the Torah can be
observed only by him that is of a contrite spirit. Why is the Torah likened
unto water? To tell you that just as water never flows up to the heights but
rather runs down to the depths, so too the Torah does not abide with the
haughty but only with the lowly.”15 Or
again, “When the fox is in authority bow down before him.”16 Once more, “Bend before the wave and it
passes over you; oppose it, and it will sweep you away.”17 Finally, a supplication from the Prayer Book runs as follows:
“May my soul be as the dust to every one.”
It was in this spirit that the Rabbis counselled their flocks to
pretend to accept the dominant faiths in those countries where their existence
depended on the renunciation of their own. The advice was followed to a large
extent, and in the words of Fromer, “The Jewish race, by simulating death from
time to time, was able to live on and on.”
There are very few, if any, make-believe Christians or Moslems
today. Nevertheless, the remarkable power of the Jew to adapt himself to his
environment has more scope than ever. The Jew of Western Europe and America
to-day no longer wishes to maintain his religion and his national character
intact; on the contrary, he wishes, in so far as the nationalist spirit has not
yet awakened in him, to lose his characteristics and to assimilate with the
people in whose midst his lot happens to be cast. And lo, this too he can
successfully achieve.
Perhaps the clearest illustration of the way in which Jewish
traits manifest themselves is the fact that the Jew in England becomes like an
Englishman, in France like a Frenchman, and so forth. And if he does not really
become like an Englishman or a Frenchman, he appears to be like one. That a
Felix Mendelssohn should write German music, that a Jacques Offenbach French
and a Sousa Yankee-doodle; that Lord Beaconsfield should set up as an
Englishman, Gambetta as a Frenchman, Lassalle as a German; in short, that
Jewish talent should so often have nothing Jewish about it, but be in accord
with its environment, has curiously enough again and again been urged as evidence
that there are no specifically Jewish characteristics, whereas in truth it
proves the very opposite in a striking fashion. It proves that the Jews have
the gift of adaptability in an eminently high degree. The Jew might go from one
planet to another, but his strangeness amid the new surroundings would not
continue for long. He quickly feels his way and adapts himself with ease. He is
German where he wants to be German, and Italian if that suits him better. He
does everything and dabbles in everything, and with success. He can be a pure
Magyar in Hungary, he can belong to the Irredenta in Italy, and be an
anti-Semite in France (Drumont!). He is an adept in seizing upon anything which
is still germinating, and bringing it with all speed to its full bloom.18 All this his adaptability enables him to do.
I have already said that this peculiar capacity for adaptation is
rooted in the four elements of the Jewish character. But perhaps the
rationalism of the Jew is responsible for it to a greater degree than the other
three. Because of his rationalism he is able to look at everything from
without. If the Jew is anything, it is not because he must but because he
determines to be so. Any convictions he may have do not spring from his inmost
soul; they are formulated by his intellect. His standpoint is not on solid
earth but an imaginary castle in the air. He is not organically original but
mechanically rational. He lacks depth of feeling and strength of instinct. That
is why he is what he is, but he can also be different. That Lord Beaconsfield
was a Conservative was due to some accident or other, or some political
conjuncture; but Stein and Bismarck and Carlyle were Conservatives because they
could not help it; it was in their blood. Had Marx or Lassalle been born in
another age, or in another environment, they might quite easily have become
Conservatives instead of Radicals. As a matter of fact, Lassalle was already
coquetting with the idea of becoming a reactionary, and no doubt he would have
played the part of a Prussian Junker as brilliantly as that of socialist
agitator.
The driving power in Jewish adaptability is of course the idea of
a purpose, or a goal, as the end of all things. Once the Jew has made up his
mind what line he will follow, the rest is comparatively easy, and his mobility
only makes his success more sure.
How mobile the Jew can be is positively astounding. He is able to
give himself the personal appearance he most desires. As in days of old through
simulating death he was able to defend himself, so now by colour adaptation or
other forms of mimicry. The best illustrations may be drawn from the United
States, where the Jew of the second or third generation is with difficulty
distinguished from the non-Jew. You can tell the German after no matter how
many generations; so with the Irish, the Swede, the Slav. But the Jew, in so
far as his racial physical features allow of it, has been successful in
imitating the Yankee type, especially in regard to outward marks such as
clothing, bearing and the peculiar method of hairdressing.
Easier still, on account of his mental and moral mobility, is it
for the Jew to make the intellectual atmosphere of his environment his own. His
mental mobility enables him quickly to seize upon the “tone” of any circle,
quickly to notice what it is that matters, quickly to feel his way into things.
And his moral mobility? That helps him to remove troublesome hindrances, either
ethical or aesthetical, from his path. And he can do this with all the more
facility because he has only to a small degree what may be termed personal
dignity. It means little to him to be untrue to himself, if it is a question of
attaining the wished-for goal.
Is this picture faithful of life? The obvious adaptability of the
Jew to the changing conditions of the struggle for existence is surely proof
enough. But there is further proof in some of the special gifts which Jews
possess. I refer to their undoubted talent for journalism, for the Bar, for the
stage, and all of it is traceable to their adaptability.
Adolf Jellinek, in the book we have referred to more than once,
has drawn a clever little sketch showing the connexion between the two. “The
journalist,” he says, “must be quick, mobile, lively, enthusiastic, able to
analyze quickly and as quickly to put two and two together; must be able to
enter in medias res, to have the gist of any question of the day or the
central fact of a debate in his mind’s eye; must be able to deal with his
subject in clear and well-marked outlines, to describe it epigrammatically,
antithetically, sententiously, in short arresting sentences, to breathe life
into it by means of a certain amount of pathos, to give it colour by means of
esprit, to make it spicy by means of seasoning.” Are not all these Jewish
traits?
The actor’s calling, no less than the barrister’s, depends for
success on his ability to place himself quickly in a strange world of ideas, to
take a right view of men and conditions without much difficulty, to form a
correct estimate of them and to use them for his own end. The Jew’s gift of
subjectivity stands him here in good stead, for by its aid he can easily put
himself in the position of another, take thought for him and defend him. To be
sure, jurisprudence is the bulk of the contents of Jewish literature!
Now comes the question, how and in what way did the Jewish
characteristics enable Jews to become financiers and speculators, indeed, to
engage as successfully in economic activities within the framework of the capitalistic
system as to be mathematicians, statisticians, physicians, journalists, actors
and advocates? To what extent, that is, does a special talent for capitalistic
enterprise spring from the elements in the Jewish character?
Speaking generally, we may say in this connexion what we have
already remarked about capitalism and the Jewish religion, that the fundamental
ideas of capitalism and those of the Jewish character show a singular
similarity. Hence we have the triple parallelism between Jewish character, the
Jewish religion and capitalism. What was it we found as the all-controlling
trait of the Jewish people? Was it not extreme intellectuality? And is not
intellectuality the quality which differentiates the capitalistic system from
all others? Organizing ability springs from intellectuality, and in the
capitalistic system we find the separation between head and hands, between the
work of directing and that of manufacturing. “For the greatest work to be
completely done, you need of hands a thousand, of mind but only one.” That sums
up the capitalistic state of things.
The purest form of capitalism is that wherein abstract ideas are
most clearly expressed. That they are part and parcel of the Jewish character
we have already seen; there is no occasion to labour the close kinship in this
respect between capitalism and the Jew. Again, the quality of abstraction in
capitalism manifests itself in the substitution of all qualitative differences
by merely quantitative ones (value in exchange). Before capitalism came,
exchange was a many-sided, multicoloured and technical process; now it is just
one specialized act—that of the dealer: before there were many relationships
between buyer and seller; there is only one now—the commercial. The tendency of
capitalism has been to do away with different manners, customs, pretty local
and national contrasts, and to set up in their stead the dead level of the
cosmopolitan town. In short, there has been a tendency towards uniformity, and
in this capitalism and Liberalism have much in common. Liberalism we have
already shown to be a near relative of Judaism, and so we have the kindred trio
of Capitalism, Liberalism, and Judaism.
How is the inner resemblance between the first and the last best
manifested? Is it not through the agency of money, by means of which capitalism
succeeds so well in its policy of bringing about a drab uniformity? Money is
the common denominator, in terms of which all values are expressed; at the same
time it is the be-all and end-all of economic activity in a capitalistic
system. Hence one of the conspicuous things in such a system is success. Is it
otherwise with the Jew? Does he not also make the increase of capital his chief
aim? And not only because the abstractness of capital is congenial to the soul
of the Jew, but also because the ‘great regard in which (in the capitalistic
system) money is held strikes another sympathetic note in the Jewish
character—its teleology. Gold becomes the great means, and its value arises
fromthe fact that you can utilize it for many ends. It needs but little skill
to show that a nature intent on working towards some goal should feel itself
drawn to something which has value only because it is a means to an end.
Moreover, the teleology of the Jew brings it about that he prizes success.
(Another point of similarity, therefore, with capitalism.) Because he rates
success so highly he sacrifices to-day for to-morrow, and his mobility only
helps him to do it all the better. Here again we may observe a likeness to
capitalism. Capitalism is constantly on the look-out for something new, for
some way of expanding, for abstaining to-day for the sake of to-morrow. Think
of our whole system of credit. Does not this characteristic show itself there
clearly enough? Now remember also that the Jews were very much at home in the
organization of credit—in which values or services which may, or can, become
effective some time in the future are made available to-day. Human thought can
plainly picture future experiences and future needs, and credit offers the
opportunity through present economic activities of producing future values.
That credit is extensively found in modern life scarcely requires pointing out.
The reason too is obvious: it offers golden chances. True, we must give up the
joys that spring from “completely throwing ourselves into the present.”19 But what of that? The Jewish character and
capitalism have one more point in common—practical rationalism, by which I mean
the shaping of all activities in accordance with reason.
To make the whole parallelism even more plain, let me illustrate
it by concrete instances. The Jew is well fitted for the part of undertaker
because of his strength of will and his habit of making for some goal or other.
His intellectual mobility is accountable for his readiness to discover new
methods of production and new possibilities of marketing. He is an adept at
forming new organizations, and in these his peculiar capacity for finding out
what a man is best fitted for stands him in good stead. And since in the world
of capitalism there is nothing organic or natural but only what is mechanical
or artificial, the Jew’s lack of understanding of the former is of no
consequence. Even undertaking on a large scale is itself artificial and
mechanical; you may extend a concern or contract it; you may change it
according to circumstances. That is why Jews are so successful as organizers of
large capitalistic undertakings. Again, the Jew can easily grasp impersonal
relationships. We have already noted that he has the feeling of personal
dependence only in a slight measure. Hence, he does not care for your hoary
“patriarchalism,” and pays little attention to the dash of sentimentality which
is still sometimes found in labour contracts. In all relations between sellers
and buyers, and between employers and employed, he reduces everything to the
legal and purely business basis. In the struggle of the workers to obtain
collective agreements between themselves and the masters, which shall regulate
the conditions of their labour, the Jew is almost invariably on the side of the
first.
But if the Jew is well fitted to be an undertaker, still more is
he cut out for the part of the trader. His qualities in this respect are almost
innumerable.
The trader lives in figures, and in figures the Jew has always
been in his element. His love of the abstract has made calculation easy for
him; it is his strong point. Now a calculating talent combined with a capacity
for working always with some aim in view has already won half the battle for
the trader. He is enabled to weigh aright the chances, the possibilities and
the advantages of any given situation, to eliminate everything that is useless,
and to appraise the whole in terms of figures. Give this sober calculator a
strong dose of imagination and you have the perfect speculator before you. To
take stock of any given state of things with lightning speed, to see a thousand
eventualities, to seize upon the most valuable and to act in accordance with
that—such, as we have already pointed out, is the aim of the dealer. For all
this the Jew hasthe necessary gifts of mind. I should like expressly to
emphasize the close kinship between the activities of the clever speculator and
those of the clever physician who can successfully diagnose a disease. The Jew,
because of his qualities, is eminently fitted for both.
A good dealer must be a good negotiator. What cleverer
negotiators are there than the Jews, whose ability in this direction has long
been recognized and utilized? To adapt yourself to the needs of a market, to
meet any specified form of demand, is the one prime essential for the dealer.
That the Jew with his adaptability can do this as well as any other is obvious.
The second is the power of suggestion, and in this also the Jew is well
qualified by his ability to think himself into the situation of another.
Wherever we look the conclusion forces itself upon us that the
combination of no other set of qualities is so well fitted, as are those of the
Jew, for realizing the best capitalistic results. There is no need for me to
take the parallelism further; the intelligent reader can easily do so for
himself. I would only direct his attention to one point more before leaving the
subject—the parallel between the feverish restlessness of Stock Exchange business,
always intent on upsetting the tendency towards an equilibrium, and the
restless nature of the Jew.
In another place I have sought to characterize the ideal
undertaker in three words—he must be wide-awake, clever and resourceful.
Wideawake: that is to say, quick of comprehension, sure in judgment, must think
twice before speaking once, and be able to seize upon the right moment.
Clever: that is to say, he must possess a knowledge of the world,
must be certain of himself in his judgment and in his treatment of men, certain
in his judgment on a given conjuncture; and above all, acquainted with the
weaknesses and mistakes of those around him.
Resourceful: that is to say, full of ideas. The capitalistic
undertaker must have three additional qualities: he must be active, sober and
thorough. By sober, I mean free from passion, from sentiment, from unpractical
idealism. By thorough, I mean reliable, conscientious, orderly, neat and
frugal.
I believe this rough sketch will, in broad outline, stand for the
capitalistic undertaker no less than for the Jew.
Strictly speaking the task I had set myself has now been
completed. I have tried to show the importance of the Jews in modern economic
life in all its aspects, and the connexion between Capitalism and “Jewishness.”
In other words, I have endeavoured to point out why it was that the Jews have
been able to play, and still continue to play, so significant a part in
economic life; endeavoured to show that their great achievements were due
partly to objective circumstances, and partly to their inherent
characteristics.
But here new questions crop up in plenty, and I must not pass
them by unanswered, if I desire my most valued readers may not lay aside my
book with a feeling of dissatisfaction. It is obvious that any one who has
accompanied me to the point where I maintain that specifically Jewish
characteristics exist, and that they will account for the great influence of
the Jews in the body economic, must be bound to ask. What is the true nature of
these characteristics? How have they come about? What will their ultimate
effect be?
The answers to these questions may vary considerably. The Jewish
characteristics we have noted may be nothing else but, as it were, a function
without a corresponding organism; may be only surface phenomena, skin-deep,
without any root at all in the human beings that give expression to them; may
be but as a feather on a coat—easily blown away; something which vanishes with
the disappearance of the person.
Or they may become hardened into a habit and be deep-seated, but
yet not sufficiently powerful to be hereditary. Contrariwise, they may be so
marked as to pass from one generation to another. In this case, the question
presents itself, when did they arise? Were these characteristics always in the
Jew, were they in his blood, or have they only been acquired in the course of
his history—either in what is termed ancient times, or later? Again, all
hereditary qualities may last for ever, or be only a temporary nature—may be,
that is, permanent or only transient. Seeing that we are dealing with a social
group, it will be necessary here, too, to answer the question. Is the group a
racial entity? In a word, are the Jews a subdivision of mankind, differing by
blood-kinship from other people? Finally, in a problem of this sort we must
deal with the possibility that the peculiar characteristics of the group may be
due to admixtures with other groups, or to selection within the group itself.
The problem is many-sided: of that there can be little doubt. And
the worst of it is that modern science can give no certain replies to the
questions propounded. Attempts have of course been made, but they are not
without prejudice, and any one even only superficially acquainted with the
subject will be faced by more problems and puzzles than by solutions.
The most pressing need of the moment, so it seems to me—one which
alone will be able to withdraw the Jewish Problem from the semidarkness in
which it is enshrouded—is to obtain a clear conception of the questions at
issue, and to bring some order into the abundant material at hand. It is almost
as though at the point where the general Jewish Question intersects the race
problem, a thousand devils had been let loose to confuse the mind of men. As
one authority1 recently urged with regard
to the doctrines of heredity: what is most needed is an exact precision
concerning elementals. The same is the case to an enormous extent with the question
of whether the Jews are a race or not, and perhaps an outsider may contribute
something to this end, just because he stands apart from the specialists. This
thought emboldens me to attempt to give a resume of all that is current to-day
regarding Jews as a race—of all that is certain,and of the thousand and one
theories, to say nothing of the numerous false hypotheses.
Touching the origin of the Jews and their anthropology and
ethnology, opinions at the present day are pretty well agreed as to the
essential facts. It is generally assumed2 that
Israel, like Judah, arose from the admixture of different Oriental peoples.
When, in the 15th century B.C., the Hebrews, then a Bedouin tribe, wished to
settle in Palestine they found there an old population long since
established—Canaanites, who were probably hegemonic, Hittites, Perizites,
Hivites and Jebusites (Judg. iii. 5). Recent research has come to the
conclusion, opposed to the older view, that the Israelitish clans largely intermarried
with these peoples.
Later, when a portion of the population went into the Babylonian
Exile, the admixture of races continued in Palestine. And as for the exiles
(whose history in this connexion is of vital importance), we learn much from
the latest cuneiform inscriptions concerning their attitude toward
intermarriage. The inscriptions show, “without doubt,” that there was a gradual
fusion between the Jews and the Babylonians. The immigrants called their
children by Babylonian names, and the Babylonians theirs by Persian, Hebrew and
Aramaic names.3
Nothing like so clear are the views as to the relationship to
each other of the peoples and clans of which the Jews were composed; still less
as to how they can be distinguished from other similar groups; and least of all
how they are to be called. A very heated controversy has recently raged about
the term “Semites,” with the result that in anthropological circles the word is
no longer used. The Semite controversy, like that on the Aryans, only shows how
vicious it is to allow linguistic concepts to interfere in the anthropological
divisions of mankind. It is generally accepted that the Semites are all those
peoples whose speech is Semitic, but that anthropologically they belong to
different and differing groups.4
My own view is that the controversy as to the exact demarcation
of the civilized Oriental peoples is a little futile. Nor does our ignorance on
this point much matter. One thing however is certain—that all of them, the
Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Phoenicians and the Jews, by
virtue of their origin and earliest history, belong to one class, which may
perhaps be termed “Desert” or “Desert-edge” Peoples. The assumption that a
fair, blue-eyed tribe from the North intermingled with these is now almost
unanimously regarded as a fable. The theory of the ubiquity of the Germans”
will have to be but coldly entertained as long as no more convincing proofs are
forthcoming than the reddish hair of Saul, or the dolichocephalic skull of the
mummy of Rameses II.
What, then, was the anthropological history of the group of
peoples in which the Jews originated? A common answer as regards the Jews was
that they continued to mix with their non-Jewish neighbours in the Diaspora as
they had done before. Renan, Loeb, Neubauer and others believe that the modern
Jews are in large measure the descendants of heathen proselytes in the
Hellenistic Age, or of marriages between Jews and non-Jews in the early
centuries of the Common Era. The existence of fair Jews (to the extent of 13
per cent), especially in Eastern Europe, lent probability to this opinion. But
to-day, so far as I can make out, the entirely opposite view generally
prevails—that from the days of Ezra to these the Jews have kept strictly apart.
For more than two thousand years they have been untouched by other peoples;
they have remained ethnically pure. That drops of alien blood came into the
Jewish body corporate through the long centuries of their dispersion no one
will deny. But so small have these outside elements been that they have not
influenced to any appreciable degree the ethnical purity of the Jewish people.
It seems pretty clear now that in the past the number of
proselytes admitted into Judaism was considerably overestimated. There is no
doubt that in the Hellenistic and early Christian periods Judaism won adherents
among the heathen peoples. (The subsequent centuries were of no consequence at
all, with the exception of one case only.) Both the Roman and the Jewish Law
made provision for such converts.. But we may assume with certainty that all of
them were the so-called “Proselytes of the Gate”—that is, they worshipped God
in accordance with Jewish teaching, but they were not circumcised, nor were
they allowed to marry Jewesses. Nearly all of them eventually drifted into
Christianity. As a matter of fact, in the time of Pius circumcision was again
allowed to the Jews, but the rite was expressly forbidden to be performed on
proselytes. In this way conversion to Judaism was made a punishable offence.
This in all probability was not the intention of the framers of the
prohibition, but its effect was soon recognized, and it was extended.6 For Severus “forbade conversion to Judaism on
pain of grave penalties.”
But even if we allow foreign admixtures among the Jews in the
early Christian Age, it could never have amounted to very much when we think of
the millions of Jews who presumably existed at the time, and anyhow the
stranger elements came from peoples closely akin to the Jews.
As for the centuries that followed the entry of the Jews into
European history, we may take it that proselytizing ceased almost entirely.
Throughout the Middle Ages therefore the Jews received but little of non-Jewish
blood. The remarkable conversion of the Chozars in the 8th century cannot be
regarded as an exception to this statement, for their realm was never very
extensive. In the 10th century it was limited to a very small area in the
western part of the Crimea, and in the 11th the tiny Jewish State disappeared
altogether. Only a small remnant of the Chozars live in Kieff as Karaites.
Hence, even if the whole of the Chozars professed Judaism, the ethnical purity
of the Jews could have been affected but little. As a matter of fact, however,
it is very doubtful whether any others than the ruling family, or the upper
classes, became Jews.7 Mixed marriages
thus remain as the only possible source whence Jewish blood might be made
impure. Certainly marriages between Jews and non-Jews must have occurred in
some periods of Jewish history.
Mixed marriages were probably numerous—a not extravagant
assumption—in those epochs in which the band of Jewish solidarity was somewhat
loosened—say, the last pre-Christian century, or the 12th and 13th in Spain.
Even so, such relaxations never lasted for any considerable time; Jewish
orthodoxy soon regained the upper hand, to the exclusion of non-Jews. What the
Pharisees achieved in the first-named period resulted in the second from the
Maimonides schism, and this had such reactionary consequences that marriages
with Christian and Mohammedan women were annulled.8
But there are indications that such marriages were to be found.
They were expressly forbidden at the early Spanish Councils. For instance, the
16th Canon of the Council of Elovia (304) provides that “the daughters of
Catholics shall not be given in marriage to heretics, except they return to the
Church. The same applies to Jews and schismatics.” The 64th Canon of the Third
Council of Toledo (589) forbids Jews to have Christian women either as wives or
mistresses; and if any children spring from such unions they must be baptized.
Once more, the 63rd Canon of the Fourth Council of Toledo (633) makes it
incumbent upon Jews who have Christian wives to accept Christianity if they
wish to continue to live with them.9 It
seems hardly likely, however, that marriages against which these canons were
issued were very numerous. And anyhow, as the children of such marriages were
lost to Judaism, Jewish racial purity could not have suffered much by them.
Similarly, it is improbable that there was any admixture of Jews
with the Northern peoples. There was an opinion current that the Jews in
Germany up to the time of the Crusades lived among their Christian neighbours,
and had free intercourse with them in every direction. But this view is hardly
credible, and Brann, one of the best authorities on German Jewish history, has
declared the assumption of even the least degree of assimilation at this period
to be “an airy fancy, which must vanish into nothingness when the inner life of
the Jews of those days is understood.”10
There remain the fair Jews. They have been regarded as a proof of
Jewish admixture with the fair races of the North. But no scholar of repute
looks upon these as the outcome of legitimate unions between Jews and their
Slav neighbours. On the other hand, one hypothesis11
has found credence—that the fair Jews are the children of illegitimate
unions between Jews and Russians, either in the ordinary way or forcibly on the
occasion of pogroms. But the weakness of this assumption is obvious. Even if it
did explain the existence of fair Jews in Russia, it would be of no use at all
for accounting for fair Jews in Germany, in Southern lands, in North Africa and
in Palestine.
There is really no necessity to look for an explanation of the
fair Jews in the admixture of races. All dark peoples produce a number of
variants, and this is a case in point.12
We come back then to the fact that for some twenty centuries the
Jews have kept themselves ethnically pure. One proof of this is found in the
similarity of the anthropological characteristics of the Jews all over the
globe, and, moreover, in that the similarity has been remarkably constant
through the centuries. “Differences in treatment or environment have not been
able to blur a common type, and the Jews more than any other race stand as a
proof that the influence of heredity is much more powerful than that of
environment” (E. Auerbach).
The anthropological homogeneity of the Jewish stock at the
present time has been established by numerous anatomical experiments and
measurements.13 The only doubtful question
is whether the ancient contrast between Ashkenazim [German Jews] and Sephardim
[Spanish Jews] extends to their anthropology. There are two conflicting opinions
on the subject,14 but I believe the basis
of either is not sufficiently conclusive to justify an independent judgment. It
must be added, though, that personal observation would seem to warrant the
belief that there was some anthropological difference between the two. Look at
your spare, elegant Spanish Jew, with his small hands and feet and his thin,
hooked nose, and then at his German brother, stout and bow-legged, with his
broad, fleshy Hittite nose. Do they not appear as two distinct types to the
ordinary observer? There is as yet no scientific ground to explain the
difference.
Another controversial argument is whether the Jews of to-day are
a separate entity, distinct from their neighbours physiologically and
pathologically. There can be no doubt that from this point of view Jews do
exhibit certain peculiarities in many respects—early puberty, little liability
to cancer, especially cancer of the womb, strong disposition for diabetes,
insanity, and so forth. There are people, however, who cannot look upon these
things as physiological and pathological Jewish traits, but explain them as
resultants of the social position of the Jews, of their religious practices,
and so on.15 Here also the ground has not
been sufficiently prepared to warrant a definite statement.
It is different with the physiognomy of the Jew. Physiognomy, as
is well known, is the outcome of two causes—of certain facial forms and of
their particular expression. You cannot weigh or measure either, and therefore
this is a matter that must be left entirely to common observation. Now, just as
the colour-blind distinguish no colours, so those who cannot see differences in
men’s faces know nothing of physiognomy. When, therefore, some writers16 say that in the case of three-quarters of
cultivated and wealthy Jews they cannot with certainty tell that they are Jews
merely from their faces, then there is nothing to urge in reply. But a keen
observer will most decidedly be able to tell. Jewish physiognomy is still a
reality, and few will deny it. Undoubtedly there are individuals among Jews who
do not look one whit Jewish. But there are also very many individuals among
Gentiles who look very Jewish. I should not like to go so far as some do,17 and say that the Hapsburgs because of their
heavy lips, or the Louis of France because of their hooked noses, were
Jewish-looking. But among Oriental peoples (including possibly the Japanese) we
do come across Jewish types. This in no wise detracts from the anthropological
unity of the Jews. If it proves anything, it only points to a common origin of
the Jews and the Oriental peoples. (It might be mentioned, by the way, that the
lost Ten Tribes have been located in Japan—a somewhat fantastic conjecture, but
having something in its favour in the striking similarity of the Japanese and
Jewish types.) To consider the Jewish physiognomy as an expression of
decadence, or to account for it, as Ripley does, as a result of Ghetto life, is
not very conclusive in face of the undeniable Jewish types depicted on the monuments
of ancient Egypt and Babylonia. Look at the picture of Jewish captives in the
epoch of Shishak (973 B.C.), or of the Jewish ambassadors at the court
of Salmanasar18 (884 B.C.), and
you will be convinced that from those days to our own, a period of nearly three
thousand years, few changes have marked the Jewish type of countenance. This is
but another proof of the proposition that the Jewish stock is an
anthropological entity, and that its characteristics have been constant through
the ages in a most extraordinary fashion.
In view of all this, may we speak of a Jewish race? The answer
would depend on the connotation of the word “race.” But to define it is not
easy, for there are probably as many definitions as there are writers on it.19 It is, of course, open to any one to say.
Such and such things I look upon as the mark of race, and if I apply my
standard the Jews are or are not a race, as the case may be. But a procedure of
this kind is more of the nature of a game. What is needed is a scientific
definition. But how? Many methods have been tried—anthropological differences,
skull measurements, biological experiments and their application—but all with
no absolute result. It would, however, be a fallacy to conclude that because
hitherto no satisfactory classification of the human species has been achieved,
therefore no anthropological differences really exist. An Eskimo is different
from a Negro, and the South Italian from the Norwegian. We do not require
anthropology to tell us that.
So with the Jews. It may be difficult to class them, but
anthropological peculiarities of their own they surely have. When therefore one
distinguished scholar20 writes: “I
recognize only a Jewish religious community; of a Jewish race I know nothing,”
we must regard it as a hasty expression uttered in the heat of the moment. The
objection to it is that we can easily place a “Jewish national community” with
a common history beside the “Jewish religious community.”
So with anthropological characteristics which mark off the Jew
from the non-Jew. I am firmly of opinion that the Jews, no matter where they
may be found, are an anthropological group differing from, let us say, the
Swede or the negro. “A religious community” will not suffice.
After all, is it not a controversy about words? Some will have it
that there is no Jewish race. Well and good. But they admit Jewish
anthropological peculiarities. It is a thousand pities that there is no
satisfactory term by which to describe them. “A people” will not serve, for the
definitions of “people” are no less numerous than those of “race.” But what
does the name matter? The thing certainly is there, and I should have no
hesitation in speaking of the Jewish race, or, if you will, of the Jewish
“race.”
Let me conclude this section with one or two wise words written
by Arthur Ruppin,21 that excellent
authority on the Jew, words that appear to me to be among the best that have
been uttered on the subject: “The term ‘race’ should not be stretched too far.
If we include in it such groups as developed their special anthropological
characteristics in prehistoric times, and have since kept themselves without
admixture with other groups, then in reality there are no ‘races’ among
white-skinned peoples, seeing that all of them have intermingled over and over
again. As for the Jews, whether they had common racial features in prehistoric
times and have preserved them through the centuries, is a detail of no great
significance. What does matter is this—that it is certain that those who professed
the Jewish religion formed a well-defined group distinct from their
surroundings, even as late as the end of the 18th century, after many
generations of strict avoidance of marriage with non-Jews. The community which
has descended from this group may be called, for lack of a better name, a race,
more particularly, ‘the Jewish race.’”
The question of greatest interest in these anthropological
considerations is to discover whether any connexion exists between the somatic
characteristics of the Jew and his intellectual qualities. We want to make sure
whether the latter are in his blood, so to say, i.e., whether they are
racial or no. To discover this it will be necessary to see whether the
characteristics we have observed in modern Jews were to be found among Jews in
ancient times also; whether they reach back to their earliest history, or
whether they appeared at a later date, and if so, when.
The result will be that we shall observe that Jewish intellectual
qualities have remained constant, that certain characteristics, certain
peculiar features of the Jewish soul may be traced as far back as the formation
of the Jewish ethnical group. We cannot prove all this directly, because we
have no reliable accounts of the Jewish popular character dating from early
times. What we do possess are brief and scanty expressions of opinions,
valuable, however, as far as they go. It is of great interest, for example, to
note that the Pentateuch (in four places— Exod. xxxii. 9, xxxiv. 9; Deut. ix.
13 and 27) asserts of the Jews what Tacitus said of them later—that they are a
stiff-necked people. No less interesting is Cicero’s statement that they hang
together most fraternally, or Marcus Aurelius’s that they are a restless
people, to whom he cries, “O ye Marcomanni, O ye Quadi, O ye Sarmatae, at
length have I found a race more restless than you!”; or finally Juan de la
Huarte’s that their intellect is keen and well fitted for worldly things.
The first point to note is:—
(1) The attitude of the Jews to the peoples among whom they dwelt
all through the Diaspora. In the last century or so we have seen this to be one
of aloofness. Before capitalism came and set them free, Jews were looked upon
as “strangers,” as “semi-citizens.” They were hated and persecuted in all
lands, but everywhere they knew how to preserve and maintain themselves.
How was it in antiquity? How later? The same spectacle confronts
us, ever since the Jews came into contact with other peoples. Everywhere there
was opposition, persecution and ill-treatment. To begin with the Egyptians:
“They abhorred the children of Israel” (Exod. i. 12). Paul of Tarsus went so
far as to say that the Jews “were contrary to all men” (1 Thess. ii. 15). In
the Hellenistic period, in Imperial Rome— the same story of hate and plunder
and death. Philo and Josephus both record dreadful Jewish pogroms in Alexandria
in the first century of our era. “Hatred of the Jew and ill-treatment of him
are as old as the Diaspora itself” (Mommsen).
Under the Caesars their lot was no different: “I am just sick of
these filthy, noisy Jews,” said Marcus Aurelius. Then, in the time of
Theodoric, massacres and wholesale plundering were the order of the day, as
later in the 7th century under the Longobards. And the East was like the West;
the 6th century in Babylon was as dark as the 7th in Northern Italy. Even in
the Pyrenean Peninsula, where they enjoyed much that was good, the end was
bitter: Christian and Moslem both laid hands upon them.
These instances might be multiplied. They are all expressions of
hatred of the Jew in Christian and non-Christian environments alike. Can the
phenomenon be explained without the assumption of the existence of Jewish
characteristics, which remained constant no matter where the Jew was placed?
The answer must surely be in the affirmative. The hatred of the Jew
could not have been the result of a passing mood on the part of all these
peoples.
Then again, everywhere and at all times the Jews were
semi-citizens. Sometimes indeed they were not in this category because the law
placed them there. On the contrary. There were many cases in antiquity where
Jews were assigned privileged positions, by virtue of which they were excused
certain duties of the citizen (e.g., military service), or had exceptional
advantages in regard to legal enactments. Nevertheless they took no full share
in the life of the State in which they were domiciled. The Greek inhabitants of
Caesarea, a city on Jewish soil and built under Jewish rule, denied citizen
rights to the Jews, and Burnus, Nero’s minister, upheld their decision.22 There was little change in this respect
during the Middle Ages.
How are we to account for this generally prevailing treatment?
Differing States adopted a similar policy towards the Jew: does it not seem
clear that it was due to some special characteristic of his? If you like, say
it was the strict adherence to the letter of the Jewish religion. But something
it must have been.
And yet, despite all oppression, the Jew was not crushed. He knew
how to maintain himself from the oldest times onward. Perhaps it was because of
the curious mixture of stubbornness and elasticity which we have noted in Jews
of modern days. They might be crushed never so relentlessly, but like a
Jack-in-the-box they were soon up again. How they withstood the onslaught of
the Roman Emperors, who used all the weapons at their command to stamp them
out! Despite their efforts, there was again in the 3rd century a Patriarch at
Jerusalem recognized by the government, with a jurisdiction of his own. In
antiquity, in the Middle Ages, in this our own time, the peoples have summed up
their judgment of the Jew in the one word—stubborn: “ostinato come un ebreo.”
The peculiar mixture of determination and elasticity is most
wonderfully exhibited by the Jews in their bearing towards governments, where
their religion was concerned. To it they owed most of their enemies; because of
it they suffered hardships untold. Yet they would not give up their beloved
faith. And when pressure was severe, many Jews pretended to have forsworn their
religion only to be able to carry out its precepts in secret. We know of this
conduct in connexion with the Marannos, but it is as old as the Diaspora
itself. When you read of the thousands of crypto-Jewish heathens, crypto-Jewish
Mohammedans, crypto-Jewish Christians, you are astounded at this unique event
in human history. The more so as it was the most religious Jews, teachers and
leaders, who had recourse to the sham conversions in order to save their lives.
Recall the case of R. Eleazar ben Parta, who was active under Hadrian as a
pretended heathen;23 that of Ismael ibn
Negrela, who, as R. Samuel, held discourses on the Talmud and answered
questions of religious practice, and as Vizier of the Mohammedan King Habus,
began his master’s ordinances with the formula Chamdu-l-Illahi and ended
them with urging those to whom they were addressed to live according to the
laws of Islam;24 that of the great
Maimonides, who sought to give excellent reasons for his pretended conversion
to Mohammedanism;25 that of Sabbatti Zevi,
the false Messiah, who though he acknowledged Mahomet yet did not lose the
respect of his followers; that of the Neapolitan Jew Basilus, who made a
pretence of having his sons baptized in order to be able to carry on the trade
in slaves under their name,26 since this
branch of commerce was forbidden the Jews; that of the thousands and thousands
of Marannos who, after the expulsion of the Jews from the Pyrenean Peninsula,
appeared to all the world as Christians and returned to the faith of their
fathers at the very first opportunity that presented itself. What remarkable
people must these have been who combined such determination with such
elasticity!
We have thus noted that many Jewish characteristics developed to
their fullest in the Diaspora. But
(2) Is the Diaspora itself explicable as a result of only outward
circumstances? Does it not itself rather bear witness to special
characteristics? Or to put the question somewhat differently, would it have
been possible to scatter any other people over the face of the earth as the
Jews were scattered?
The experience of exile the Jews tasted in quite early days. Most
people have heard of Tiglath-Pileser, who dragged a part of the Jewish
population to Media and Assyria; of the later Babylonian Exile; of Ptolemy
Lagi, who forced very many Jews to settle in Egypt and planted a Jewish colony
in Cyrene; of Antiochus the Great, who brought two thousand Jewish families
from Babylon and peopled with them the centre of Asia Minor, Phrygia and Lydia.
Mommsen calls the settlement of Jews outside Palestine “an invention of
Alexander or of his generals.”
In all these cases the temptation is strong to ascribe the
dispersion of the Jews to outward circumstances, seeing that in most of the
cases the Jews were carried away from their homes against their will. There
appears to be nothing therefore in these dispersions that would point to
inherent Jewish characteristics. Such a conclusion would be hasty. Is there not
this possibility—that if the Jews had not possessed certain qualities they
might never have been transplanted? The enforced settlements must have had some
purpose. Either they were beneficial to the land from which the Jews were
taken, or (what was more probable) to the land or the town where they were
settled. Either they were feared in their own country as firebrands of
sedition, or they were accounted such valuable citizens for their wealth or
their industry that they were made the nucleus of new settlements, or they were
held to be so trusty that they were utilized by rulers to strengthen their hold
on turbulent centres (as was done by Ptolemy Lagi in Cyrene).
But many Jews may have forsaken Palestine for what might be
termed economic reasons: there was not sufficient room for the maintenance of
an increasing population. Considering the size and the productiveness of
Palestine, emigration on these grounds must have been of frequent occurrence.
But this points to a national characteristic—viz., an increasing population due,
as is known, to physiological and psychological causes alike. Furthermore, that
economic pressure led to emigration was traceable to another national
peculiarity. In this respect the Jews have been compared to the Swiss. They,
too, leave their homes because the country is unable efficiently to maintain
them all. But they only emigrate because they have the energy and the
determination to do better for themselves. The Hindoo does not emigrate. If the
population increases, he is content with his smaller portion of rice.
But to regard all Jewish dispersion as enforced is probably
onesided. We cannot possibly explain so general a phenomenon, which moreover
remains the same through the ages, without assuming a voluntary migration. What
precisely this was due to—whether to a migrative instinct, or to inability to
remain on one piece of soil for long—does not much matter. But some special
characteristic will have to be associated with this people to account for their
travelling so easily from land to land, no less than for their settlement in
large cities, a proclivity shown by the Jews already in very early times.
Herzfeld, who has compiled probably the most complete list of Jewish
settlements in the Hellenistic Age, draws attention to the striking fact that
of the settlements 52 are in towns, and of these 39 were wealthy commercial
centres.27
It would appear from all this that Jewish characteristics were by
no means developed in the Diaspora, or as the Jewish historians assume, in the
Middle Ages, but that the Diaspora itself was the result of these
characteristics. The characteristics were there first, at least in embryo.
(3) So, too, with their religion. When it is asserted that the
Jew of to-day is a product of his religion, that he has been made what he is,
almost artificially, by means of a well thought-out policy of some man or group
of men, and not organically, I am ready to admit the statement. My own
presentation of this very subject in a previous chapter attempted to show what
enormous influence the Jewish religion had, more especially on the economic
activity of the Jew. But I want to oppose the view promulgated by H. S.
Chamberlain with all my power. I want to make it clear that the religion of the
Jew would have been impossible but for the special characteristics of the Jew.
The fact that some man, or group of men, was able to give expression to such
wonderful thoughts necessarily postulates that the individual or the group was
specially gifted. Again, that the whole people should accept their teachings not
merely by way of lip-service, but with deep and sincere inwardness—can we
explain this except by the supposition of special national characteristics?
Today we can no longer free ourselves from the opinion that every people has,
in the long run, the religion best suited for it, and that if it adopts another
religion it keeps on changing it to suit it to its needs.
I believe, therefore, that we may deduce the special
characteristics of the Jewish people from the special characteristics of the
Jewish religion. From this standpoint many traits of the Jewish character
adduced from Jewish legends may be placed very far back, certainly as early as
the Babylonian Exile. That I shall proceed in this as the authors of
anti-Semitic catechisms do, and infer from the somewhat questionable story of
Isaac, Jacob and Esau, and their cheating of each other, a tendency on the part
of the Jews for swindling, need not be feared. No one, I hope, will flunk so
badly of me. Cheating is an element found in all mythologies. We need only cast
our eyes on Olympus or Valhalla to see the gods cheating and swindling each
other in the most shameless fashion. No. What I mean is that the fundamental
characteristics of the Jewish religious system which we have already
examined—Intellectuality, Rationalism, Teleology—are also the characteristics
of the Jewish people, and they must have been in existence (I would repeat, at
least in embryo) even before the religion was developed.
(4) My next point is the remarkable similarity in the economic activities
of the Jews throughout almost all the centuries of history. In asserting that
this is a proof that Jewish characteristics were constant, I am setting myself
in opposition to the prevailing views. I differ not only from those who believe
that the economic activities of the Jews have changed in the course of time,
but also from those who agree with me that it was a constant factor in their
development. From the latter I differ because we do no agree as to what those
activities were.
What is the generally accepted view of Jewish economic history? I
believe it may be traced to Heine, and is something to this effect. Originally
the Jews were an agricultural people. Even in the Diaspora, it is said, the
Jews tilled the soil, avoiding all other pursuits. But in the 6th and 7th
centuries of our era they were forced to sell their holdings and had,
willy-nilly, to look out for other means of livelihood. What did they do? They
devoted themselves to trade, and for something like five centuries continued in
this calling. Again Fate pressed heavily upon them, for the Crusades engendered
much anti-Jewish feeling in commercial circles, and the growing trading class
in each country organized themselves into gilds, and excluded the Jews from the
markets, which they retained as the exclusive preserves of members of their
corporations. Once more the Jews had to cast about for new occupations. All
channels were closed to them; the only possibility left was to become
moneylenders. So they became money-lenders, and before long enjoyed privileges
as such because the usury laws meted out special treatment to them.
Such is the almost semi-official view prevalent in Jewish
circles, certainly among assimilationists, but also among a goodly number of
Jewish nationalists.
There is another view to which some historians, Jewish and
Gentile (among the former Herzfeld), have given currency. It is that the Jews
have always been a commercial people, from the age of King Solomon onwards,
throughout the Diaspora, down to our own times.
I regard both views as wrong, certainly as one-sided, and I hope
to give my reasons in a sketch of the economic history of the Jews which I
shall furnish.
From the period of the Kings to the end of the national
independence—we may even say up to the codification of the Talmud—the Jewish
people were a self-contained, self-sufficing economic unit. Its surplus
commodities it sent to foreign lands, and its constituent units produced all
they needed, or at best, supplemented their own work by simple bartering with their
neighbours. We should describe the whole by saying that we had here single
economic units satisfying their own wants, with which was connected a certain
amount of hired labour; there was something of the nature I of the manorial
system, and there were some handicrafts. Where these are found little trade is
possible. But how about the numerous merchants in Palestine, of whom we read in
the time of the Kings? How account for them? To speak of merchants in the
ordinary interpretation of the term is to misunderstand the nature of the
economic organization of the country .in Solomon’s day. It was nothing but an
extensive manorial system, something like that of Charlemagne, and obviously
required the distribution of commodities. But this was not commerce. “The chief
officers (they corresponded to the villici) that were over Solomon’s
work were 550. .. . And King Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion-geber.… And
Hiram sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea,
with the servants of Solomon. And they came to Ophir and they fetched from
thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to King Solomon”
(1 Kings ix. 23, 26–28).
This and similar passages have been taken to denote a flourishing
international commercial intercourse, even a monopoly of trade. But there is no
need of this explanation at all. It is perfectly simple when we think of the
royal household as a manor on a large scale, from which the servants, in
company with those from another large manor, were sent forth to distant lands
in order to bring back commodities that were needed at the King’s court. The
economic independence of the royal household further appears in the story of
the building of the Temple. Solomon asks Hiram to send him “a man cunning to
work in gold, and in silver and in brass, and in iron and in purple, and in
crimson and in blue, and that can skill to grave all manner of gravings, to be
with the cunning men that are with me.… Send me also cedar-trees, fir-trees and
algum-trees, out of Lebanon: for I know that thy servants can skill to cut
timber in Lebanon; and behold my servants will be with thy servants.… And
behold I will give to thy servants, the hewers that cut timber, twenty thousand
measures of beaten wheat, and twenty thousand measures of barley, and twenty
thousand baths of wine, and twenty thousand baths of oil” (2 Chron. ii. 7ff.).
The same applies to a later passage in the same book (2 Chron. viii. 4), “And
Solomon built Tadmor in the wilderness and all the store cities which he built in
Hamath.” Store cities tell of the manor and its wealth in kind rather than of
commerce.
The other passages on which the theory is based that an extensive
trade was carried on in later times hardly warrant this deduction.28 True, we learn that the Babylonian exiles
were wealthy (Ezra i. 46; Zech. vi. 10, 11), but no indication is given of
their callings. There is not one iota of evidence in the Bible for the
contention of Graetz that they had obtained their riches in commerce. Perhaps
the cuneiform inscriptions brought from Nippur may support such an assumption.
But to refer the prophecy of Ezekiel about the destruction of Tyre (Ezek. xxvi.
2) to jealousy of the Phoenicians, and then on that basis to establish the
suggestion that even in the pre-Exilic period Palestine was largely a trading
country, appears to me to be somewhat bold.
That we cannot be too careful in reasoning of this kind is made
abundantly manifest by the interpretation put upon the famous passage in
Proverbs (vii. 19, 20), where the wiles of the adulteress are described. “For
the goodman is not at home, he is gone a long journey; he hath taken a bag of
money with him: he will come back at the full moon.” Was the husband a
merchant? Perhaps, but he may have been a farmer who had left home to pay his
rent to the bailiff in a distant town, and at the same time to buy a couple of
oxen there.
There is no clear proof, therefore, for the existence of commerce
as a specialized calling. On the other hand, there are passages which support
my view that the manorial system was prevalent even at a later period. Take,
for example, Nehemiah ii. 8, where the letter is mentioned in which Asaph, the
keeper of the King’s forest, is asked to give timber to make beams for the gate
of the castle. The injunction in Leviticus (xix. 35, 36) about just weights and
measures does not in itself militate against this theory.
But this does not mean that there were no traders. There must
have been, even in the period of the Kings, but they were only retail dealers.
Do we not read of them in the Book of Kings (1 Kings xx. 34), where the
defeated Benbadad. King of Syria, offers Ahab to build streets for bazaars in
Damascus as his father had done in Samaria? Or in Nehemiah (iii. 32), where we
are told that the goldsmiths and the merchants built their shops in a
particular quarter? How this last statement can be construed to mean that there
must have been highly respected merchant gilds (Bertholet) I cannot understand.
You can almost see the small shopkeepers at the Sheep Gate.
That there was an international exchange of commodities, even in
the earliest times, cannot of course be denied. There must have been extensive
trade and great merchants, who exchanged the surplus produce of Palestine for
the articles of luxury which they brought with them.29 “Judah, and the land of Israel, they were thy (Tyre’s)
traffickers: they traded for thy merchandise wheat of Minnith and pannag [a
kind of confection] and honey and oil and balm” [Ezek. xxvii. 17]. But the
extraordinary thing is that these great merchants were never Jews, but always
foreigners. The caravans that crossed the country were led by Midianites,
Sabaeans, Dedanites, men of Keder, but not by Jews.30
Even retail trade, when the Proverbs were written, was in the hands of
Canaanites. Ousted from trade in their own land, the Jews were hardly likely to
have had any influence in the international trade of those times. The great
international merchants were Phoenicians, Syrians or Greeks.31 “Absolute proofs that Jewish emigration was
chiefly for commercial ends are wanting entirely.”32
In view of all this I see no reason for regarding the passage in
Josephus, which describes the position of the Jews in his days, as prejudiced
and one-sided. It was in all probability true to fact. What does he say? “As
for ourselves, therefore, we neither inhabit a maritime country, nor do we
delight in merchandise” (Contra Apion, i. 12).
The centuries that followed brought little change in these
conditions. In the Talmud those sayings predominate that would point to the
prevalence among Jews, at least in the East, of small independent economic
units, each sufficient for its own needs. It would be a mistake to speak of
commercial activity. Granted we hear33 that
man accounted blessed who is able to become a spice-seller, and need not do
laborious work. But surely the retail trader is meant, and not the great
merchant. In fact trade, and more particularly over-sea trade, found little
favour with the Rabbis. Some even go so far as to damn all manner of markets,
pinning their faith to that economic organization where there is no need for
the exchange of commodities. “R. Achai ben Joshia used to say, Unto whom may he
be likened who buys fruit in the market? Unto a little child whose mother has
died, which, when taken to the houses of other mothers who feed their own
babes, yet remains unsatisfied. Whoso buys bread in the market is like to a man
who digs the grave in which he will be buried.”34
Rab (175–247) constantly impressed upon his second son that “better was
a small measure from the field than a large one from the vat” (i.e., warehouse).35 Or again, “The Rabbis taught: four kinds of
grain bring no blessing—the payment of a scribe, the fee of an interpreter, the
earnings that flow from orphans’ property and the profits derived from over-sea
trade.” Why the latter? “Because miracles do not happen every day.”36
So much for the East. What of the West? Here, too, the Jews were
not great merchants. Throughout the Imperial period and the succeeding early
Middle Ages the Jew, like the Syrian, if he were a “trader” was only a poor
chapman, a mere grasshopper who got entangled between the feet of the royal
merchants of Rome, just like the small Polish dealer of the 17th and 18th
centuries, who made himself a nuisance to the merchants of that day. All that
we can discover regarding Jewish trade in the early mediaeval period fits
beautifully into the picture. The Jews, in short, were never merchants so long
as commerce, and especially inter-municipal and inter-national commerce,
remained partly a robbing expedition and partly an adventure—that is to say,
until modern times.
If this is so—if the Jews never were a trading people from of
old—are those correct who hold that they were agriculturists? Certainly, in so
far as their economic organization was the manorial one. But that is not all.
The occupation to which Jews devoted themselves in later times and which, in
the view of Jewish historians, was forced upon them against their will, was
well-known and practised even in the earliest periods. I refer to
money-lending, and I attach the greatest importance to the establishment of
this fact. The economic history of the Jews throughout the centuries makes it
appear that money-lending always played a very great, nay, an extraordinarily
great, part in the economic life of the people. We meet with it in all phases
of Jewish history, in the age of national independence as in the Diaspora.
Indeed, a community of peasant proprietors is fine game for money-lenders.
Always the creditors are Jews, anyhow after the Exodus. In Egypt it appears the
Jews were the debtors, and when they left, as the official report narrates,
they carried away what had been lent to them. “And I will give this people
favour in the sight of the Egyptians, and it shall come to pass when ye go, ye
shall not go empty” (Exod. iii. 21). “And the Lord gave the people favour in
the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked …”
(Exod. xii. 36). Thereafter the position changed. Israel became the creditor
and other peoples became its debtors. Thus the promise made by God was
fulfilled, the promise that may rightly be called the motto of Jewish economic
history, the promise which indeed expresses the fortunes of the Jewish people
in one sentence: “The Lord thy God will bless thee as He promised thee: and
thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shaltnot borrow” (Deut. xv. 6).37
The oldest passage which points to a highly developed system of
borrowing in ancient Israel is that in Nehemiah (vi. 15):—
Then there arose a great cry of the people and of their wives
against their brethren the Jews. For there were that said. We, our sons and our
daughters, are many: let us get corn, that we may eat and live. Some also there
were that said, We are mortgaging our fields, and our vineyards and our houses:
let us get corn because of the dearth. There were also that said. We have
borrowed money for the king’s tribute upon our fields and our vineyards. Yet
now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children:
and lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and
some of our daughters are brought into bondage already: neither is it in our
power to help it, for other men have our fields and our vineyards. And I was
very angry when I heard their cry and these words. Then I consulted with myself
and contended with the nobles and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact
usury, every one of his brother.… Restore, I pray you, to them even this day
their fields, their vineyards, their olive-yards and their houses, also the
hundredth part of the money, and of the corn, the wine and the oil, that ye
exact of them.
The picture here drawn is clear enough. The people were divided
into two sections, an upper wealthy class, which became rich by moneylending,
and the great mass of agricultural labourers whom they exploited. This state of
affairs must have continued, in despite of Nehemiah and other reformers,
throughout the whole history of the Jews in Palestine and Babylon. We need only
refer to the Talmud for proof. In some of the Tractates, after the study of the
Torah nothing occupies so much space as money-lending. The world of ideas which
the Rabbis had was crammed full with money business. A decision of Rabina
(488–556), one of the last of the Amoraim (Baba Mezia, 70b), sounds
almost like the creation of a money-lending monopoly for the Rabbis. Throughout
the three Tractates called Baba, there are numerous examples from the
business of money-lending and from the rise and fall of interest, and numerous
discussions about money and problems of money-lending. The unprejudiced reader
of the Talmud cannot but come to this conclusion: in the Talmudic world there
must have been a good deal of moneylending.
With the Diaspora the business only extended. How far
moneylending was regulated among the Jews in the Egyptian Diaspora, four or
five centuries before the Common Era, may be seen from the Oxford Papyrus (MS.
Aram. cl. P)38:—
... Son of Jatma ... you gave me money ... 1000 segel of silver.
And I am ready to pay by way of interest 2 hallur of silver / per month for
each segel until the day whereon I repay the money to you. The interest / for
your money is thus to amount to 2000 hallur every month. And if in any month I
pay you no / interest, then the amount of interest shall be added to the
principal and shall bear interest itself. I undertake to pay you month by month
/ out of my salary which I receive from the Treasury, and you will give me a
receipt (?) for the whole / sum and for the interest that I will pay you. And
if I have not repaid the whole of your / money by the month of Roth in the year
… then your money shall be doubled (?) / and also the interest I have yet to
pay, and month by month I must be made to pay the same / until the day I repay
you the whole / Witness, etc.
In the Hellenistic and Imperial periods rich Jews were found
supplying crowned heads with money, and the poorer Jews lent to the lower
classes. The Romans were not unacquainted with Jewish business.39 It was the same in the pre-Islamic period
among the Arabs, to whom the Jews lent money at interest, and who regarded this
business as being natural to the Jew, as being in his blood.40
When the Jews first appeared on the scene in Western Europe it
was as money-lenders. We have already noted that they acted as financiers to
the Merovingians, which means, of course, mainly as creditors.41 They went further in Spain; there, where they
had complete freedom of movement, the common people were soon in their debt.
Long before there was a Jewish (i.e., money-lending) question in other
States, the legislative authorities in Castile were dealing with the problem of
debts owing to Jews, and dealing with it in such a way as to show that it was
of no small practical importance.42 That
money-lending became the principal calling of the Jews after the Crusades will
be admitted on all hands.
We come, then, to this conclusion, that from the earliest times
moneylending was a prime factor in the economic history of the Jews.
The time has really arrived when the myth that the Jews were
forced to have recourse to money-lending in mediaeval Europe, chiefly after the
Crusades, because they were debarred from any other means of livelihood, should
be finally disposed of. The history of Jewish moneylending in the two thousand
years before the Crusades ought surely to set this fable at rest once and for
all. The official version that Jews could not devote themselves to anything but
money-lending, even if they would, is incorrect. The door was by no means always
shut in their faces; the fact is they preferred to engage in money-lending.
This has been proved by Professor Bücher for Frankfort-on-the-Main, and the
same may be done for other towns as well. The Jews had a natural tendency
towards this particular business, and both in the Middle Ages and after rulers
were at pains to induce Jews to enter into other callings, but in vain. Edward
I made the attempt in England;43 it was
also tried in the 18th century in the Province of Posen,44 where the authorities sought to direct the Jews to change
their means of livelihood by offering them bounties if they would. Despite
this, and despite the possibility of being able to become handicraftsmen and
peasants like all others, there were, in 1797, in the southern towns of
Prussia, 4164 Jewish craftsmen side by side with 11,000 to 12,000 Jewish
traders. The significance of these figures is borne in upon us when we note
that though the Jewish population formed 5 or 6 per cent. of the whole, the
Christian traders totalled 17,000 or 18,000.
It may be urged, however, that the practice of usury, even when
it is carried on quite voluntarily, need not be accounted for by special racial
attributes. Human inclinations of a general kind will amply explain it.
Wherever in the midst of a people a group of moneyed men dwell side by side
with others who need cash, be it for consumption, be it for production, it soon
comes about, especially where the legal conditions governing money-lending are
of a primitive kind, that the one class becomes the debtors and the other the
creditors.
True. Wherever rich and poor lived together, the latter borrowed
from the former, even when there was as yet no money in existence—in which case
the debts were in kind. In the earliest stages of civilization, when the two
classes felt themselves members of the same brotherhood, the lending was
without interest. Later, especially when some intercourse with strangers sprang
up, the borrower paid the lender a certain quantity of corn or oil or (where a
money economy had already established itself) gold over and above the
principal, and the custom of giving interest gradually became universal.
In this there is no difference between the ancient, the mediaeval
or the modern world. All three were acquainted with money-lending and “usury,”
which was never confined to the members of any one race or religion. Think of
the agrarian reforms in Greece and Rome, which prove conclusively that the
economic conditions in these countries at certain times were exactly like those
in Palestine in the days of Nehemiah.[Cf. A. E. Zimmern, The Greek
Commonwealth, p. 111 ff.—Trans.] In the ancient world the temples
were the centres of the money-lending business, for in them were stored vast
quantities of treasure. If at the Jerusalem Temple money-lending was carried
on—what is by no means established: the Talmudic tractate (Shekalim) which
deals with Temple taxes clearly forbids the utilization of what remained over
from certain sacrifices for purposes of business—I say if such were the
case, then there was nothing extraordinary in this: all temples in antiquity
lent money. The temples of Babylonia, we are informed,45 were like so many great business houses. The temples at
Delphi, at Delos, at Ephesus, at Samos were no different.46 And in the Middle Ages the churches, the
monasteries, the houses of the various Knights and other religious orders took
the place of the ancient temples in this respect. Despite the prohibitions of
the Church against usury, they were the centres of a brisk trade in money. Is
it any different to-day? The German peasant on the marshes of the North Sea
coast who has managed to make a little money knows of nothing better to do with
it than to lend it at interest to a needy neighbour.
To increase one’s fortune by means of interest on loans is so
easy and pleasant, that everybody who is able makes the attempt. Every period
wherein the demand for money is great gives opportunity enough (the periods,
that is, of the so-called credit crises—regularly followed, by the way, in recent
European history by Jewish persecutions).
Everybody, then, does it—gladly does it. The desire to take
interest on money is pretty generally prevalent. But is the ability to do so?
This leads me to my next proof in support of the view that Jewish characteristics
have remained constant—
(5) The capacity of the Jew for money-dealing.
It is well-known that in the Middle Ages many authorities,
whether individual rulers or corporations, almost begged the Jews to come to
their city in order to carry on money-lending. All sorts of privileges were
held out to them. The Bishop of Speyer is a case in point. He thought it would
give his city a certain cachet to count a number of rich Jews among its
inhabitants. Some of the cities of Italy in the 15th and 16th centuries
actually made agreements with the wealthiest Jewish money-lenders that they
should come and establish loanbanks and pawnshops. 47
Why should these requests have been made, and these privileges
offered? Why should just Jews and no others have been invited to found
money-lending concerns? No doubt to some extent it was because good Christian
men were not willing to soil their souls by the nefarious trade, and Jews were
called in to stand between them and damnation. But was this all? Does it not
appear rather that the Jews had a special capacity for the business? They were
the cleverest, the most gifted money-lenders, and that is why they were in
demand. How else should we be able to account for their success, which for
centuries brought them so much riches? Anybody can be a lender, but not
everybody can be a successful lender. For that special capacities and
attributes are necessary.
Turn to the pages of the Talmud and you will find that
moneylending was no mere dilettante business with the Jews. They made an art of
it; they probably invented (certainly they utilized) the highly organized
machinery of lending.
The time has come, it seems to me, for a trained economist to
deal thoroughly with the economic side of the Talmud and of Rabbinic literature
generally. I hope this book may act as some spur to this end. All I can do here
is to point the way, so that some successor of mine may find it the more
easily. I shall briefly note some of the passages which appear to me to bear
witness to an extensive acquaintance with economic problems, and more
particularly those bearing on credit. When we recall the period in which the
Talmud came into being (200 B.C. to 500 A.D.) and compare what it contains in the field of
economics with all the economic ideas and conceptions that the ancient and the
mediaeval worlds have handed down to us, it seems nothing short of marvellous.
Some of the Rabbis speak as though they had mastered Ricardo and Marx, or, to
say the least, had been brokers on the Stock Exchange for several years, or
counsel in many an important money-lending case. Let me cite an instance or
two.
(a) A profound acquaintance with the nature of the precious
metals. “R. Chisda said. There are seven kinds of gold: ordinary gold, best
gold, gold of Ophir (1 Kings x. 11), fine gold (1 Kings v. 18), drawn gold,
heavy gold and Parvayin gold” (Joma, 45a).
(b) The idea that money is a common denominator in terms of which
commodities are exchanged is fully developed. The best proof of this is the
legal decision that the act of purchasing becomes complete not as soon as the
price has been paid, but when the commodity is delivered. The whole of the 4th
section of Baba Mezia is illustrative of this point.
(c) There is a clear conception of the difference between credit
for production and for consumption. In the case of the first, interest is
permitted; not so, from a Jew, in the case of the second. “If A rents a field
from B at a rental of 10 measures of wheat and then requests B to lend him 200
zuz for the improvement of the field, promising a total payment of 12 measures
of wheat—that is permissible. But may you offer to give more in renting a shop
or hiring a ship? Rab Nachman (235–320), on the authority of Rabba bar Abuha,
was of opinion that sometimes it was permissible to give more for a shop in
order to be able to hang pictures up in it, and for a ship too, in order to
place a mast on it. The pictures in the shop will attract many people and so
increase profits, and the mast on the ship will enhance the ship’s value” (Baba
Mezia, 69b).
(d) Law and rules of practice point to an extraordinarily
developed system of credit agreements. After reading the 4th and 5th sections
of Baba Mezia you feel as though you had just laid down the report of an
Enquiry into Money-lending in Hesse twenty or thirty years ago, where a
thousand and one gins and traps were introduced into money-lending compacts.
The Prosbol, too (by means of which it was possible to ensure the
existence of a debt even over the year of release), is a sign of a highly organized
system of lending (Section 10 of Sheviith).
(e) The treatment of deposits is handled in a way which shows
practical knowledge of the subject. “If any one deposits moneys with a banker,
the latter may not make any use of them if they are in one bundle. If, however,
they are loose, he may, and if they are lost he is held responsible. But if the
moneys are deposited with a private individual, whether they are in one bundle
or loose, he may make no use of them whatever; and if they should be lost he is
not bound to replace them. R. Meir (100– 160) held that a shopkeeper was
regarded as a private individual in this respect; but R. Judah (136–200) was of
the contrary opinion, and said that the shopkeeper was like the banker. ...” (Baba
Mezia, 43a).
(f) Finally I would mention the Jewish gift for figures. The
Talmudists all had it, but it was to be found in earlier ages also. The exact
statistical lists in the Bible and the later literature must have struck every
one. One French writer remarks on the topic: “The race possessed a singular
capacity for calculation—a genius, so to say, for numbers.” 48
Apart from all these considerations, the very success of the Jews
in their money-lending activities effectively demonstrates a special capacity
for the business. And the success was manifested in
(6) Jewish wealth.
That ever since the race began some Jews amassed huge fortunes
can be easily shown, nor can it be doubted that the average wealth of all Jews
was fairly high. In all ages and in all lands Jewish riches were proverbial.
We may begin with King Solomon, whose wealth was renowned even
among wealthy Oriental potentates—although he did not acquire it by successful
trading (though you never can tell!). Later we read that some of the Jewish
exiles in Babylon were in a short time able to send gold and silver to
Jerusalem (Zech. vi. 10, 11). That Jews played a great part in the economic
life of the Euphrates country during the Exile appears from the commercial
contracts dug up at Nippur.49 Those who
returned with Ezra brought great opulence with them (Ezra i. 6–11), and in the
subsequent period the wealth of the priests was notorious.50 Noticeable are the large number of rich men,
some of them very rich, among the Talmudic Rabbis. It would not be difficult to
compile quite a respectable list of such of them as were renowned for their
wealth. Certainly, in any view, the rich Rabbis were in the majority.51
In the Hellenistic Diaspora likewise the impression cannot be
avoided that the standard of wealth among Jews was pretty high. Wherever Jews
and Greeks lived side by side, as in Caesarea,52 the
former were the more opulent. There must have been a specially great number of
wealthy Jews among those of Alexandria. Of very rich Alabarchs we are actually
told, and we have already mentioned the position of the Alexandrian Jews as
financiers of crowned heads.
It was not one whit otherwise in the early Middle Ages. We have
it on record that many Jews in those days were blessed with the good things of
the world in abundance. In Spain they offered money to Reccared if he would
annul anti-Jewish legislation,”53 and in
the early period of Mohammedan rule we learn that the Arabs envied them their
wealth.54 Cordova, in the 9th century, had
“several thousand (?) Jewish families who were well off.”55 And more to the same effect.56
There is no need to labour the statement that in the later Middle
Ages the Jews were wealthy. It is a generally accepted fact.57 And for what is called the modern period I
have myself adduced proofs enough in this book.
We shall be justified in the conclusion, therefore, that from
King Solomon to Bamey Bamato Jewish opulence runs through history like a golden
thread, without ever once snapping. Is this merely accidental? If not, what was
it due to—subjective or objective causes?
Objective factors, i.e., outward forces, have certainly
been hinted at to explain Jewish wealth. In the first place, the Jews were
early taught to look for their chief happiness in the possession of money; in
the second, the insecurity of their position forced them to accumulate their
wealth in easily movable forms—in gold or ornaments, which they could take
about with them, which they could hide or carry off without much difficulty.
These causes undoubtedly go a good way to account for the growth of Jewish
wealth, but they by no means suffice to explain it completely. We must not
forget that the outward forces referred to above, in order to produce the
result they did, could not but have influenced a people possessing certain
special gifts. But let that pass. Again, the facts instanced could only have
been of any effect in the Diaspora. Let that also pass. The great weakness of
this explanation is that it tells us merely why the Jews had any desire to
become wealthy, and, incidentally, that then” wealth took a particular form.
The desire in this case is of little moment; it does not make clear why it was
realized. Hence we must look for other causes. Besides, the desire to become
rich has been universal ever since Alberich robbed the Maidens of the
Rhine-gold.
Another explanation has therefore been suggested for Jewish
wealth. The Jews, it has been rightly pointed out, for centuries occupied a
position of inequality with their Christian neighbours, and therefore had less
occasion to spend as much as the latter. The conception of social status, with
varying standards of comfort for each, was unknown among them, and therefore
also the thousand and one artificial wants that were associated with the idea.
“It is certain,” remarks a writer who has dealt with this aspect of the problem
in a most delicate fashion,58 “that a Jew,
compared with a Christian of the same income, was bound to become the richer of
the two, seeing that the Christian had very many opportunities of spending
money which were denied to the Jew, for the simple reason that the former
belonged to the ruling class, and the latter was only tolerated. As for the
rich Jew, his circumstances were different from those of the Christian, for he
had no need to consider what was demanded in his social class. Thus, any
luxuries he cared to enjoy were not necessarily in accordance with his status.”
Doubtless this is one explanation of the wealth of the Jews, and
will account also for the specifically Jewish economic standpoint, which we
have noted above. To it were due such ideas as that of free competition, that
your expenses should be limited by your income—a conception utterly foreign to
a feudal society—and that saving, associated with Jews from earliest times, was
good. Let me recall an old German proverb:—
|
Selten sind sieben Dinge: |
[Rare are seven things: |
To the saving habit of the Jews may be traced the tendency to
accumulate capital. One sometimes hears it said that Jewish money remains in a
business longer than Christian money, and increases more quickly to boot. In
olden times the Jew could not enter the charmed circle of the feudal landed
gentry, and so his money was not spent in keeping up the appearances demanded
by his status. If he saved, his money had perforce to be invested in commercial
enterprise, unless, of course, he lent it out directly at interest, as the Jews
of Hamburg of the 17th century were in the habit of doing. Glückel von Hamem
and her friends, whenever they had any surplus, always lent it out on security.
The money fructified and increased.
All these considerations are valuable as far as they go. But they
do not go far enough satisfactorily to explain the phenomenon of Jewish wealth.
It is all very well pointing to objective forces in any problem. We must not
forget, however, that those forces might not effect the particular result they
did if the men and women whom they influenced were not constituted in a
particular way. A people does not become thrifty because of the stress of
outward circumstances alone. The merest tyro knows that. Besides, nowadays,
when the Ghetto walls have long since fallen, and the Jew enjoys perfect
equality when he may become a landed proprietor and regulate his life in
accordance with the most rigid requirements—nowadays, too, I say, Jews are
thriftier than Christians. Look at a few statistics. In Baden, in the years
1895 to 1903, capital increased in the case of Protestants from 100 to 128.3 per
cent, in the case of Jews from 100 to 138.2 per cent. This is striking enough,
but it becomes even moreso when we remember that during the same period the
incomes of Protestants grew from 100 to 146.6 per cent, those of Jews from 100
to 144.5 percent.
When all is said the possible causes hitherto mentioned would
only explain why already existing wealth was increased. Not one can
satisfactorily answer the question, How was it in the first place obtained?
There is only one answer. Wealth is got by those who have a talent for it. From
the wealth of the Jews, therefore, may be deduced special Jewish
characteristics or attributes.
What is the result of all our considerations in the previous
section? That in all probability the anthropological character of the Jews, no
less than their intellectual attributes, has remained constant for thousands of
years.
What does this prove? Are we to conclude that the Jewish genius
is rooted in race? Those who have a dogmatic faith in race unhesitatingly say
yes. We however, who are trying to proceed scientifically, must say no. Nothing
as yet has been proved.
A brief reference to the methods of some of the believers in the
racetheory59 will show how unreliable
their conclusions are. They start out with the assumption that the Jews are a
race. Since every race must have specific characteristics, Jews have theirs. In
other words, their specific characteristics are rooted in their race. But for
this there is no actual proof. If the truth must be told, we know nothing
whatever of the connexion between somatic or anthropological features and
intellectual capacities.
What the race-theorists have produced is a new sort of religion
to replace the old Jewish or Christian religion. What else is the theory of an
Aryan, or German, “mission” in the world but a modern form of the “chosen
people” belief? All well and good, but let no one be deceived into imagining
that this is science. It is faith, and faith and science had best be kept
apart.
As we have said, there is no certain connexion between somatic
attributes and intellectual capacities. The constancy of each may be purely
accidental; it may arise anew in every generation or may be carried on by the
aid of tradition. And among a people who were attached to tradition as the Jews
were, this assumption seems likely enough. The Jews were shut off from others,
they possessed a strong love of family, their religious practices were
scrupulously observed, the Talmud was energetically studied in every generation—all
these supplied, as it were, the machinery for carrying on certain peculiarities
from one generation to another merely by education alone.
This is one view. Yet Jewish characteristics may spring
from the blood. Again, there are those who would trace them to environment. The
Jewish religion, Ghetto life, the dealing in money for so many centuries have
all three been instanced to account for the specifically Jewish type of
character. There may be something in this. Only possibly, as I have tried to
show, these influences instead of being causes may be results.
I propose in the next chapter to analyse the Jewish genius,
laying special stress on the following points in the order given: (1) The
original aptitudes of those races from which the Jews sprang as exhibited in
their mode of life. (2) How the various elements mingled. (3) Which of these
aptitudes survived under the influences of Jewish history. Finally, if these
considerations should prove insufficient, we shall venture the hypothesis: (4)
that certain characteristics grew up in the course of history. We shall see,
however, that there will be no need to have recourse to this hypothesis, since
the Jewish genius can be adequately explained along the first three lines. If
this be so, then one result will have been established: that the Jewish
characteristics are rooted in the blood of the race, and are not in any wise
due to educative processes.
If any one wished in a sentence to account for the importance of
the Jews in the world’s civilization, and more particularly in economic life,
he could do so by saying that it was due to the transplanting of an Oriental
people among Northern races, and the culture union of the two. A similar
assertion has been made regarding the civilizations of the classical world, of
the Greek more especially, and also of that of the Italian Renaissance. It has
been suggested that they resulted from the mixture of Northern peoples, who had
wandered into a Southern environment, with the autochthonous inhabitants—a
brilliant hypothesis, not without an element of truth in it.
But the statement concerning the Jews is no hypothesis: it is an
established fact, capable of abundant proof. The capitalistic civilization of
our age is the fruit of the union between the Jews, a Southern people pushing
into the North, and the Northern tribes, indigenous there. The Jews contributed
an extraordinary capacity for commerce, and the Northern peoples, above all the
Germans, an equally remarkable ability for technical inventions.
It is clear, therefore, what we must have in view in our
considerations of the Jewish genius and its enormous influence. Not whether the
Jews were Semites, or Hittites, or of some other stock, not whether they are
“pure,” or “mixed,” is the important thing, but that they are an Oriental folk
transplanted into an environment both climatically and ethnically strange,
wherein their best powers come to fruition.
They are an Oriental people—that is to say, one of those peoples
whose habitat was in that part of the globe lying between the Atlas Mountains
in the West, and the Persian Gulf in the East; one of those races baked by the
sun in the dry, burning climate of the great deserts of North Africa, Arabia
and Asia Minor, or of their border-lands; the races which brought their special
characteristics to maturity amid their peculiar environment which had never
altered since the Ice Age, a period of some twelve or sixteen thousand years.
The whole of this region, from which the Jews also hailed, is an
extensive sandy desert, with here and there an oasis where man and beast can
dwell. In the larger of these watered valleys arose, as is well known, the
earliest civilizations of the world—in Egypt, in Mesopotamia and in Palestine.
All three are comparatively small fertile patches; all are true oases in the
desert, and theirs was an essentially oasis civilization. The cultivable area
of Egypt was about as large as the Prussian Province of Saxony is to-day [about
5,500,000 acres, according to the Statesman’s Year Book]; Mesopotamia
at its widest extent was only about half the size of the Plain of Lombardy
[about 4500 square miles, according to the same authority]; Palestine, the land
of the whole people of Israel, was smaller still, being no larger than perhaps
Baden (about 5000 square miles]; while Judsea, the Southern Kingdom, and
therefore the home of the Jews, was as extensive as the Duchies of Anhalt and
Saxe-Coburg and Gotha together [about 1600 square miles]. But these oases, and Palestine
more especially, were themselves broken by deserts, Judaea being particularly
badly treated by Nature. Its southern end exThe tended past Hebron and
Beersheba, right into the modern sandy waste.
All agriculture in these countries was the tillage of oases. What
does this mean? It means that the soil collected by almost artificial means,
and that the great aim of the farmer was to gather the water necessary for the
growth of vegetation. This was the case in Palestine, where the cultivation of
the soil depended on the water-supply. Drought is the scourge that the farmer
fears most. Every year he trembles lest the arid waste should stretch its arms
and embrace his strip of land, tended with so much care and tribulation. Every
moment he is in dread lest the desert send him its scorching winds, or its
locust swarms. And above all, he fears the desert wastes because of the
marauding bands who may fall upon him, robbing, killing, pillaging as they
cross the country, sometimes even taking possession of his holding if the fancy
seize them. These children of the desert, whom we now call Bedouins, and of
whom the oasis-dwellers were once themselves a part, were nomadic shepherds.
Their raids hastened the rise of strong cities with stout walls, behind which
the inhabitants of the plain could take refuge. Sometimes the desert crept
right into them, and so at all times they were filled with the spirit of the
sandy wastes.
Such a tribe of restless wandering Bedouins were the Hebrews,
when about the year 1200 B.C. they fell upon Canaan, plundering and killing
as they went, and finally deciding to settle there, and rest from all their
wanderings. Which meant, that if possible they would do nothing, but that the
natives would work for them—the aim of every conquering people. Such was
Jehovah’s promise: “I will lead you unto the land which I promised you, a land
of great and goodly cities which thou buildedst not, and houses full of all
good things which thou filledst not, and cisterns hewn out which thou hewedst
not, and vineyards and olivetrees which thou plantedst not, and thou shalt eat
and be full” (Deut. vi. 10, 11).
Once there, what did the Hebrews do in this promised land? What
sort of economic organization did they establish? We cannot, of course, speak
as to the details,1 but one or two things
we may imagine. Probably, as we have seen, the powerful and mighty among them
after having conquered large tracts of land instituted a sort of feudal
society. Part of the produce of the land they took for themselves, either by way
of rent in kind, by farming it out to tax-collectors, or by means of the credit
nexus. In any case, a large number of Hebrews lived in the towns, receiving
rent or interest from the subject population who worked on the soil, either as
“colonists,” or “free peasants,” or whatever term was used in the Orient for
this class. Some of the conquering tribes may have become impoverished and
themselves sunk to the level of unfree farmers, but they were hardly the
influential ones. This position was held by those who inhabited the West Jordan
lands, principally Judah, sections of Simeon and Levi and others. In those
districts cattle farming only was possible: “Judah’s teeth are white with
milk.” Other tribes, such as Reuben and Gad, remained east of the Jordan as
semi-nomads, rearing cattle, and half the tribe of Manasseh crossed the Jordan
to return thither. But all the tribes alike must have been impregnated with the
nomadic spirit. Were this not the case, it would be exceedingly difficult to
understand the rise and growth of the Jewish religious system.
It should not be forgotten that the Holy Scriptures of the Jews
in which their religion is embodied, especially the Pentateuch, is the
literature of a nomadic people. Their God, who triumphs over the false gods, is
a desert and pastoral divinity. The traditions of the nomad state were
maintained by Ezra and Nehemiah in the conscious re-establishment of the
Jehovah cult, in doing which they paid no heed to the intervening period of
agriculture. The Priestly Code “takescare not to mention the settled life in
Canaan… it strictly limits itself to the wanderings in the wilderness, and in
all seriousness wants to be regarded as a desert Code.”2 Open the historical books or the majority of the Prophets, that
desert choir, include the Psalms also, and you everywhere find metaphors and
similes taken from shepherd life. Only occasionally do you meet with the
peasant “sitting contentedly at the door of his house in the shade of the
fig-tree.” Jehovah is the good Shepherd (Psa. 23) who will gather the remnants
of Israel “as a flock in the midst of their pasture” (Micah ii. 12). And what
does the Sabbatical year mean but that you cease being a peasant for the time
being, and become an Israelite of the old sort? Israel never quite gave up its
division into families and clans; it was always composed of tribes, like most
shepherd peoples. There seems to be little doubt that even as late as the 5th
century B.C.
there must have been a strong dash of the nomads, certainly in the ruling classes,
but probably also in the great mass of the people. Else how would it have been
possible to saddle them for any length of time with a nomadic religion?
It may be asked. Were not the nomad tendencies of those days
perchance a harking back to an earlier state? Did not perhaps the old wandering
instincts, which in the previous centuries had been lulled to sleep, awake
again under the influences of the Exile? It is quite likely, and what is more,
the vicissitudes of the Jewish people since the Babylonian Exile could not but
arouse any slumbering desert and nomad feelings within them. On this point I
would lay especial stress. Hence, even if we were inclined to assume that the
Children of Israel lived a settled life for five hundred years after the conquest
of Canaan, it is perfectly clear that all the powers on earth seemed to have
conspired together not to allow this state to become permanent. Scarcely had
the plant taken root (so far as it could in so hot a country) than it was
pulled up. The Jew’s inherent “Nomadism” or “Saharaism” (if I may coin the
words) was always kept alive through selection or adaptation. Throughout the
centuries, therefore, Israel has remained a desert and nomadic people.
There is nothing new in this conclusion. But one does not establish
it without some scruple of conscience. Why? Because anti-Semitic pamphleteers
rudely pounce upon it and make capital out of it for their abuse. That, of
course, can be no reason for doubting its truth, or neglecting to take
cognizance of it as an explanation of Jewish characteristics. What should be
done to oppose the prejudiced scribblers is to analyse the problem most
carefully, and present an illuminating view of its importance. Up to the
present little has been achieved in this direction; what has been done has been
childish and spitefully distorted. No wonder that the idea that the Jew has
always been a nomad has been received with scorn and jest by some people. It
would have been much more to the point if these same people had been able to prove
that it was wrong. This has never yet been seriously attempted. The chain of
reasoning which runs: Agriculture was practised in Palestine in olden times;
the Jews lived in Palestine then; therefore the Jews were agriculturists, is on
the face of it a little weak. And another point. The term nomad is not meant to
imply obloquy or disgrace. At most, objection may be taken to the robbing. But
why should there be any dishonour attached to a brave Bedouin tribe which,
under such a doughty leader as, say, King David, lived on plunder? Why should
they appear less worthy, or call forth less sympathy, than an agricultural
tribe of Negroes somewhere in the wilds of Africa? It is obvious, of course,
that when I use the term “nomad” as applied to later Jewish history, I want it
to bear not its secondary meaning, which it has acquired in the lapse of time,
but its original connotation in all its pristine strength.
Having cleared the air a little, let us now attempt to prove that
our conclusion is true. Throughout the centuries Israel has remained a desert
and nomadic people, either by the process of selection or of adaptation.
We have already mentioned the possible effect of the Exile in
calling forth slumbering nomadic instincts. In reality, if the truth be told,
we can form no clear conception of what the Exile meant, neither of the journey
into it, nor of the return home. It only seems possible on the assumption that
the Jews then were still nomads or semi-nomads. One can scarcely conceive the
conquest of an agricultural people; whereas the forcible ‘transplanting of
nomad tribes is not unknown to-day.3 Moreover,
the assumption seems to be supported by the story of the Captivity. “And he
carried away all Jerusalem and all the princes and all the mighty men of
valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and the smiths; none
remained save the poorest sort of the people of the land.” And after the second
expedition of the Babylonians, “the captain of the guard left of the poorest of
the land to be vine-dressers and husbandmen” (2 Kings xxiv. 14 and xxv. 12).
Jeremiah’s version of the story agrees with this (Jer. xxxix. 10).
Whoever the exiles may have been, it is pretty certain that the
actual agriculturists were not among them. These remained behind even after the
second batch of exiles had been carried away captive. The passage in Jeremiah
would seem to lend probability to my view that the soil was tilled by unfree
villeins who, when their lords were led to Babylon, became independent
husbandmen. It is not assuming too much to regard these men as the descendants
of the original inhabitants whom the Hebrews had conquered. From the age of the
Captivity, therefore, the population of Judaea had a thinner stream of Jewish
blood in their veins than the Babylonian exiles, who were more or less the
Jewish aristocracy, the cream of the people, as it were. This was indeed the
view that obtained currency in later times. Even in Judaea itself it was
admitted that the Babylonian Jews were of the very best stock, and an old
Jewish saying helped to confirm the belief. “The Jews in the Roman Diaspora
compared as to their descent with those in Judaea are like the mixed dough to
the pure flour, but Judaea itself is only dough compared with Babylon.”4 And R. Ezekiel (220–299) excuses that good
man, Ezra, for having returned to Palestine by saying that he took the families
of doubtful origin away with him, and so left those that remained free from the
danger of mixing with them(!).5
We come then to this conclusion. The Exile was a kind of
selective process whereby the best elements of Jewry, never favourable to an
economy of settled life, were forced to revivethe inherent nomad instincts
within them, and to gain their livelihood as townsmen, i.e., traders.
This does not mean that none of them became husbandmen. Far from it. The
Babylonian Talmud certainly makes it appear that some devoted themselves to
agriculture, but the conditions must have been those prevalent in Palestine,
where an aristocracy of wealth lived in the towns on the work of (non-Jewish?)
peasants. Such at any rate is the impression of the typical state of affairs.
But there were exceptions too. Do we not read of many an ancient Rabbi who
himself walked behind the plough? What is of consequence, however, is that the
prevailing conditions in the Exile were by no means exceptional. On the
contrary, they were normal. Even before the Exile many Jews had settled in
Egypt and other lands in a kind of voluntary Diaspora. Those who left Palestine
were no doubt the men in whom the old nomadic instincts were not yet quite
dead, and their self-imposed exile only called them forth the more. We never
find these wandering Jews, be their origin Judaea or Palestine, establishing
agricultural colonies or independent settlements of any sort, as most other
emigrants did. But what do we find? That Jewish settlers scattered themselves
in all corners of the inhabited globe among foreign nations, preferably in the
large towns, where they sought their livelihood.6
We never hear of their return to their native hearth after having saved
up sufficient money to keep them in affluence, as the Swiss, Hungarian or
Italian emigrants do to-day. The only bonds that bound them with home were
religious. If they ever do go back, it is only at the annual Passover
pilgrimage, like real nomads that they are.
Little by little Palestine ceased to be the centre of Jewish
life, and Jews became more and more scattered. Even as late as the destruction
of the Second Temple (70 A.D.), the Jews in the Diaspora outnumbered those
in Judaea. Perhaps there was some reason for this. That the country, even when
it was most densely populated, could maintain more than a million, or a million
and a half souls is scarcely likely. (Today the inhabitants number at most
650,000.) As for Judaea, it had no more than 225,000 inhabitants, and Jerusalem
no more than 25,000.7 There certainly was
a larger number outside Palestine already at the commencement of the Common
Era. In the Egypt of the Ptolemies it is said that out of a total population of
seven or eight millions, one million were Jews.8 Nor
was Egypt unique in this respect. It would have been difficult indeed to name
one spot which, in the words of Strabo quoted by Josephus, was not inhabited
and dominated (!) by Jews. Philo gives a list of countries that had a Jewish
population in his day, and adds that they were settled in numerous cities of
Europe, Asia, Lybia, on the mainland and on islands, on the coast and inland.
We hear the same thing from a Sibylline Oracle, composed towards the end of the
2nd century,9 while Jerome informs us that
they were to be found “from sea to sea, from the British to the Atlantic
Oceans, from the West to the South, from the North to the East, the world
through.”10 How densely packed they were
in the Rome of the early Empire may be gathered from the account of the visit
of King Herod to the capital of the Caesars, wherein we are told that no less
than 8000 Jews resident in Rome accompanied him to Augustus. Again, in the year
19 A.D.,
4000 freedmen of military age who “professed the Egyptian and Jewish
superstition” were sentenced to be deported to Sardinia.”
But enough. No matter how many Jews were in the Diaspora in the
pre-Christian age, so much is certain, that when the Second Temple fell, Israel
was already scattered over the face of the earth.12
Nor did the antheap become quiescent in the Middle Ages; for Jewish
wanderings continued apace. That, too, is certain.
What direction did the wanderings take? About the end of the 5th
century Babylon was emptied, at first slowly and then with speed, the Jews
migrating to all points of the globe—to Arabia, India and Europe. Again in the
13th century streams of emigrants from England, France and Germany journeyed
partly to the Pyrenean Peninsula, where there was already a large number of
Jews from Palestine and Babylon, and partly to the kingdoms of Eastern Europe,
which were likewise not without their Jewish inhabitants, who had settled there
as far back as the 8th century, having arrived from the Byzantine Empire via
the Black Sea. Then, towards the end of the Middle Ages, Spain and Portugal
on the one hand and Russia and Poland on the other were the two great basins
outside the Orient wherein the Jews had settled. From each of these the
wandering commenced afresh; we have already seen what course it took. The
Spanish Jews first, then, after the Cossack pogroms in the 17th century, the
Russian Jews began to disperse over the earth. This process of emigration from
Russia and Poland was a steady one, until towards the end of the 19th century
there was a volcanic eruption and hundreds of thousands sought a refuge in the
New World.13
So this people was driven from place to place—tribe of the
wandering foot whose fate has been so touchingly expressed in the legend of the
Wandering Jew.14 The constant insecurity
of their position made it impossible for them to think of settling down on the
soil. As a matter of fact, however, they seldom had any inclination that way.
All that we know of Jewish life in the Diaspora points to the conclusion that
only an insignificant number of Jews devoted themselves to agriculture even in
those lands where no difficulties were placed in their path. Perhaps Poland in
the 16th century is the best instance. There they appear to have taken up farming.
But even in Poland they showed a preference for city life. For every 500
Christian merchants in the Polish towns of the period there were to be found
3200 Jewish merchants.15
Yes, they became town-dwellers—whether voluntarily or by stress
of circumstances is of no consequence—and town-dwellers they have remained.
More than half the Jews of the world to-day are to be found in cities with over
50,000 inhabitants. In Germany this applies to about 43.6 per cent. of the Jews
(1900), in Italy, Switzerland, Holland and Denmark to about four-fifths, and to
all the Jews of England and the United States.
Now the modern city is nothing else but a great desert, as far
removed from the warm earth as the desert is, and like it forcing its
inhabitants to become nomads. The old nomadic instincts have thus through the
centuries been called forth in the Jew by the process of adapting himself to
his environment, while the principle of selection has only tended to strengthen
those instincts. It is clear that in the constant changes to which the Jews
were subjected, not those among them that had an inclination to the
comfortable, settled life of the farmer were the ones likely to survive, but
rather those in whom the nomadic instincts were strong.
This hot-blooded, restless people that had wandered not forty,
but four thousand years in the wilderness came at last to its Canaan, to its
promised land, where it should be able to repose from all its travels— it came
to the Northern countries, meeting nations there who, while the Jews were
hurrying from one oasis to another, had dwelt on their soil and smelt of the
earth, who differed from the Jews as a horse of the Ardennes differs from a
fiery Arab charger.
It will soon be of little moment whether the nations of Northern,
Central and Eastern Europe are called Aryans or by some other name. The latest
researches, it is true, would make it appear that most of them were indeed
Aryans.16 But the name tells us nothing.
What is of importance is that they were all peoples from the cold North, and
never able to acclimatize themselves in the warm lands of the South.17 To consider them as Aryans is misleading. For
then we shall have to include the dark Indian too, and obviously the fair,
blue-eyed Europeans have little in common with him, except perhaps their
language. In other respects they have peculiarities all their own. What these
are may easily be seen by looking at those peoples as they are to-day, and if
we had to characterize them in one word which should be in contrast to desert it
would be forest. Forest and desert are indeed the two great opposites which sum
up differences in countries and their inhabitants. Forests are of the
North—those Northern forests with the murmur of their brooks, where the mist
clings fast to the tree-trunks and the toads have their habitation “in the dank
moss and the wet stones,” where in winter the faint sunlight glistens on the
rime and in summer the song of birds is everywhere. To be sure, there were
forests on Lebanon’s height, as there are forests today in the South of Italy.
But who that has set foot in a Southern forest will not at once perceive that
it has small affinity with the forests of the North, will not at once realize
that “even in Italy the forest tells the heart and the eye something very different
from the Alpine forest, or that on the Baltic shore? The South Italian forest
is full of harmonies, permeated with clear light and ineffable blue, pliant and
yet vigorous in its aiming skyward and in its bending before the moaning wind;
it seems a sacred grove” (Hehn). But our Northern forests—they have a charm and
a mystery about them at once intimate and fearful. Desert and forest, sand and
marsh—those are the great opposites, depending in the long run on differences
in the moisture of the air, and so creating dissimilar environments for the
activities of man. In the one case the Fata Morgana is Nature’s symbol, in the
other the cloud of mist.
In olden times the characteristics of the Northern climes were
even more strongly marked than to-day. The Romans’ picture of Germany shows us
a rude land, covered with bogs and dense forests, a land of leaden skies, with
a misty and moist atmosphere, whose winters are long and wildly stormy. For
thousands of years peoples and races (our ancestors) dwelt in the damp woods,
the bogs, the mists, the ice and the snow and the rain. They hewed down the
woods, made the land habitable and pitched then” tents where axe and plough had
gained for them a strip of the wilds. From the very fast they seemed to be
rooted in the soil; from the very first it would seem that tillage was never
quite absent. But even if we try to imagine these Northern folk as “nomads,”
theirs is a very different kind of life from that of a Bedouin tribe. We feel
that they are more tied to the hearth than even an agricultural people in an
oasis-land. The Northerners are settlers even when they only breed cattle; the
Bedouins are always nomads, even though they till the soil. This is so because
man is brought into closer touch with Nature in the North than in the hot
countries. Man is part and parcel of Nature even if he only beats the woods as
a huntsman, or as a shepherd breaks a path through the thickets for his flocks.
I am inclined to say, even at the risk of being ridiculed as a modern mystic, that
in the North there are between Nature and even the most prosaic of men tender
bonds of love and friendship, unknown to the Southerner. In the South, as has
been rightly observed, man regards Nature only as an instrument in the work of
civilization. Even when he is a tiller of the soil, he is a stranger to Nature.
In the South there is no country life, no living in and with Nature, no
attachment to bush and tree, heath and meadow, wild creature and free bird.
Is it not clear that these varying and varied environments must
produce different results, must influence men in different ways? Would it be
too much to assume that the Jewish characteristics as we have seen them have
been affected by, nay, have even received their peculiar impress from the
thousands of years of wandering in the wilderness? The answer of course is yes,
and if in the following pages I try to prove it, I must nevertheless admit that
the present state of our knowledge of biology is inadequate to show how environment
has bearing on the anatomical and physiological character of man, and therefore
also on his psychical disposition. The direction which our inquiries under this
head should take has been laid down by Juan Huarte de San Juan, that wise old
16th-century Spanish physician whom I have already mentioned, in his splendid
book, Examen de ingenios, in which he makes a serious attempt (the first
of its kind) to give a biological and psychological explanation of Jewish
characteristics by referring to the vicissitudes of the Jewish people. The
ideas of this profound thinker, who treated of some of the problems of human
selection in a manner which for that period was certainly remarkable, appear to
me to be worth saving from an undeserved oblivion, and I shall here give them
in outline.18
Huarte mentions four causes which contributed to make the Jews
what they are: (1) A hot climate. (2) An unfruitful soil. (3) The peculiar food
of the people during their forty years’ wandering in the wilderness: they
subsisted on Manna; the water they drank was exceedingly pure, and the air they
breathed very rare. In such circumstances there was a tendency (as Aristotle
had already pointed out) for children to be born who were keen of intellect (hombre
de muy agudo ingenio). (4) “When the Children of Israel entered into
possession of the Promised Land they were faced with so many difficulties,
scarcity, hostile raids, conquests and tribulations of all sorts, that the
misery of it had the effect of adding to their intellectual genius a fiery, dry
and parched temperament.… Continual melancholy and a never-ending wretchedness
together resulted in collecting the blood in the brain, the liver and the
heart, and a process of blood consuming and burning ensued.… This produced much
burnt black gall (melancolia por adustion). Of this almost all the Jews
still have a great deal and it results ... in craft, cunning and spite (solercia,
astucia, versacia, malicia).” The author then proceeds to answer the
objection, that in the three thousand years since their feeding on Manna the
Jews very probably lost the characteristics they then acquired, by saying that
once certain tendencies enter into the system they become second nature and are
passed on for many generations. He is ready to admit, however, that possibly
the Jews are not quite as sagacious as they used to be.
Into the depths to which the Madrid physician descends I cannot
take the reader. We should not find anything but unproved theories there. We
shall therefore remain above ground and content ourselves with noting the
connexion between Jewish psychological qualities and the vicissitudes of the
Jewish people.
The intellectuality of the Jew, we saw, was his most striking
attribute, the one which embraced many others. It can be very easily accounted
for when we recall that from the very earliest period of their history, when
they tended their flocks beside the still waters, the Jews never had to perform
hard manual labour. The curse that fell on Adam and Eve when they were expelled
from the Garden of Eden, that man should eat bread in the sweat of his face,
did not at any time bear heavily on the Jew—that is, if we take the words in
their literal meaning and exclude mental worry and anxiety. Shepherd life calls
for care, combination and organization, and all subsequent vocations which the
Jews adopted (whether voluntarily or forcibly is of no consequence) demanded
but little bodily work, though much mental effort. The family history of most
of us leads through two or three generations to the plough or the anvil or the
spinning-wheel. Not so with the Jews. For centuries and more they were for the
most part never peasants or craftsmen, never makers of anything, but only
thinkers—brain-workers. It was therefore only to be expected that certain gifts
and capacities should be developed in them in the course of time. Given the
Jewish mode of life, an exceptional intellectuality cannot but be deduced from
it.
But more than this: the special Jewish intellectuality is of a
kind associated with sandy or stony deserts. The Jews are rational, are fond of
abstraction. Once more we are reminded of the contrast between desert and
forest, between North and South. The sharp outlines of the landscape in hot,
dry countries, their brilliant sunshine and their deep shadows, their clear,
starlit nights and their stunted vegetation—cannot all these be summed up in
the one word abstraction? The opposite to this is surely what is concrete, as
all things of the North are, where the water flows abundantly, where the
landscape is as varied as it is rich, where Nature is prolific in wood and
field, and the earth sends up its fragrance. Is it accidental that astronomy
and the art of reckoning first arose in the hot lands where the nights are ever
brilliant, and was developed among peoples whose pastoral pursuits taught them
to count? Can we think of the Sumerians who invented the cuneiform script19 as a Northern people? Or, on the other hand,
can we imagine the peasant of the misty North as he follows his plough, or the
huntsman chasing deer in the forest, as either of them able to conceive the
abstract idea of numbers?
So with rational thinking and searching after causes. That also
leads us into the world of the South with its artificially produced, never
natural vegetation, with the eternal insecurity of Bedouin life as the
dominating factor of existence. And contrariwise, tradition is associated with
the comfortable, secure and peaceful existence of the Northern farmer and with
his misty and mysterious surroundings. That the appreciation of life and growth
should be able to develop, or at least to develop more freely, among the
luxuriant Nature of the North than among the dead vegetation of the South is
not at all unlikely. And as the desert, so the town, in depriving man of his
piece of fruitful mother earth destroys in him the feeling of communion with
all living things, breaks the bond of fellowship between him and animals and
plants, and so deadens all true understanding of organic Nature. On the other
hand, the city sharpens his intellectual capacities, enabling him to search, to
spy-out, to organize, to arrange. To be constantly on the alert is the nature
of the nomad; to have to be constantly on the alert was what their fate forced
on the Jews—to be constantly alive to new possibilities, new goals, new
combinations of events; in a word, to order life with some end in view.
The Jew is adaptable and mobile. Adaptability and mobility are
the principal qualities the nomad must possess if he is to survive the struggle
for existence. Your settled peasant could not make any use of these virtues.
“The law of desert life prescribes the greatest mobility both of person and of
property. Camel and steed must be able to carry the nomad and all his substance
speedily from one halting-place to the next, for his stock of provisions is not
great and is soon exhausted, and besides he must be able to flee from the
onslaughts of his foe with the rapidity of a lightning flash… This mobility
even in ordinary circumstances necessitates a certain measure of organizing
talent on the part of the tribal leaders.”20 (The
soil tiller has no need of this.) “The plough and the ox seem lazy things
enough when compared with the lance, the arrow and the horse of the nomad.”21 So too the country when compared with the
town. Turn to the history of the Jews, and observe how from the moment they
crossed the Jordan until this very day towns have engendered in them a high
degree of mobility.
Always then we have the contrast between the nomad and the
dweller by the hearth, the contrast to which may be ascribed, on the one hand
determination to reach some goal, on the other, joy in work for what it is
worth. In the case of the Jews their thousand years’ wanderings only developed
this nomad virtue in them. The promised land throughout their journeyings was
always before them; it was always something to be reached, something to be
achieved, something to which they looked forward, like a traveller who has no
delight in his wandering. The more hopeless the present became, the richer were
the blessings which the future held out; everything that was was accounted as a
bubble, all reality as without content, all action as senseless; only the
result of action—success, the end in view—had a value. In this chain of
tendencies the stress laid on results was to a large extent responsible for the
utilization of money for lending purposes, and, indeed, for the whole of the
capitalistic nexus. The importance attached by the Jew to results of action may
have been cause and effect at once of their capitalistic undertakings.
Now, for the attainment of some given end, no less than for
mobility, a large measure of physical and intellectual energy is essential. The
first ancestors of the Jews must have been possessed of a great deal, and the
sojourn of the Jews amid Northern peoples only served to increase it still
more. It is plainly manifest that the contact with the North perfected the
inherent powers of the Jew. One need but compare his achievements here with
those in Southern lands to see the truth of this statement. The process of
selection, by weeding out the unfit, only made bodily and mental energy still
more the possession of a people whose Southern origin already inclined them to
it.
As the spirits of the two types of peoples differed, so also
their respective expressions. Water, wood and fragrant earth have their fairy
tales, their myths, their songs; so have desert and oasis. Delightful as it
would be to follow this side-issue, we can here only call attention to it and
perforce pass on to the consideration of the different economic system
associated with each type of people.
The economic differences may be traced, at bottom, to the
contrast between the nomadic and the agricultural life, between Saharaism and
“Sylvanism.” From the wood which is cleared, from the marsh which is drained,
from the soil which the ploughshare turns up arose that economic organization
of society which was dominant in Europe before Capitalism came—the feudal,
manorial system, resting on the ideas that production should be only for
consumption, that every man should have his niche to work in, and that every
society should have differences in status. The peasant’s holding, strictly
marked off as it was from his neighbour’s, gave prominence to the idea of each
man’s limited sphere of activities, of “the estate to which it had pleased God
to call him”; there he was to remain and work in the traditional way.
From the endless wastes of sand, from the pastoral pursuits,
springs the opposite way of life—Capitalism. Economic activities here are not
circumscribed for each man, but are those of the breeder (shepherd) with his
boundless outlook, where to-morrow may undo the work of today, but where also
in a few years’ time stock may increase tenfold. Sheep and kine multiply
quickly, but as quickly they may be decimated by hunger or disease. Hence, only
in the shepherd’s calling, never in the farmer’s, could the idea of gain have
taken root, and the conception of unlimited production have become a reality.
Only in the shepherd’s calling could the view have become dominant that in
economic activities the abstract quantity of commodities matters, not whether
they are fit or sufficient for use. Only in the shepherd’s calling was counting
a prime necessity. Moreover, the rationalism which, as we have seen, is inseparable
from nomadic life, here entered into play, and it is not too much to say that
“Nomadism” is the progenitor of Capitalism. The relation between Capitalism and
Judaism thus becomes more clear.
Now desert and wandering, though they influenced the Jewish
character in no small degree, were not the only forces which moulded the Jewish
spirit. There were others, not as effective as the first, but supplementary to
them.
The first was money, of which the Jews were the guardians. This
left its mark on their nature, but at the same time it was in consonance with
it. For in money, the two factors that go to make up the Jewish spirit are
united—desert and wandering, Saharaism and Nomadism. Money is as little
concrete as the land from which the Jews sprang; money is only a mass, a lump,
like the flock; it is mobile; it is seldom rooted in fruitful soil like the
flower or the tree. Their constant concern with money distracted the attention
of the Jews from a qualitative, natural view of life to a quantitative, abstract
conception. The Jews fathomed all the secrets that lay hid in money, and found
out its magic powers. They became lords of money, and, through it, lords of the
world—as I tried to describe in the first chapter of this book.
Did they go in search of money, or was it first forced upon them
and did they then gradually accustom themselves to the stranger? Both
explanations, it would seem, have much in their favour.
In the beginning it looks as though a great deal of money flowed
into their possession almost naturally—or more correctly stated, the precious
metals, which they afterwards turned into coin. I believe it has never yet been
pointed out that large quantities of gold and silver must have accumulated in
Palestine in the period of the Kings. We are told of David that he brought back
from his raiding expeditions much of both metals, not to mention the tribute he
received in gold and silver. “And Joram brought with him vessels of silver and
vessels of gold and vessels of brass; these also did King David dedicate unto
the Lord with the silver and gold that he dedicated of all the nations which he
subdued” (2 Sam. viii. 10–11).
The stories we read of the use of gold and silver, both in the
making of the Tabernacle and in the building of the Temple, border on the
fabulous, and apparently it was no exaggeration to say that “the King made
silver and gold to be in Jerusalem as stones” (2 Chron. i. 15)—certainly not
when we remember the exact statistical information on the subject. The voyages
of King Solomon’s ships to Ophir must have opened up a veritable California in
those days. No wonder that the prophet Isaiah lamented that “their land is full
of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures” (Isa. ii. 7).
What happened to all these quantities of the precious metals? The
Rabbis of the Talmud considered this question and came to the conclusion that
it remained with Israel. “This is what R. Alexandrai taught. Three things
returned whence they came: Israel, Egypt’s money (cf. Exod. xii. 35 and 1 Kings
xiv. 25) and the tablets of the Ark.”22 But
of course a more convincing proof will hardly be adducible. Be that as it may,
the important thing is that an enormous supply of the precious metals had
accumulated in Israel at an early stage in its history. To this was added the
moneys obtained through the centuries in all parts of the world. Nor must we
overlook the streams of treasure that were directed to Palestine, partly as
Temple taxes and partly as the offerings of pious pilgrims. Cicero (pro
Flacco, c. 28) deplored the large sums that were annually taken to
Jerusalem from Italy and all the provinces. Both channels must have given no
small yield, as would appear from several interesting incidents. Mithridates,
for instance, seized 800 talents of the Temple taxes and deposited them in the
island of Cos. Cicero relates that Flaccus captured while on its way to
Jerusalem the money which the Jews of four cities of Asia Minor (Apamea,
Laodicea, Pergamum and Adramyttium) had sent, and that the spoil from the
first-named city alone amounted to a hundred pounds of gold. And then the
pilgrims! Their number must have been exceedingly large, though it was not
quite 2,700,000, as Josephus reports, and though there were not quite 380
synagogues in Jerusalem for the convenience of the visitors. Certain it is,
however, that the pilgrim bands were like reservoirs from which money flowed in
all directions, and many a man must have become wealthy and therefore able to
lend money at interest. Perhaps the priests may be instanced; we are told that
they generally obtained large dowries and were not disinclined for a little
money-lending business.23
The next question of importance is whether the Jews themselves
discovered the secret power of money, whether it was they who instituted the
mechanism of lending, or whether they learnt it from the Babylonians. It seems
pretty well established now that money circulated freely in
So much then for money as one factor in Jewish development. I
come now to another, which some regard as of even greater import. I refer to
the Ghetto.
The Ghetto undoubtedly influenced the social status of the Jews
in a very peculiar way: it made of them despised pariahs. Even to-day the
greater portion of Ghetto Jews belong socially to the lower classes, and are so
considered by their brethren in faith. At one time in their history the
contrast between the Ghetto Jew and his liberated brother found tangible expression
in the attitude of the Sephardim (Spanish Jews) towards the Ashkenazim (German
Jews). The former looked down on the latter with contempt, regarding them as
importunate beggars who were a nuisance. This is the vein of bitter sarcasm in
which a German Jew wrote to a Portuguese co-religionist about the middle of the
18th century (when the relation between the two sections was most strained)24: “I am aware. Sir, that the Portuguese Jews
have nothing in common with those of Germany except a religious rite, and that
their upbringing and their manners utterly differentiate between them as far as
social life is concerned. I am also aware that the affinity between the two is
a tradition of very ancient date, and that Vercingentorix, the Gaul, and
Arminius, the German, were nearer relatives to Herod’s father-in-law than you
are to the Son of Ephraim.” Pinto, the Sephardi Jew, expresses himself in a
similar tone in his well-known reply to the attacks which Voltaire made on the
Jews as a whole.25 Pinto is anxious that
the Spanish Jews should not be put in the same boat as the German Jews; they
are two distinct nations. “A Jew of London,” he says, “as little resembles a
Jew of Constantinople as the latter does a Chinese Mandarin. A Portuguese Jew
of Bordeaux and a German Jew of Metz have nothing in common.” “Mons. de
Voltaire cannot ignore the delicate scruples of the Portuguese and Spanish Jews
in not mixing with the Jews of other nations, either by marriage or otherwise.”
Pinto proceeds to say that if a Sephardi Jew in Holland or England were to make
a German Jewess his wife, his relatives would disown him and he would not even
be given burial in their cemetery.
This opposition very often found practical expression, more
especially on the part of the Sephardim, who in their own eyes were the
aristocracy of Jewry and who were afraid lest their social position should be
endangered by the arrival of Jews from more easterly countries. Thus, in 1761
the Portuguese Jews (or Marannos) of Bordeaux were able to get an order passed
to the effect that within fourteen days all alien Jews were to leave the city.
Pinto and Pereira were the prime movers in the matter, and they used every
endeavour to rid themselves of the “vagabonds”—their own co-religionists from
Germany and France.26 In Hamburg the
Sephardim occupied a position of official superiority over the German Jews; the
latter having to give undertakings to the former that no shady commercial
practices would be carried on.
The reason for the dislike between the Sephardim and the
Ashkenazim, more especially of the former towards the latter, may be found in
the different social positions occupied by each. But no doubt the feeling was
strengthened by the distinctly marked aristocratic consciousness of the
Sephardim, who held that they were of purer origin than the Ashkenazim, that
their blood was bluer, that their family pride had always been a spur to them
as long as they lived in the Pyrenean Peninsula to do noble deeds, and had thus
been a protection against all things base.27
We have here possibly touched on a chord which will help us to
apprize at its true worth the influence of the Ghetto for Jewish life. Perhaps
the conception of noblesse obligeheld by the Spanish and Portuguese
Jews—their aim to make the highest virtues theirs—may explain why they had no
Ghettos, and will not need to be regarded as an effect of Ghetto life. In other
words, perhaps a section of the Jews lived the Ghetto life because they were by
nature inclined that way. It is difficult to say why some continued in the
Ghetto while others soon freed themselves. We have not sufficient information
for the decision. Nor can we assert without hesitation (though much would seem
to point to it) that the Sephardim represented the result of a process of
social selection among Jews. But it is not assuming too much to say that
differences in their vicissitudes are traceable to differences in their
natures. These differences must not, however, be made too much of. Their
Jewishness was little influenced by them. Jews they were all, whether Sephardim
or Ashkenazim. But in the case of the latter. Ghetto life produced certain
habits, certain mannerisms which always clung to the Ghetto Jew, and often
affected his economic activities. In part they were the habits of low social
grades generally, but in Jews, with their peculiar temperament, they assumed
curious features—a tendency, for instance, to petty cheating, obtrusiveness,
lack of personal dignity, tactlessness and so on. These things must have played
some part in the Jewish conquest of the feudal economic strongholds; in what
way precisely we have already had occasion to see.
But these mere externals must not be exaggerated. In social
intercourse with Jews they may appear of some importance to this or that
person; but we doubt whether any great weight should be attached to them in
considering Jewish economic achievements. Without question the Jews could not
have won their dominant position in the world by the aid of these mannerisms
alone.
Another aspect of Ghetto life is of more consequence. I refer to
its influence in making the inherent Jewish characteristics more marked and
more one-sided. If, as we have already observed, these characteristics sprang
from a want of settledness on the part of the Jew, it is obvious that the
Ghetto only intensified it. But it was already there, already innate in the
Jew.
The Ghetto had the same effect in another direction by giving
prominence to, and emphasizing the twin forces which were responsible for the
constancy in Jewish peculiarities—religion and pure breeding.
The religion of a people is, of course, the expression of its
soul: that has been the view that we have taken in this book. But all the same,
an exclusive formalistic religion like Judaism must in its turn strongly
influence its adherents, more especially in the direction of unifying their
life and giving it a common stamp. How this expressed itself we have also
considered; I would here only remind the reader of its rationalizing
tendencies.
And as with religion so with the physiological side of life,
which is so closely akin to it. That also intensified the inbreeding of the
Jews, which they had practised for hundreds of years.
I have just remarked that with the Jews inbreeding is closely
akin to religion. One may go even further and say that it is a direct
consequence of the central idea of the religion, the idea of election. This has
been demonstrated recently in a series of studies, one of the best of which
perhaps is by Alfred Nossig, who writes as follows:28
“A striking biological result of the idea of election is the existence
of the Jews, and their power of reproduction, not yet abated. The Mosaic
conception of ‘an everlasting people’ would seem to be realizing itself.”
Dietary and marriage laws are safeguards for the continuance of the race.
“These ethical treasurers of highest worth were of course shielded against
destruction through intermixture with less carefully reared races. The result
of the prohibition of mixed marriages was that the factor which is supreme in race
culture—heredity—was maintained in its pristine strength, and the advantages
that have been mentioned not merely remained constant but increased from
generation to generation.” “Inbreeding has thus resulted in making Jewish
inherited characteristics more and more marked and intense, so that it becomes
exceedingly difficult to oust them by intermixture. For it has been proved that
the intensity of heredity, like all other organic functions, has become
strengthened by constant practice.”29
Religion and inbreeding were the two iron hoops that bound the Jewish people and kept them as one body through the centuries. Suppose that the hoops were to become loose, what then? To answer this very difficult question was not the task I set myself. For as long as we find the Jews exercising their particular influence on economic life— and they still do so—we may take it that the hoops are yet strong. I did not in this book intend to go beyond considering that influence, and showing the genesis of the Jewish genius which made it possible—that influence which has been so fateful in economic life and for modern culture as a whole.
Abbreviations
Monatsschrift =
Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums.
J.Q.R. = Jewish
Quarterly Review.
Z.D.S.J. == Zeitschrift für
Demographic und Statistik der Juden.
R.E.J. = Revue des Etudes
Juives.
Chapter 1
1. Jakob Fromer, Das Wesen des Judentums (1905), p. 144. No
authority cited.
2. Zeitschrift für
Demographie und Statistik der Juden [Z.D.S.J.] iii., 140, 145.
3. J. Thon, “Taufbewegung
der Juden in Oesterreich,” in Z.D.S.J.,
iv., 6.
4. Theophile Malvezin, Histoire
des Juifs {I Bordeaux (1875), p. 105.
5. E.g., Lucien Wolf, “Jessurun Family” in Jewish Quarterly Review [J.Q.R.J.]
i. (1889), 439.
6. E.g., B. C. Weiss, Histoire
des réfugées protest., i. (1853), pp. 164, 377, 379, 383; ii., 5.
7. Sigmund Mayer, Die
ökonomische Entwicklung der Wiener Juden, p. 7.
Chapter 2
1. To give the numbers of Jews who were scattered in different
lands is impossible. Attempts to do this have indeed been made, but the results
were nothing more than conjectures. Perhaps the best of these is I. Loeb, Le
nombre des Juifs de
Supplementary to these figures let me quote the report of the well-informed
Venetian Ambassador, who says, “Si giudica in Castilia ed in altre province di
Spagna il terzo esser Marrani un terzo dico di coloro che sono cittadini e
mercanti perchè il populo minuto è vero cristiano, e cosi la maggior parte
delli grandi.” Vicenzo Querini (1506) in Alberi, Rel. degli Amb., Series
I, vol. L, p. 29.
2. For the fate of the Marannos in Portugal see M. Kayserling, Geschichte
der Juden in Portugal (1876), pp. 84, 167. Further particulars may be found
in J. H. Gottheil’s The Jews and the Spanish Inquisition, in J.Q.R.,
xv. (1903), p. 182; in Elkan Adier’s Auto da Fè and Jew, ib., xiii.,
xiv., xv. (recently issued in book form).
3. Cf. B. Sieveking, Genueser Firanzwesen, ii. (1899), p.
167, with Schudt, Jüdische Merkwürdigkeiten, i. (1714), p. 128.
4. Frankfort (Main) was the goal of the Jews expelled from the
other South-German towns in the 15th and 16th centuries. But Holland must also
have contributed its quota, as would appear from the close commercial relations
between Frankfort and Amsterdam in the 17th and 18th centuries. According to P.
Bothe, Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsund Socialgeschichte der Reichsstadt
In Hamburg the Jews first settled (ostensibly as Catholics) in 1577 or 1583.
They came from Flanders, Italy, Holland, Spain and Portugal, and it was not
until the 17th century that immigrants from the East (Germany especially) began
to arrive. According to Count Galeazzo Gualdo Priorato there were some 40 or 50
German-Jewish houses in Hamburg in 1663 side by side with the 120 of Portuguese
Jews. See Zeitschrift für Hamburgische Geschichte, iii., p. 140. For a
general account of the Jews of Hamburg, see A. Feilehenfeld, Die älteste
Geschichte der deutschen Juden in Hamburg, in the Monatsschrift für
Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, vol. 43 (1899); also M.
Grunwald, Portugiesengräber auf deutscher Erde (1902) and Hamburgs
deutsche Juden (1904).
From the end of the 17th century onward the Jews increased rapidly in Hamburg.
About the middle of the 18th century we hear of a “terrible crowd of Jews,”
estimated (much too highly, of course) at between twenty and thirty thousand.
Cf. C. L. von Griesheim, Die Stadt Hamburg (1760), p. 47.
5. Risbeck, Briefe eines reisenden Franzosen über Deutschland
an seinen Bruder in Paris (1780). Quoted in H. Scheubbe, Aus den Tagen
unserer Grossväter (1873), pp. 382 ff.
6. We have a wealth of information about the Jews in Bordeaux in
the fine work of Malvezin (cf. Chapter 2), which is really invaluable. Of the
Jews in
We ought to mention also Maignial, La Question juive en France en 1789 (1903),
a book based on an extensive acquaintance with sources, written with skill and
judgment. Not only does it present a good account of the Jewish Question in
France in 1789, but it also shows how that problem developed.
In Paris there were not many Jews before the 19th century, though some of them
were very influential. A good deal of information will be found concerning the
Jews of Paris in the 18th century in the books of Leon Kahn, Les juifs à
Paris depuis le vi siècle (1889); Les juifs sous Louis XV (1892),
and Les juifs à Paris au xviii siècle (1894). Good as these books are,
they do not deal with every aspect of the question.
Much valuable material dealing with the history of the Jews in France will be
found scattered in the Revue des Études Juives [R.E.J.] (from 1880
onwards).
7. The history of the Jews in Holland has been treated by H. J.
Koenen, Geschiedenes der Joden in Nederland (1843), which has not been
surpassed. Also worth mentioning are the following: M. Henriques Pimentel, Geschiedkundige
Aanteekeningen betreffende de Portugesche Israeliten in den Haag (1876); S.
Back, Die Entstehungsgeschichte der portugiesischen Gemeinde in Amsterdam (1883);
E. Italie, Geschiedenes der Israelitischen Gemeente te Rotterdam (1907).
8. Ranke, Französische Geschichte, vol. iii., p. 350.
9. Schudt, Jüdische Merkwürdigkeiten. i. (1714), p. 271;
cf. also p. 277.
10. In addition to the literature mentioned in note 6, see also
Carmoly in the Revue Orientate (1841) i., 42, 168, 174, and Graetz, Geschichte
der Juden, vol. 9, pp. 292, 354, 490.
11. See L. Guiccardino, Totius Belgii Descriptio (1652),
p. 129, and cf. Ehrenberg, Zeiltalter der Fugger, ii. (1896), p. 3.
12. Cf. Macaulay’s [History] iv., p. 320, and Ehrenberg, op.
cit., ii., p. 303.
13. The history of the Jews in England has been abundantly and
efficiently dealt with. A mine of information (though it must be used with
care) will be found in Anglia Judaica, or the History and Antiquities
of the Jews in
A complete account of the history of the Jews in England will be found in
Albert M. Hyamson’s admirable A History of the Jews in England (1908).
The author has skilfully utilized the material at his disposal in special
articles and papers, and has presented a rounded off study of the whole
subject. The J.Q..R. (first appeared in 1889) contains much
miscellaneous material. Also the publications of the Anglo-Jewish Historical
Exhibition (1888).
For the Cromwellian period the following may be mentioned: Lucien Wolf, The
Middle Age of Anglo-Jewish History, 1290–1656, in the Publications of the
Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition, No. 1. Significant for the position of the
Jews in England at the end of the 15th century is the fact that a Jew commenced
legal proceedings quite openly and was confident of winning his case. A century
later there were Jewish industrial undertakers in England, cf. Calendar of
State Papers, 1581–90, p. 49 (quoted in L. Wolf’s paper). There must have
been quite a number of Jews in England at the beginning of the 17th century. A
publication of 1625, The Wandering Jew telling fortunes to Englishmen (also
quoted in Mr. Wolfs paper), says: “A store of Jews we have in England; a few in
Court; many i’ the city; more in the country.”
14. Anglia Judaica, p. 302, “as I have been well
inform’d,” writes Tovey.
15. A good instance is that of J. F. Richter, who works out the
thesis for Nuremberg. For the old Jewish community in Nuremberg, see Allgemeine
Judenzeitung, 1842, No. 24. Cf. also the Eighth Report of the Historische
Verein fur Mittelfranken, and M. Brann, “Eine Sammlung Fürther Grabschriften,”
in Gedenkbuch zur Erinnerung an David Kaufmann (1900).
16. A most interesting document in support is given by D.
Kaufmann in his “Die Vertreibung der Marranen aus Venedig im Jahre 1550,” in
the J.Q.R.. vol. 13 (1901), p. 520.
17. Hyamson’s History of the Jews in England, p. 174.
18. M. Bloch, Les juifs et la prosperètè publique à trovers
l’histoire (1899), p. 11. The Ordinance contains the following remarkable
words, “Vous devez bien prendre garde que la jalousie du commerce portera
toujours les marchands à être d’avis de les chasser.”
19. Malvezin, Les juifs à Bordeaux, p. 132.
20. Malvezin, p. 175.
21. S. Ullmann, Studien zur Geschichte des Juden in Belgien
bis zum 18. Jahrhundert (1909), p. 34
22. Émile Ouverleaux, “Notes et documents sur les juifs de
Belgique,” in R.E.J.; vol. 7, p. 262.
23. Thurloe, Collection of State Papers, iv, p. 333. Cf.
also the letter of Whalley, p. 308.
24. J. Müller in his anti-Jewish book, Judaismus (1644).
Cf. also Reils, “Beiträge zur älteren Geschichte der Juden in Hamburg,” in the Zeitschrift
des Vereins für Hamburgische Geschichte, vol. 2, p. 412.
25. Ehrenberg, Grosse Vermögen, p. 146.
26. M. Grunwald, Hamburgs deutsche Juden bis zur Auflösung der
Dreigemeinden, 1811 (1904), p. 21.
27. Arnold Kiesselbach, Die wirtschafts-und
rechtsgeschichtliche Entwicklung der Seeversicherung in Hamburg (1901), p.
24.
Chapter 3
1. Hyamson, p. 178.
2. Anglia Judaica, p. 292.
3. Thanks to the work of R. Markgraf, Zur Geschichte der Juden
auf den Messen in Leipzig vom 1664–1839 (a doctoral dissertation, 1894),
from which the figures in the text have been taken. For the short period
1675–99 Max Freudenthal, “Leipziger Messgäste” in Monatsschrift, vol. 45
(1901), p. 460, is even better than Markgraf, for he draws from the actual Fair
Books, where Markgraf depends on the documents in the Leipzig archives, which
are of later date. Freudenthal shows that between 1671 and 1699, 18,182 Jews
visited the fairs, apart from those who had special permits. Markgraf, however,
for the same period has traced only 14,705. Freudenthal’s study appeared in
book form in 1902 under the title of Die jüdischen Besucher der Leipziger
Messe.
4. Markgraf, p. 93; Freudenthal, p. 465. Cf. R. Punke, Die
Leipziger Messen (1897), p. 41.
5. See, for example. No. 21 of the Judenreglements of the
year 1710 in C. L. von Griesheim, Die Stadt Hamburg, Anmerkungen und Zugaben
(1759), p. 95.
6. E. Baasch, “Hamburgs Seeschiffahrt und Warenhandel” in the Zeitschrift
des Ver. für Hamburg. Geschichte, vol. 9 (1894), pp. 316, 324. Cf. A.
Feilchenfeld, “Anfang und Blutezeit der Portugiesengemeinden,” in Hambg.
Ztschrift., vol. 10 (1899), p. 199.
7. Encyclopédie methodique. “Manufactures,” i., 403–4.
8. Cf. H. J. Koenen, Geschiedenes der Joden in Nederland (1843),
p. 176 ff. Also H. Sommershausen, “Die Geschichte der Niederlassung der Juden
in Holland und den holländischen Kolonien,” in Monatsschrift, vol. ii.
9. For jewellery and pearls, see for Hamburg Griesheim, op. cit.,
p. 119; for North Germany I am indebted to Dr. Bernfeld, of Berlin, for
information; for Holland, see Jewish Encyclopedia, article “Netherlands”;
E. E. Danekamp, Die Amsterdamer Diamantindustrie, quoted by N. W. Goldstein in
his article in the Z.D.S.J. (vol. iii., p. 178) on Die Juden in der
Amsterdamer Diamantindustrie; for Italy, see D. Kaufmann, “Die Vertreibung
der Marranen aus Venedig,” in the J.Q.R.
As for silks, the Jews were for centuries engaged in this industry, which they
transplanted from Greece into Sicily and later to France and Spain. Cf. Graetz
v.2, p. 244. In the 16th century they dominated the silk trade in Italy (cf.
David Kaufmann, loc. cit.), and in the 18th century in France. In 1760 the
wardens of the Lyons Silkweavers’ Guild termed the Jewish nation “la maîresse
du commerce de toutes les provinces.” See J. Godard, L’Ouvrier en Soie (1899),
p. 224. In 1755 there were 14 and in 1759, 22 Jewish silk merchants in Paris.
See Kahn, Juifs des Paris sous Louis XV, p. 63. It was the same tale in
Berlin.
10. How the Jews developed the wholesale textile trade in Vienna
may be seen from the personal experiences of S. Mayer in his Die ökonomische
Entstehung der Wiener Juden, p. 8 ff.
An ordinance of the City Council of Nuremberg, bearing date
11. For the sugar trade with the Levant, see Lippmann, Geschichte
des Zuckers (1890), p. 206; D. Kaufmann, loc. cit.; for sugar trade with
America, see M. Grunwald, Portugiesengräber auf deutscher Erde (1902),
p. 6 ff.; A. Feilchenfeld, “Anfang und Blütezeit der Portugiesengemeinde in
Hamburg,” in the Zeitschrift des Vereins für Hamburg. Geschichte,
vol. 10 (1899), p. 211. Cf. also Risbeck, op. cit.
12. “Controlling the Cotton Trade.” See art. “America, U.S. of,”
in Jewish Encyclopedia (i. 495).
13. More especially for Hamburg, see Feilchenfeld, loc. cit.
14. Moses Lindo, the principal pioneer in the indigo trade,
arrived in South Carolina in 1756 and invested £120,000 in indigo. Between 1756
and 1776 the production of indigo increased fivefold. Cf. B. A. Elgas, The
Jews of South Carolina (1903), see also art. “South Carolina,” in Jewish
Encyclopaedia.
15. Risbeck, op. cit., vol. ii., under Frankfort.
16. Quoted by Bloch, op. cit., p. 36.
17. See Richard Markgraf, op. cit., p. 93.
18. Cf. Hyamson, pp. 174, 178. Also the report sent by the rulers
of Antwerp to the Bishop of Arras, quoted by Ullmann, op. cit., p. 35, “they
have brought much wealth with them, especially silver, jewels and many ducats.”
Chapter 4
1. When Don Isaac Abarbanel was writing his commentary on the
Book of Jeremiah (1504) he saw a document brought from India by Portuguese
spice merchants wherein it was reported that they had met many Jews in that
country. Quoted by M. Kayserling, Christopher Columbus (1894), p. 105.
Cf. also Bloch, op. cit., p. 15.
2. As Manasseh ben Israel mentions in his “Humble Address” to
Cromwell. For this document, see Jewish Chronicle, November and
December, 1859. Cf. also de Barrios, Hist. universal Judayca, p. 4.
3. G. C. Klerk de Reus, Geschichtlicher Überblick der ...
niederländischostindischen Compagnie (1894), xix. For Coen, see p. xiv.
4. J. P. J. Du Bois, Vie des Gouverneurs généraux ... ornée de
leurs portraits en vignettes au naturel (1763).
5. E.g., Francis Salvador. Cf. art. “Salvador,” in Jewish
Encycl., also Hyamson, p. 264.
6. In 1569 wealthy Amsterdam Jews furnished the Barentz
Expedition. Cf. M. Grunwald, Hamburgs deutsche Juden (1904), p. 215.
7. See art. “South Africa,” in the Jewish Encycl.
8. Dr. J. H. Hertz, The Jew in South Africa (1905).
9. Art. “Commerce” in Jewish Encycl.
10. The literature concerning Jews and America is pretty
extensive. I can only mention the most important works here. To begin with,
there is the Jewish Encyclopedia (an American publication), which has
some excellent articles relating to American conditions. Then I must mention
the Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of America (begun in 1895), a
veritable mine of information on American Jewish (also economic) history, more
especially in the colonies in North and South America in the 17th and 18th
centuries. There are some valuable speeches in The 250th Anniversary of the
Settlement of the Jews in the U.S.A. (1905).
Further, see Markeus, The Hebrews in America; C. P. Daly, History of
the Settlement of the Jews in North America (1893); M. C. Peters, The
Jews in America (1906). The first two books appear to be out of print.
11. In connexion with the 400th anniversary of the discovery of
America, a number of works have made their appearance showing to what extent
Jews participated in the actual discovery. The best of these is M. Kayserling, Christopher
Columbus und der Anteil der Juden, etc. (1894). Some others are: F. Rivas
Puiqcerver, Los Judios y el nuevo mundo (1891); L. Modona, Gil Ebrei
e la scoperta dell’ America (1893). Cf. also art. “Discovery of America,”
in Jewish Encycl., and address by Oscar Strauss in the 250th
Anniversary, etc., p. 69.
12. M. Kayserling, he. cit., p. 112; Juan Sanchez, of
13. G. F. Knapp, “Ursprung der Sklaverei in den Colonien,” in the
Archiv für Soziale Politik, ii., p. 129.
14. Oscar Strauss, loc. cit., p. 71.
15. Ritter, “Über die geographische Verbreitung des Zuckerrohrs,”
in the Berichten der Berliner Akademie (1839), quoted by Lippmann, Geschichte
des Zuckers (1890), p. 249.
16. According to Max J. Kohler, “Phases of Jewish Life in New
York before 1800,” in the Transactions of the Jewish Hist Soc. of America,
vol. ii., p. 94.
17. Art. “
18. H. Handelmann, Geschichte von Brasilien (1860), p. 412.
19. P. M. Netscher, Les Hollandais au Brésil (1853), p. 1.
For the wealthy Jewish family of Souza, cf. M. Kayserling, Geschichte der
Juden in Portugal (1867), p. 307; M. Grunwald, Portugiesengraber (1902),
p. 123.
20. M. J. Kohler, op. cit.
21. Art. “America,” in Jewish Encycl.
22. Transactions of Jewish Hist. Society of America, ii.
95. Cf. also Netscher, p. 103.
23. Ibid.
24. There was no actual expulsion; in fact the treaty of peace of
1654 granted Jews an amnesty. But the fateful words were added, “Jews and other
non-Catholics shall receive the same treatment as in Portugal.” That was
sufficient. For the treaty, see Aitzema, Historia, etc. (1626), quoted
by Netscher [see note 191, p. 163].
25. H. Handelmann, loc. cit; pp. 412–13.
26. For Jews in Barbados, see John Camden Hatten, The Original
Lists, etc. (1874), p. 449; Ligon, History of Barbados (1657),
quoted by Lippmann op. cit., p. 301; Reed, The History of Sugar and
Sugaryielding Plants (1866), p. 7; M’Culloch, Dictionary of Commerce,
ii., p. 1087. Cf. also C. P. Lucas, A Historical Geography of the British
Colonies, e.g. ii. (1905), 121, 274, 277.
27. For Jews in Jamaica, see M. Kayserling, “The Jews in
Jamaica,” etc., in the J.Q.R., vol. 12 (1900), 708 ff.; Hyamson, loc.
cit., chapter xxvi. Numerous extracts from contemporary records will be found
in Kohler’s “Jewish Activity in American Colonial Commerce,” in Transactions
of Jewish Hist. Society of America, vol. 10, p. 59. Cf. also the same
writer’s paper in the Transactions, vol. 2, p. 98.
28. The letter of the Governor to Secretary of State Lord
Arlington, quoted by Kayserling in J.Q.R., vol. 12, p. 710.
29. Monumental inscriptions of the British West Indies, collected
by Captain J. H. Lawrence Archer, quoted by Kohler, “Phases of Jewish Life,” op.
cit., p. 98.
30. For Jews in Surinam the most important authority is the Essai
sur la colonie de Surinam avec l’histoire de la Nation Juive Portugaise y
établie, etc., 2 vols., Paramaribo (1788). Koenen, in his Geschiedenes
der Joden in Nederland (1843), p. 313, speaks of this work as “de hoofdbron
… voor de geschiedenes der Joden in die gewesten.” I have not been able to see
a copy. Newer treatises on the subject have brought to light a good deal of
fresh material. We may mention R. Gottheil, “Contributions to the History of
the Jews in Surinam,” in Transactions of Jewish Hist. Society of America,
vol. 9, p. 129; J. S. Roos, “Additional Notes on the History of the Jews of
Surinam,” Transactions, vol. 13, p. 127; P. A. Hilfman, “Some Further
Notes on the History of the Jews in Surinam,” Transactions, vol. 16, p.
7. For the connexion between Surinam and Guiana see Samuel Oppenheimer, “An
Early Jewish Colony in Western Guiana, 1658– 1666, and its relation to the Jews
in Surinam,” in Transactions, vol. 16, pp. 95–186. Cf. also Hyamson, ch.
xxvi, and Lucas.
31. For Jews in Martinique, Guadeloupe, and Santo Domingo, see
Lippmann, op. cit., p. 301; A. Cahen, “Les Juifs de la Martinique au xvii sc.,”
in R.E.J., vol 2; Cahen, “Les Juifs dans les Colonies françaises au
xviii sc.,” in R.E.J., vols. 4 and 5; Handelmann, Geschichte der
Insel Hayti (1856).
32. Lucien Wolf in the Jewish Chronicle,
33. The 250th Anniversary of the Settlement of the Jews in the
U.S. (1905), p. 18.
34. The 250th Anniversary, etc.
35. John Moody, The Truth about the Trusts (1905), pp. 45,
96, etc.
36. Art. “California,” in Jewish Encycl. (which is a
particularly good one).
37. There are others who maintain that even before the Brazilian
refugees arrived a number of wealthy Jewish traders from Amsterdam settled in
the colony of the Hudson. Cf. Albion Morris Dyer, “Points in the First Chapter
of New York Jewish History,” in Transactions of Jewish Hist. Soc. of America,
vol. 3, p. 41.
38. The letter is quoted in full by Kohler, “Beginnings of New
York Jewish History,” in Transactions, vol. 1, p. 47.
39. See Transactions, vol. 1, p. 41; vol. 2, p. 78; vol.
10, p. 63; Kohler, “Jews in Newport,” Transactions, vol. 6, p. 69.
Kohler often quotes Judge Daly, Settlement of the Jews in North America (1893).
40. Address by Governor Pardell, of California, in The 250th
Anniversary, etc., p. 173.
41. See art. “Alabama,” in Jewish Encycl.
42. See art. “Albany,” in Jewish Encycl.
43. B. Felsenthal, “On the History of the Jews in Chicago,” in Transactions,
vol. 2, p. 21; H. Eliassof, ‘The Jews of Chicago,” in Transactions, vol.
2, p. 117.
44. Lewis N. Dembitz, “Jewish Beginnings in Kentucky,” in Transactions,
vol. 1, p. 99.
45. J. H. Hollander, “Some Unpublished Material relating to Dr.
Jacob Lumbrozo of Maryland,” in Transactions, vol. 1.
46. D. E. Heinemann, “Jewish Beginnings in Michigan before 1850,”
in Transactions, vol. 13, p. 47.
47. D. Philipson, ‘The Jewish Pioneers of the Ohio Valley,” in Transactions,
vol. 8, p. 43.
48. Henry Necarsulmer, “The Early Jewish Settlement at Lancaster,
Pa.,” in Transactions, vol. 3, p. 27.
49. Henry Cohen, “The Jews in Texas,” in Transactions,
vol. 4, p. 9; Henry Cohen, “Henry Castro, Pioneer and Colonist,” in Transactions,
vol. 5, p. 39. Cf. also H. Friedenwald, “Some Newspaper Advertisements in the
18th Century,” in Transactions, vol. 6.
50. “Einiges aus dem Leben der amerikanisch-jüdischen Familie
Seligman aus Bayersdorf in Bayern,” in Brüll’s Monatsblättem (1906), p.
141.
51. Leon Huhner, “The Jews of Georgia in Colonial Times,” in Transactions,
vol. 10, p. 65; Huhner, “The Jews of South Carolina from the Earliest
Settlement to the End of the American Revolution,” in Transactions, vol.
12, p. 39; Chas. C. Jones, “The Settlement of the Jews in Georgia,” in Transactions,
vol. 1, p. 12.
52. B. A. Elgas, The Jews of South Carolina (1903).
53. L. Huhner, “Asser Levy, a noted Jewish Burgher of New
Amsterdam,” in Transactions, vol. 8, p. 13. Cf. also Huhner, “Whence came
the First Jewish Settlers of New York?” in Transactions, vol. 9, p. 75;
M. J. Kohler, “Civil Status of the Jews in Colonial New York,” in Transactions,
vol. 6, p. 81.
54. For Jews who in the 18th century carried on business in their
own tongue in New York cf. J. A. Doyle, The Colonies under the House of
Hanover (1907), p. 31.
55. Chas. C. Jones, “The Settlement of the Jews in Georgia,” in Transactions,
vol. 1, pp. 6, 9.
56. M. Jaffe, “Die Stadt Posen,” in Schriften des Vereins für
S. P., vol. 119, ii. 151.
57. Simon Wolf, “The American Jew as Soldier and Patriot,” in Transactions,
vol. 3, p. 39.
58. According to Dr. Fischell’s Chronological Notes of the
History of the Jews in America.
Chapter 5
1. Perhaps our conclusion would have to be a different one if we
were to recall the fact that the elements of the modern State were already
developed in the later decades of the Middle Ages, chiefly in Italy and Spain,
and that Jewish statesmen occupied influential positions in both these
countries. It is to be regretted that the history of modern States has never
(so far as I am aware) been written from this point of view; I believe much
that is profitable would result. Of course there is little in common between
the writers on the history of the Jews in Spain and Portugal, say Lindo, de los
Rios, Kayserling, Mendes dos Remedies, and those who treat of the rise of the
State in the Pyrenean Peninsula, say Ranke or Baumgarten.
2. Lucien Wolf, ‘The First English Jewry,” in Transactions of
the Jewish Historical Society of England, vol. 2. Cf. Hyamson, pp. 171–3.
3. Hyamson, p. 269; Picciotto, Sketches of Anglo-Jewish
History (1875), p. 58.
4. “Und bedient sich Frankreich jederzeit ihrer Hülffe, bey
Krieges- Zeiten seine Reuterey beritten zu machen.” T. L. Lau, Einrichtung
der Intraden und Einkünfte der Souveräne, etc. (1719), p. 258.
5. Quoted by Liebe, Das Judentum (1903), p. 75.
6. Art. “Banking,” in Jewish Encycl.
7. Mémoire of the Jews of Metz of the 24 March, 1733,
given in part by Bloch, op. cit., p. 35.
8. Quoted by Bloch, op. cit., p. 23.
9. Extracts from the Lettres patentes, in Bloch, op. cit;
p. 24.
10. For the Gradis, see T. Malvezin, op. cit., p. 241; Graetz,
Die Familie Gradis,” in Monatsschrift, vol. 24 (1875), 25 (1875).
11. M. Capefigue, Banquiers, fournisseurs, etc. (1856),
pp. 68, 214, etc.
12. Quoted in Revue de la Révolution françcaise (1892),
16, 1.
13. Historische Nachlese zu den Nachrichten der Stadt Leipzig,
edited by M. Heinrich Engelbert Schwartze (1744), p. 122, quoted by Alphonse
Levy, Geschichte der Juden in Sachsen (1900), p. 58.
14. Bondy, Zur Geschichte der Juden in Böhmen, vol. i., p.
388.
15. I quote this from Liebe, Das Judentum (1903), pp. 43,
70, who mentions the facts without giving his authorities.
16. König, Annalen der Juden in den preussischen Staaten,
besonders in der Mark Brandenburg (1790), pp. 93–4.
17. The document of 28 June, 1777, given by A. Levy, op. cit.,
p.74; also S. Haenie, Geschichte der Juden im ehmaligen Fürstentum Ansbach (1867),
p. 70.
18. Geschichte Philanders von Sittewaldt das ist
Straffs-Schriften Hanss Wilhelm Moscherosch von Wilstätt (1677), p. 779.
19. F. von Mensi, Die Finanzen Österreichs von 1701–1740 (1890),
p. 132. Samuel Oppenheimer, “Kaiserlicher Kriegsoberfaktor und Jud” (as he was
officially styled and as he called himself), saw to the needs of the armies in
all the campaigns of Prince Eugene (p. 133).
20. Cf. for instance the petition of the Vienna Court Chancery of
21. H. Friedenwald, “Jews mentioned in the Journal of the Continental
Congress,” in Transactions of the Jewish Hist Soc. of America, vol. i,
pp. 65–89.
22. I have already mentioned the more important works on the
history (not excepting the economic history) of the Jews in England, France,
Holland and America (see notes 6, 7, 13 of Chapter1; note 10, Chapter 2); here
I would refer to those dealing with the same subject for Germany and for Spain.
There is no complete study of the history of the Jews in Germany, and we are
forced therefore to go to local monographs and essays in learned periodicals.
In any case the economic history of the German Jews has been treated in a
somewhat stepmotherly way, and we find little that is useful in such works as
L. Geyer’s Die Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, 1 vols. (1870-71). Recently
Mr. Ludwig Davidsohn, a pupil of mine, went carefully through the Berliner
Staatsarchiv for the purpose of establishing the economic position of the Jews.
The results of his labours have not yet been printed, but I have been able to
use some of them. A good deal may be found in Grunwald’s Portugiesengraber
auf deutscher Erde and his Hamburgs deutsche Juden bis zur Auflösing der
Dreigemeinde (1904). For a particular here and there one may turn (but care
is needed) to König, op. cit; as also to Die Juden in Osterreich, 2
vols. (1842).
As for learned journals, they are not of much use for economic history. The
chief of them is the Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des
Judentums (begun 1851). Others are the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums (begun
1837) and Brüll’s Populanvissenschaftliche Monatsblätter (begun 1888),
both with more or less propagandist ends in view. The Zeitschrift für
Demographie und Statistik des Judentums (begun 1905) deals with questions
of economic history only occasionally.
Sometimes one comes across papers in the general historic reviews or in local
journals which shed a flood of light on Jewish economic history. But a complete
list of these it would be impossible to give here.
The history of the Jews in Spain has been sufficiently dealt with. But
unfortunately its economic aspect has been almost entirely neglected. I know of
no more needful thing than an economic history of the Jews in the Pyrenean
Peninsula, and I wish that some economic historian would undertake to write it.
It would most certainly illuminate the general economic historyof Europe in a
most surprising fashion. For the present, however, we must perforce consult
general histories of the Jews in Spain, and of these perhaps the best is M.
Kayserling’s Geschichte der Juden in Spanien und Portugal, 2 vols.
(1861-7). The principal work in Spanish is D. José Amador de Los Rios, Historia
social, politico y religiosa de los Judios de España y Portugal, 3 vols.
(1875–8), but for our purpose it is of little use. A book of a different kind
is E. H. Lindo’s The History of the Jews of Spain and Portugal (1848).
It contains extracts from the legal enactments affecting Jews and the decisions
of the Cortes, and thus has a special value of its own.
For Portugal the most important work is now by J. Mendes dos Remedios, Os
Judeus em Portugal, vol. i. (1895) up to the expulsion.
It ought to be mentioned also that the volumes of Graetz, Geschichte der
Juden, which treat of the Spanish period (7 and 8) are of great use,
because of the abundance of material which they contain. So far as my
experience goes they have not been surpassed by any later work. With regard to
monographic studies on the position of the Jews in the economic life of the
Pyrenean Peninsula, I do not know of any. But this may be due to my ignorance.
Anyhow, the Jewish libraries of Breslau and Berlin contain nothing under this
head. The work of Bento Carqueja, O capitalismo moderno e as suas origens em
Portugal (1908), only just touches the problem so far as the Jews are
concerned.
23. H. J. Koenen, op. cit., p. 206.
24. Cf. art. “Banking” in Jewish Encycl.
25. For the position of the Jews in English finance during the
17th and 18th centuries we have many records. Cf. Picciotto, p. 58; Hyamson,
pp. 171, 217, 240, 264, etc.; Lucien Wolf, The Re-settlement of the Jews in
England (1888); the same author’s “Crypto-Jews under the Commonwealth,” in Transactions
of the Jewish Historical Society of England, vol. i. (1895); likewise his
“The Jewry of the Restoration (1660–1664),” reprinted from The Jewish
Chronicle (1902).
26. L. Wolf, The Jewry of the Restoration, p. 11.
27. G. Martin, La grande Industrie sous Louis XIV (1899),
p. 351.
28. Victor de Swarte, Un banquier du Trésor royal au xviii
siecle, Samuel Barnard—sa vie—sa correspondance, 1651–1739 (1893).
29. Kahn, Les juifs de Paris au xviii sc. (1894), p. 60.
30. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. 10, p. 40.
31. Wolf, Ferdinand II, Appendix 4, quoted by Graetz, vol.
10, p. 41.
32. The actual wording from Die Juden in Österreich, vol.
2 (1842), p. 41.
33. Die Juden in Österreich, vol. 2, p. 64; F. von Mensi,
op. cit., p. 132. In the 18th century the most important creditors of the State
were (in succession) Oppenheimer, Wertheimer, Sinzheimer; the last-named had
owing to him in 1739 no less than five million gulden. F. von Mensi, p. 685.
Cf. also David Kaufmann, Urkundliches aus dem Leben Samson Wertheimers (1892).
For the earlier period, see G. Wolf, Ferdinand II und die Juden (1859).
34. F. von Mensi, p. 148.
35. G. Liebe, op. cit., p. 84.
36. Art. “Abensur Daniel,” in Jewish Encycl.
37. A. Levy, “Notes sur l’histoire des Juifs en Saxe,” in R.E.J.,
vol. 26 (1898), p. 259. For Berend (Behrend) Lehmann, alias Jisachar Berman,
see B. H. Auerbach, Geschichte der israelitischen Gemeinde Halberstadt (1866),
p. 43; for his son Lehmann Berend, see p. 85.
38. Auerbach, loc. cit., p. 82 (for Hanover); see also S. Haenle,
op. cit., pp. 64, 70, 89; for more cases of Hofjuden, see L. Müller, “Aus fünf
Jahrhunderten,” in the Zeitschrift des historischen Vereins fur Schwaben und
Neuburg, vol. 26 (1899), p. 142.
39. P. von Mensi, p. 409.
40. Memoiren der Glückel von Hameln [published in the
original Yiddish by D. Kaufmann (1896)], German translation (privately printed)
in 1910, p. 240.
41. M. Zimmermann, Josef Süss Oppenheimer, ein Finanzmann des
18ten Jahrhunderts (1874).
42. Address by Louis Marshall in The 250th Anniversary of the
Settlement of the Jews in the U.S., p. 102.
43. H. Friedenwald, op. cit., p. 63.
44. W. Graham Sumner, The Financiers and the Finances of the
American Revolution, 2 vols. (1891).
Chapter 6
1. For a legal consideration of the question, see Brunner, Endemanns
Handbuch, vol. 2, p. 147, and Goldschmidt, Universalgeschichte des
Handelsrechts (1891), p. 386. Cf. also Knies, Der Credit (1876), p.
190.
2. I give the “credit relationship” its most extended meaning in
the sense that you create duties between persons by, the one giving an economic
value to the other and the second promising a quid pro quo in the
future.
3. Cf. F. A. Biener, Wechselrechtliche Abhandlungen (1859),
p. 145.
4. The view of Kuntze and others. See Goldschmidt, op. cit., p.
408.
5. Goldschmidt, loc. cit., p. 410, who puts the question in the
form of a query, leaving the answer vague. See on the other hand A. Wahl, Traité
theor. et pratique des titres au porteur (1891), vol. 1, p. 15.
6. Cf. Kuntze, “Zur Geschichte der Staatspapiere auf den
Inhaber,” in the Zeitschrift für das ges. Handelsrecht, vol. 5, p. 198;
the same writer’s Inhaber Papiere (1857), pp. 58, 63; Goldschmidt, op.
cit., pp. 448–9; Sieveking in Schmollers Jahrbuch (1902); and above all,
G. Schaps, Zur Geschichte des Wechselindossaments (1892), p. 86. Cf.
also Biener, op. cit., pp. 121, 137.
7. Goldschmidt, p. 452; Schaps, p. 92.
8. The text is given in D. Kaufmann’s article in the J.Q.R.,
vol. 13 (1901), p. 320, “Die Vertreibung der Marranen aus Venedig im Jahre
1550.”
9. Graetz, vol. 8, p. 354; vol. 9, p. 328.
10. So far as I am aware, this question has never yet been asked:
What part did the Jews play in the Genoese fairs? It will be most difficult to
give a satisfactory answer, because the Jews in Genoa were forced, especially
after the Edict of Expulsion in 1550, to keep secret their identity. Probably
also they changed their names and made a pretence of accepting Christianity.
Nevertheless, it would be worth while to make the attempt Anyhow, we have here
one instance where in the post-mediaeval period a great financial and credit
system was developed without the clear proof of Jewish influence. It may be, of
course, that the proof has slipped my observation; in that case I should be
glad to have my attention drawn to it.
The best account of the Genoese fairs will be found in Ehrenberg’s Zeitalter
der Fugger, vol. 2, p. 222, and Endemann, Studien in der
römisch-kanonischen Wirtschafts-und Rechtslehre, vol. 1 (1874), p. 156.
Endemann bases his conclusions chiefly on Scaccia and R, de Turns, while
Ehrenberg also relied on documents in the Fugger archives.
11. Possibly earlier, in the case of the Company of the Pairiers,
to whom was transferred in the 12th century the mill in Toulouse, du Basacle,
by means of securities (uchaux or saches). Cf. Edmund Guillard, Les
opérations de Bourse (1875), p. 15.
12. Cf. K. Lehmann, Die geschichtliche Entwickelung des
Aktienrechts (1895).
13. J. P. Rieard, Le Negoce d’Amsterdam (1723), pp.
397–400.
14. This is the conclusion arrived at by Andre E. Sayous, “Le
fractionnement du capital social de la Compagnie néerland des Indes
orientales,” in Nouv. Rev. Historique du droit franç. et étrangers, vol.
25 (1901), pp. 621, 625.
15. Cf. Endemann, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 457.
16. See instances—1422 in Palermo and 1606 in Bologna—in
Goldschmidt, p. 322.
17. The most important collection of documents concerning the
history of banking in Venice is still Elia Lattes’ La libertà delle banche e
Venezia dal secolo xiii al xvii secondo i documenti inediti del R. Archivio del
Frari ec. (1869). The subject has been dealt with by
18. Macleod, Dictionary of Political Economy, art. “Bank
of Venice” (? authorities), quoted by A. Andreades, History of the Bank of
England (1909), p. 28.
19. “Gallicioli Memorie Venete,” ii.. No. 874, in Graetz, vol. 6,
p. 284.
20. S. Luzzato, Dis. circa il state degli Hebrei in Venezia (1638),
ch. 1, and pp. 9a, 29a. The figures need not be taken too seriously; they are
only an estimate.
21. See, for instance, D. Manuel Calmeiro, Historia de la
economia politico en España, vol. 1, p. 411; vol. 2, p. 497.
22. See A. Andréades, History of the Bank of England (1909),
p. 28. That will certainly have to be the conclusion if importance is attached
to the scheme (1658) of Samuel Lambe (printed in Sower’s Tracts, vol.
vi). Andréades actually dates the first idea of the Bank from Lambe’s scheme.
There was a scheme previous to that— Balthasar Gerbier’s in 1651, and between
that year and 1658 Cromwell had allowed the Jews to settle in this country. For
my own part I cannot admit “the superiority” of Lambe’s scheme. But other
writers also lay stress on the very great share of the Jews in the
establishment of the Bank of England.
23. For instances of public debt bonds, see Walter Däbritz, Die
Staatsschulden Sachsens in der Zeit von 1763 bis 1837, Doctoral
Dissertation (1906), pp. 14, 55; E. von Philippovich, Die Bank von England (1885),
p. 26; also, Ehrenberg, Fugger [note 10, Chapter 6], vol. 2, pp. 141,
299.
24. Ad. Beer, Das Staatsschuldenwesen und die Ordnung de
Staatshaushalts unter Maria Theresia (1894), p. 13.
25. Cf. F. von Mensi, op. cit., p. 34.
26. Witness a pamphlet little known generally (even Däbritz, op.
cit; has overlooked it), to which I should like to call attention. It has a
very long title: “Ephraim justifié. Mémoire historique et raisonné sur l’Etat
passé, présent et futur des finances de Saxe. Avec le parallele de l’Oeconomie
prussienne et de l’Oeconomie saxonne. Ouvrage utile aux Créaneiers et
Correspondans, aux Amis et aux Ennemis de la Prusse et de la Saxe. Adressé par
le Juif Ephraim de Berlin à son Cousin Manassés d’Amsterdam. Eriangen. A
l’enseigne de Tout est dit.’” 1785.
27. Cf. (Luzac) Richesse de la Hollande, vol. 2 (1778), p.
200. Also vol. 1, p. 366. Luzac, besides his own personal experiences, must
have also used Fermin, Tableau de Surinam (1778).
28. Chief among them Kuntze, Die Lehre van den Inhaberpapieren
(1857), p. 48, which is still unsurpassed. We may mention besides, Albert
Wahl, Traité théorique et pratique des titres au porteur français et
étrangers, 2 vols. (1891).
The best history of mediaeval credit instruments is that of H. Brunner, Das
französische Inhaberpapier (1879). Cf. also his “Zur Geschichte des
Inhaberpapiers in Deutschland,” in the Zeitschrift für das gesammte
Handelsrecht, vols. 21 and 23. For Holland, see F. Hecht, Geschichte der
Inhaberpapier in den Niederlanden (1869), p. 4.
By the way, it is interesting to note that credit instruments have been said to
be of Hellenic origin. Cf. Goldschmidt, “Inhaber-Order-und exekutorische
Urkunden im Klassischen Altertum,” in Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte Roms,
vol. 10 (1889), p. 352.
But Goldschmidt’s view is not generally accepted. Cf. Benedict Prese, Aus
dem gräko-ägyptischen Rechtsleben (1909), p. 26. Another criticism of
Goldsehmidt’s theory may be found in H. Brunner, “Forschungen zur Geschichte des deutschen und
französischen Rechts,” in his Gesammelte Aufsätze (1894), p. 604.
Brunner also deals with the same problem in his Französische Inhaberpapier,
pp. 28, 57.
Made casually by Kuntze, but rejected by Goldschmidt in the Zeitschrift für
Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 10, p. 355.
Also rejected by Salvioli, I titoli al portatore nella storia del diritto
italiano (1883).
29. Cf. L. Auerbach, Das judische Obligationenrecht, vol.
1 (1871), p. 270. Other passages from rabbinic literature are given in Hirsch
B. Fassel, Das mosaisch-rabbinische Zivilrecht, vol. 2, Part 3 (1854), §
1390; Frankel, Der gerichtliche Beweis nach mosaischem Recht (1846), p.
386; Saalschutz, Mosaisches Recht, 2 vols. (1848), p. 862.
30. For the Mamre, cf. L. L’Estocq, Exercitatio de indole et
jure instrument! Judceis usitati cui nomen “Mamre” est (1775), §vii; J. M.
G. Besekes, Thes. jur. Camb., Part II (1783), pp. 1169, 1176; P. Bloch, Der
Mamran, der judisch-polnische Wechselbrief.
31. Ehrenberg, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 141.
32. Brunner, op. cit., p. 69.
33. Schaps, op. cit., p. 121.
34. Ibid.
35. Cf. F. Hecht, op. cit; p. 44.
36. Hecht, p. 96.
37. Dabritz, op. cit., p. 53.
38. Kuntze, op. cit., p. 85.
39. Straccha, Tract. de assicur. (1568).
40. A. Wahl, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 15, 84.
41. Hecht, op. cit., p. 37.
42. Cf. J. H. Bender, Der Verkehr mit Staatspapieren (2
ed., 1830), p. 167.
43. “Ex diversis animi motibus in unum consentiunt, id est in
unam sententiam decurrunt” (Ulp., L. I. §3, D. de pact., 2, 14).
44. Cf. Goldschmidt, op. cit., p. 393.
45. I am indebted for what follows above all to L. Auerbach, op.
cit., vol. 1, pp. 163, 251, 513. This work (unfortunately uncompleted) is
written in a most suggestive fashion and deserves to be widely known. For it is
one of the best accounts of Talmudic law in existence. Of much less importance,
yet useful nevertheless, are the works of Saalschutz, op. cit.; H. B. Fassel,
op. cit.; J. J. M. Rabbinowicz, Législation du Talmud, vol. 3 (1878);
Frankel, op. cit. On the basis of Goldschmidt’s translation of the Talmud, J.
Kohler attempted a “Darstellung des talmudischen Rechts” in Zeitschrift für
vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, vol. 20 (1908), pp. 161–264. Cf. the
criticism of V. Aptowitzer in the Monatsschrift (1908), pp. 37–56.
46. Otto Stobbe, Die Juden in Deutschland während des mittelalters
(1866), pp. 119, 242; Sachsenspiegel, III, 7, § 4.
47. Goldschmidt, op. cit., p. 111.
48. (Isaac de Pinto) Traité de la circulation du crédit (1771),
pp. 64, 67–68. Cf. also E. Guillard, op. cit., p. 534. See also Dabritz, op.
cit., p. 18, for illustrations.
49. Ehrenberg, Fugger, vol. 2, p. 244. We owe most of what
we know about the history of the Stock Exchanges to Ehrenberg.
50. Cf. Kaufmann, op. cit.
51. Van Hemert, Lectuur voor het ontbijt en de Theetafel, VIIde.
Stuk, p. 118, quoted by Koenen, op. cit., p. 212.
52. H. Stephanus, Francofordiense Emporium sive
Francofordienses Nundinae (1574), p. 24.
53. Quoted by Ehrenberg, Fugger, vol. 2, p. 248.
54. Memoirs, p. 297.
55. Given by M. Grunwald, op. cit., p. 21.
56. S. Haenle, op. cit; p. 173. Die Juden in Österreich,
vol. 2 (1842), p. 41.
57. In a report of the Sous-Intendant, M. de Courson, dated 11
June, 1718, quoted by Malvezin, op. cit.
58. E. Meyer, “Die Literatur für und wider die Juden in Schweden
in Jahre 1815,” in Monatsschrift, vol. 57 (1907), p. 522.
59. H. Sieveking, “Die Kapitalistische Entwickelung in den
italienischen Städten des Mittelalters,” in the Vierteljahrsschrift für
Soziale-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, vol. 7, p. 85.
60. Saravia della Calle, “Institutione de’ Mercanti,” in Compendia
utilissimo di quelle cose le quali a Nobili e Christiani mercanti appartengono (1561),
p. 42. Also, art. “Borsenwesen” in Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenshaften.
61. H. Sieveking, Genueser Finanzwesen, vol. i. (1898),
pp. 82, 175.
62. The most reliable sources for the history of Stock Exchange
dealing in Amsterdam in the first decades of the 17th century are the Plakate
of the States General, which prohibit this sort of business. Reference should
also be made to the controversial pamphlets of the period on this topic, more
especially those written by the opponent of stock and share dealing, Nicolas
Muys van Holy. See Laspeyres, Geschichte der volkswirtschaftlichen
Anschauungen (1863). Not to be omitted is also de la Vega’s book, about
which more in due course. For the subsequent period there is much valuable
material in books on Commerce, notably J. P. Ricard, Le négoce a’Amsterdam (1723),
from whom later writers quote. The works of Joseph de Pinto dating from the
second half of the 18th century [see note 48], are also very useful. Of recent
books the following may be mentioned: G. C. Klerk de Reus, op. cit., S. van
Brakel, De Holland, Hand. Comp. der xvii. eeuv (1908).
63. In the periodical De Koopman, vol. 2, pp. 429, 439,
quoted by Ehrenberg, Fugger, vol. 2, p. 333.
64. Pinto, De la Circulation, op. cit., p. 84.
65. Kohler, op. cit.
66. Israel, op. cit.
67. Ehrenberg, Fugger, vol. 2, p. 336, gives a fairly
lengthy extract from this remarkable book.
68. Extrait d’un mémoire présenté en 1692, from the
Archives of the French Foreign Office, published in the Revue historique,
vol. 44 (1895). I am indebted to my friend Andre E. Sayous, of Paris, for
having called my attention to this article.
69. “The Anatomy of Exchange Alley, or a System of Stock-jobbing”
(1719). Printed in J. Francis’s Stock Exchange (1849), Appendix.
70. Art. “Brokers” in Jewish Encycl.
71. J. Piccotto, op. cit., p. 58.
72. Universal Dictionary of Trade and Commerce, vol 2
(1755), p. 554.
73. Tovey, Anglia Judaica, p. 297.
74. As would appear from a complaint of the Christian merchants,
of the year 1685, mentioned by Ehrenberg, Fugger, vol. 2, p. 248.
75. M. Grunwald, op. cit; p. 6.
76. Postlethwayt, Dictionary, vol. 1, p. 95.
77. Joseph Jacobs, “Typical Character of Anglo-Jewish History,”
in J.Q.R., vol. 10 (1898), p. 230.
78. Ranke, Französische Geschichte, vol. 43, p. 399.
79. Melon, Essai pol. sur le commerce (1734), éd. Davie,
p. 685.
80. See Ehrenberg, Fugger, vol. 2, p. 142.
81. (Du Hautchamp) Histoire du système des Finances sous la
minorité de Louis XV, vol. 1 (1739), p. 184.
82. Oscar de Vallée, Les Manieurs d’argent (1858), p. 41.
83. P. A. Cochut, Law, son système et son époque (1853),
p. 33.
84. E. Drumont, La France Juive (1904), vol. 1, p. 259.
85. All the figures are from Von den Gilde-Dienern Friedrich
Wilhelm Arendt und Abraham Charles Rousset herausgegebenen Verzeichnissen...
der gegenwärtigen Aelter-Manner, etc. (1801).
86. In the Hamburger Münz-und Medaillenvergnügen (1753),
p. 143, No. 4, there is a coin struck in commemoration of the trade in stocks
and shares.
87. Raumburger, in the preface to his Justitia selects Gent.
Eur. in Cambiis, etc.
88. Kiesselbech, op. cit., p. 24.
89. The case is mentioned and discussed by von Gönner, Von
Staatsschulden, deren Tilgungsanstalten und vom Handel mit Staatspapieren (1826),
§30.
90. Dictionary, vol. 2, p. 533. Cf. also the very
informing article, “Monied Interest,” p. 284.
91. See articles “Monied Interest” and “Paper Credit” in
Postlethwayt, vol. 2, pp. 284 and 404.
92. D. Hume, Essays, vol. (1793), p. 110.
93. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, ch. 3.
94. Von Gönner, op. cit., § 31.
95. Pinto, op. cit: pp. 310–11.
96. Ehrenberg, Fugger, vol. 2, p. 299.
97. I must content myself with mentioning the following three
works which appear to me to be the best: Das Haus Rothschild. Seine
Geschichte und seine Geschäfte, 1 Parts (1857); John Reeves, The
Rothschilds: the Financial Rulers of Nations (1887); R. Ehrenberg, Grosse
Vermögen, etc., vol. 1, “Die Fugger-Rothschild-Krupp” (2nd ed., 1905).
98. J. H. Bender, Der Verkehr mit Staatspapieren (2nd ed.,
1830), p. 145.
99. E.g., von Gönner, op. cit., p. 60; Bender, p. 142.
100. Das Haus Rothschild, vol. 2, p. 216.
101. A. Crump, The Theory of Stock Exchange (1873).
Reprinted 1903, p. 100.
102. Von Mensi, op. cit.. p. 54. The Jews and Modern
Capitalism/269
103. Ad. Beer, op. cit., p. 43.
104. J. H. Bender, op. cit., p. 5.
105. J. Francis, Stock Exchange, p. 161.
106. Das Haus Rothschild, vol. 2 (1857), p. 85.
107. The best books on this period in Germany are, despite their
prejudice and one-sidedness. Otto Glagau’s Der Börsen-und Gröndungsschwindel
in
108. M. Wirth, Geschichte der Handelskrisen (3rd ed.,
1883), p. 184.
109. Riesser, Entwicklungsgeschichte der deutschen Grossbanken
(1905), p. 48.
110. For a glorification of this policy see J. E. Kuntze, op.
cit., p. 23.
111. A. Beer, op. cit., p. 35.
112. C. Hegemann, De Entwickelung des franzosischen
Grossbankbetriebes (1908), p. 9.
113. Books of reference are given fully in J. Plenge, Gründung
und Geschichte des Crèdit mobilier (1903).
114. Model-Loeb, Die Grossen Berliner Effectenbanken (1895),
p. 43—an excellent book, from which the information in the text is taken in so
far as it is not my own personal knowledge.
115. Cf. R. Ehrenberg, Fondsspekulation (1883), and Adolf
Weber, Depositenbanken und Spekulationsbanken (1902).
116. See for instance A. Gomoll, Die Kapitalistische
Mausefalle (1908). Despite its curious title the book deals seriously with
Stock Exchange speculations and is one of the best pieces of work recently
published.
117. Mostly from local histories, too numerous to mention here.
Chapter 7
1. König, op. cit., p. 97.
2. “Zur Geschichte der Juden in Danzig,” in Monatsschrift,
vol. 6 (1857), p. 243.
3. M. Güdemann, “Zur Geschichte der Juden in Magdeburg,” in Monatsschrift,
vol. 14 (1865), p. 370.
4. Quoted by Liebe, op. cit., pp. 91–2.
5. Regesten, in Hugo Barbeck’s Geschichte der Juden in
Nürnberg und Fürth (1878), p. 68.
6. See, for instance, the conduct of the Berlin Retailers’ Gild
as related in Geiger’s Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, vol. 2 (1871),
pp. 24, 31.
7. Josiah Child, Discourse on Trade, 4th ed., p. 152.
Child reports the prevailing opinion without saying one word by way of
criticism. But he does make it clear that the accusation levelled against the
Jews is no crime at all.
8. See extracts from the polemical pamphlets of the period in
Hyamson, p. 274.
9. Given in Leon Brunschvicg, “Les Juifs en Bretagne au 18 sc.,”
in R.E.J.. vol. 33 (1876), pp. 88, 111.
10. “Les Juifs et les Communautés d’Arts et Métiers,” in R.E.J.,
vol. 36, p. 75.
11. M. Maignial, La question juive en France en 1789 (1903),
contains a great deal of material from which the prevailing feeling among
French merchants against the Jews in the 17th and 18th centuries becomes
apparent.
12. “L’admission de cette espèce d’hommes ne peut être que très
dangereuse. On peut les comparer à des guêpes qui ne s’introduisent dans les
ruches que pour tuer les abeilles, leur ouvrir le ventre et en tirer le miel
qui est dans leurs entrailles: tels sont les juifs.”—Requête des marchands et
négociants de Paris contre l’admission des Juifs (1777), p. 14, quoted by
Maignial, op. cit., p. 92.
13. The opinion of Wegelin is given by Ernst Meyer, op. cit., pp.
513, 522.
14. Czacki, Rosprava o Zydach, p. 82; cf. Graetz, vol. 9, p.
443. Almost word for word the same cry is heard from Rumania, cf. Verax, La
Roumanie et les Juifs (1903).
15. Maignial, p. 92.
16. Philander von Sittewaldt, op. cit.
17. Georg Paul Honn, Betrugs-Lexicon, worinnen die moisten
Betrügereyen in allen Standen nebst denen darwider guten Theils aienenden
Mittein endeckt, Dritte Edition (1724).
18. Allgemeine Schatzkammer der Kaufmannschaft oder
vollständiges Lexikon aller Handlungen und Gewerbe, vol. 2 (1741) p. 1158.
19. Charakteristik von Berlin. Stimme ernes Kosmopoliten in
der Wüste (1784), p. 203.
20. J. Savary (OEuvre posthume, continue … par Phil-Louis
Savary), Dictionnaire universel de Commerce, vol. 2 (1726), p. 447.
21. Allgemeine Schatzkammer, vol. 1 (1741), p. 17.
22. Allgemeine Schatzkammer, vol. 3 (1742), p. 1325.
23. This is only the expression of the mediaeval view. It is
excellently well discussed in R. Eberstadt, Französische Gewerberecht (1899),
p. 378.
24. D. Defoe, The Complete English Tradesman, 1st ed.,
1726. I have used the 2nd edition in 1 vol. (1727), and the 5th edition in 2
vols. (1745), published after the author’s death. The passage cited in the text
is from the 1st ed., p. 82.
25. Allgemeine Schatzkammer, vol. 3, p. 148.
26. Ibid.. vol. 4, p. 677.
27. Ibid., vol. 3, p. 1325.
28. Ibid., vol. 3, p. 1326.
29. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 1392—“Sachsischen Krämer-Ordnungen” Of
1672, 1682, and 1692, §18.
30. See the highly instructive Letter (No. 19 in the 2nd ed.,
corresponding to No. 22 in the 5th) “Of fine shops and fine shews.”
31. Jules de Bock, Le Journal à trovers les âges (1907),
p. 30, quoted in F. Kellen, Studien über das Zeitungswesen (1907), p.
253.
32. Much useful information, especially as regards England, will
be found in Henry Sampson’s History of Advertising from the Earliest Times (1875),
pp. 76, 83.
33. M. Postlethwayt, A Universal Dictionary of Trade and
Commerce, 2 vols. (1741), 2nd ed. (1757), vol. 1, p. 22. Postlethwayt calls
his work a translation of Savary’s Lexicon, but in reality there are so
many additions in it that it may be regarded as original. It should be
mentioned by the way that the work is an invaluable source of information
concerning economic conditions in England in the 18th century.
34. Savary, Dict. du Commerce (1726), Suppl. 1732.
35. P. Datz, Histoire de la Publicité (1894), p. 161,
contains a facsimile of the whole of the first issue of Les Petites Affiches.
36. Allgemeine Schatzkammer, vol. 4, p. 677.
37. D. Defoe, op. cit., vol. 52, p. 163.
38. Cf. G. Martin, La grande Industrie sous Louis XV (1900),
p. 247.
39. Josiah Child, A New Discourse of Trade, 4th ed., p.
159.
40. Such teaching is met with as early as the later 16th century.
Saravia della Calle, whom I regard as of supreme importance in the history of
the theory of just price, goes so far as to deduce it from the relationship of
supply and demand. His work, together with that of Venuti and Fabiano, is
printed in the Compendia utilissimo.
41. (Mercier) Tableau de Paris, vol. 11 (1788), p. 40.
42. “A Paris on court, on se presse parce qu’on y est oisif; ici
l’on marche posément, parce que l’on y est occupé.” Quoted by J. Godard, L’Ouvrier
en Sole, vol. 1 (1899), pp. 38–9.
43. Memoirs of the Rev. James Fraser, written by himself. Selected
Biographies, vol. 2, p. 280; Durham’s Law Unsealed, p. 324, quoted by
Buckle, History of Civilization, vol. 2, p. 377.
44. Durham’s Exposition of the Song of Solomon, quoted by
Buckle, loc. cit.
45. Allgemeine Schatzkammer, vol. 4 (1742), p. 666.
46. See, for instance, Mercier, Tableau de Paris, vol. 2,
p. 71.
47. Samuel Lambe, in his scheme for a national bank [see note 22,
Chapter 6] speaks of the low commercial morality of English merchants as
compared with the reliability of (say) the Dutch
48. Owen Felltham in his Observations (1652), quoted by
Douglas Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England, and America, vol. 2
(1892), p. 327.
49. This accusation was levelled against the Jews from the early
mediaeval period down almost to this very day. Cf. G. Caro, Sozial-und
Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Juden, vol. 1 (1908), p. 222; Bloch, op. cit.,
p. 12; article “Juden,” in Allgemeine Schatzkammer; von Justi, Staatswirtschaft,
vol. 1 (1758), p. 150. For Germany more especially, see Liebe, Das
Judenthum in der deutschen Vergangenheit (1903).
50. According to a Minute Book of the Portuguese community in
Hamburg—A. Feilchenfeld, “Die alteste Geschichte der deutschen Juden in
Hamburg,” in Monatsschrift, vol. 43 (1899), p. 279.
51. Geyler von Kaiserberg’s sermon on the 93rd “Narrengeschwarm,”
in S. Brandt’s Narrenschiff (to be found in the collection called Das
Kloster, vol. I, p. 722, published by J. Scheible). Cf. Oskar Franke, Der
Jude in den deutschen Dichtungen des 15, 16, und 17 Jahrhunderts (1905),
especially section 4.
52. Quoted by A. M. Dyer, op. cit; p. 44.
53. Will. Ussellinx, quoted by Jameson, in Transactions of
the Jewish Historical Society of America, vol. 1, p. 42. For Usselinx, see E.
Laspeyres, Volkswirtschaftliche Ansichten der Niederlande (1863), p. 59.
54. Savary, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 449.
55. See Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of
56. Josiah Child, Discourse on Trade, 4th ed., p. 152.
57. Cf. R. Ehrenberg, Grosse Vermogen, 2nd ed., p. 147.
58. Annalen der Juden, pp. 106–17.
59. Liebe, Das Judentum, p. 34.
60. Risbeck, op. cit. Cf. also Scheube, op. cit., p. 393.
61. Uber das Verhältniss der Juden zu den Christen in den
deutschen Handelsstadten (1818), pp. 171, 252, 270, 272.
62. See R.E.J., vol. 33, p. 111.
63. H. Bodemeyer, Die Juden. Bin Beitrag zur Hannoverschen
Rechtsgeschichte (1855), p. 68.
64. See Albert Wolf, “Etwas über jüdische Kunst und ältere
judische Künstler,” in Mitteilungen zur jüdischen Volkskunde, edited by
M. Grunwald, vol. 1 (1905), p. 34.
65. See Ehrenberg, Grosse Vermögen, p. 147.
66. The documents are printed in Kracauer’s “Beiträge zur
Geschichte der Frankfurter Juden im 30 jährigen Kriege,” in Zeitschrift für
die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland, vol. 3 (1899), p. 147. Cf. Schudt,
op. cit: vol. 2, 164.
67. Ibid.
68. Ibid.
69. Annalen der Juden, op. cit., pp. 97, 106–17.
70. Ibid.
71. Versuch über die judischen Bewohner der österreichischen
Monarchie (1804), p. 83. Contains much valuable material.
72. L. Hoist, Judentum in alien dessen Teilen aus einem
staatswissenschaftlichen Standpunkte betrachtet (1821), pp. 293–4.
73. “Les fripiers de Paris qui sont à la plus part Juifs,” Noel
du Fail, Contes d’Eutrapel, xxiv, quoted by G. Fagniez, L’économie
sociale de la France sous Henry IV (1897), p. 217.
74. Mercier, Tableau de Paris, vol. 2, p. 253. In Breslau
this method of attracting custom is not unknown, and is called
“Ärmelausreissgeschäfte.”
75. Romani, Eines edien Wallachen landwirtschaftliche Reise
durch verschiedene Landschaften Europas. Zweyter Theil (1776), p. 150. Cf.
Schudt, vol. 2, p. 164.
76. Über das Verhältniss, etc., p. 184.
77. Jules de Bock, op. cit; p. 30.
78. Max J. Kohler, op. cit.
79. Bloch, op. cit., p. 30.
80. Hyamson, Jews in England, p. 274.
81. S. Kahn, “Les Juife de Montpellier an 18 siècle,” in R.E.J.
vol. 33 (1896), p. 290.
82. Leon Brunschvicg, op. cit; p. 111.
83. “Requête des marchands,” etc., p. 234.
84. L. Kahn, Les Juifs de Paris au XVIII sc., p. 71.
85. Justin Godard, L’Ouvrier en Soie (1899), p. 224.
86. For Wegelin’s view, see Meyer, op. cit., p. 522.
87. Cf. Czacki, op. cit.; Graetz, op. cit.; and
Verax, op. cit.
88. Annalen, p. 97.
89. F. Bothe, Beiträge zur Wirtschafts-und Sozial-Geschichte
der Reichstadt Frankfurt (1906), p. 74.
90. Bericht der Kriegs-und Domanenkammer über den
wirtschafflichen Niedergang des Herzogtums Magdeburg (1710), quoted by
Liebe, Das Judentum, p. 91.
91. Romani, op. cit; p. 147.
92. In Geschichte der Juden in der Reichstadt Augsburg (1803),
p. 42.
93. Von Mensi, op. cit., p. 367.
94. Allgemeine Schatzkamnier, vol. 2, p. 1158.
95. Will. Usselinx, quoted by Jameson, in Transactions of
the Jewish Historical Society of America, vol. 1, p. 42. For Ussellinx, see E.
Laspeyres, Volkswirtschaftliche Ansichten der Niederlande (1863), 1. 59.
96. Mercier, op. cit.
97. R.E.J., vol. 33, p. 111, in Kahn, op. cit.
98. Lambe, op. cit.
99. Le cri du citoyen centre les juifs de Metz (18 sc.),
quoted by Maignial, op. cit.
100. See Bothe, op. cit., p. 74.
101. Felltham, op. cit. “Cette nation ne fait fabriquer
que des étoffes inférieures et de mauvaise qualité.”
102. Quoted by Liebe, Das Judentum. p. 91,
103. N. Roubin, “La vie commerciale des juifs contadines en
104. Uber das Verhältniss, etc., p. 254.
105. Liebe, op. cit.
106. Juden, sind sie der Eandlung schädlich? (1803), p.
25.
107. Graetz, vol. 9, p. 445.
108. Romani, op. cit., p. 148.
109. I am indebted to Mr. Josef Reizman for kindly calling my
attention to this passage.
110. Child, Discourse on Trade, p. 152.
111. Hyamson, p. 274.
112. R.E.J. vol. 33, p. 290.
113. L. Hoist, op. cit., p. 290.
114. See note 61, Chapter 7.
115. Hoist, op. cit.. p. 288.
116. R.E.J. vol. 36.
117. R.E.J. vol. 33, p. 289.
118. Annalen, p. 90.
119. From a Memorandum, dated
120. Königlichen Staatsarchiv (Mr. Ludwig Davidsohn informed me
of it).
121. “In the U.S.A. the most striking characteristic of Jewish
commerce is found in the large number of department stores held by Jewish
firms.” Art. “Commerce,” in Jewish Encycl. (vol. 4, p. 192).
122. See the lists of firms in J. Hirsch, Das Warenhaus in
Westdeutschland (1910).
123. Juden, sind sie der Handlung schädlich?, p. 33.
124. Henry Sampson, A History of Advertising (1875),
p. 68.
Chapter 9
1. For a fuller account of the subject of this chapter, see an
article of mine, “Der Kapitalistische Untemehmer,” in Archiv für soziale
Wissenschaft und Soziale Politik, vol. 29.
Chapter 10
1. M. Kayserling, op. cit., p. 708.
2. An account of the Jewish world-famed firms of his time is
given by Manasseh ben Israel in his Humble Address to Cromwell. The story of
the single families may be found in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which is
especially good for biographies.
3. “Lettres écrites de la Suisse, d’Italie,” etc., in Encycl.
mèth. Manuf., vol. 1, p. 407. Cf. the opinion of Jovet, quoted by Schudt, Jüdische
Merkwürdigkeiten, vol. 1, p. 228.
4. The Spectator, No. 495.
5. Revue Historique, vol. 44 (1890).
6. Graetz, vol. 5, p. 323.
7. These instances of Jewish diplomatists are generally known.
The number could easily be added to. Any one specially interested in this
question should refer to Graetz, where abundant material will be found (e.g.,
vol. 6, pp. 85, 224; vol. 8. ch. 9, etc.).
8. M. Kayserling, Christopher Columbus (1894), p. 106.
9. H. J. Koenen, op. cit; p. 206.
10. Edmund Bonaffé, Dictionnaire des amateurs français cm XVII
siècle (1881), p. 191.
11. Friedlander, Sittengeschichte Roms, vol. 3, p. 577.
12. (v. Kortum) Über Judentum und Juden (1795), p. 165.
13. Ibid.. p. 90.
14. R.E.J., vol. 23 (1891), p. 90.
15. M. de Maulde, Les juifs dans les Etats français du
Saint-Siège (1886). The legal position of the Jews generally is treated fully
in the current Jewish histories, most of which are in reality nothing more than
the history of the legal position of the Jews. Indeed, a goodly number of their
authors imagine they are writing economic history when all the time it is just
legal history they aredealing with. For records, consult the article “Juden” in
Krünitz (vol. 31) and Sehudt, Jüdische Merkwurdigkeiten (specially for
Frankfort). For France, see Halphen, Recueil des lois, etc., concernant les
Israëlites (1851); for Prussia, L. von Rönne and Heinrich Simon, Die
früheren und gegenwärtigen Verhaltnisse der Juden in den sämtlichen
Landesteilen des preussischen Staates (1843). All the laws quoted in the
text I have taken from this collection. A. Michaelis, Die Rechtsverhältnisse
der Juden in Preussen seit dem Beginn des 19 Jahrhunderts: Gesetze, Eriasse,
Verordnungen, Entscheidungen (1910).
16. Cf. B. Bento Carqueja, op. cit., pp. 73, 82, 91.
17. Wagenaar, Beschrijving van Amsterdam, quoted by
Koenen, op. cit., p. 142. Further, for the wealth of the Dutch Jews (greatly
exaggerated) see Schudt, vol. 1 (1714), p. 277; vol. 4 (1717), p. 208. Cf. M.
Mission, Reise nach Italien (1713), p. 43. Of newer books, M. Henriquez
Pimentel, op. cit., p. 34.
18. Memoiren, p. 134.
19. Savary, Dict.. vol. 2 (1726), p. 448.
20. Lucien Wolf, The Jewry of the Restoration, 1660–1664,
p. 11.
21. See H. Reils, “Beiträge zur ältesten Geschichte der Juden in
Hamburg,” in Zeitschrift des Vereins für hamburgische Geschichte, vol. 2
(1847), pp. 357, 380, 405; and M. Grunwald, op. cit., pp. 16, 26, 35.
22. In M. Grunwald’s Hamburgs deutsche Juden, pp. 20, 191.
23. F. Bothe, Die Enfwickelung der direkten Besteuerung der
Reichsstadt Frankfurt (1906), p. 166, Tables 10 and 15.
24. Kraeauer, op. cit., p. 341.
25. Alexander Dietz, Stammbuch der Frankfurter Juden (1907),
p. 408.
26. L. Geiger, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin (1871), vol.
1, p. 43.
Chapter 11
1. M. Lazarus, Ethik des Judentums (1904), pp. 67, 85,
etc.[There is an English edition of this book issued by the Jewish Publication
Society of America.]
2. Hermann Cohen, “Das Problem der jüdischen Sittenlehre. Eine
Kritik (adverse) von Lazarus’ Ethik des Judentums,” in Monatsschrift,
vol. 43, p. 385.
3. Orach Chajim, § 8.
4. Quoted by F. Weber, Altsynagogale Theologie (1880), p.
273.
5. J. Wellhausen, Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte,
p. 340.
6. Graetz, vol. 4, p. 411. Graetz also has an excellent
appreciation of the Talmud (one-sided of course, and optimistic), and its
influence in Judaism.
7. J. Fromer, Vom Ghetto zur modernen Kultur (1906), p.
247.
8. M. Kayserling,
9. Das Haus Rothschild, vol. 1 (1857), p. 186.
10. This is not the place to enter into an account of the results
of Biblical criticism. All I can do here is to mention a few books that may
serve as an introduction to the subject: Zittel, Die Entstehung der Bibel (5th
ed., 1891); for the history of the Pentateuch, Adalbert Merx, Die Bücher
Moses und Josua (1907), and Ed. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judentums (1896).
11. W. Frankenberg, “Die Sprüche, übersetzt und erläutert,” in Handkommentar
wm Alten Testament, herausgegeben von D. W. Nowack. On p. 16 there is a
list of books for the Wisdom Literature. See also Henri Traband, La loi
mosaïque, ses origines et son développement (1903), p. 77.
12. Cf. M. Friedlander, Geschichte der jüdischen Apologetik (1903).
13. Books about the Talmud form a small library in themselves. I
can only mention one or two to serve as an introduction to the subject. The
best is H. L. Strack’s Einleitung in den Talmud (4th ed., 1908), which
also contains a pretty full bibliography. For Talmudic Ethics, see Salo Stein’s
Materialien zur Ethik des Talmud (1904). Talmudic scholars, however, do
not apprize this book very highly. A more recent book is by J. Fromer, who
hasoccupied himself with Talmudic and later Jewish literature. See his Die
Organization des Judentums (1908), which is intended to serve as an
Introduction to a big Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Talmud, which Fromer has
planned. Another book which deals with the sources is E. Schürer, Geschichte
des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, in 3 vols. The first (2nd
ed., 1890) in § 3 contains an extensive bibliography. In addition, the standard
Jewish histories, especially Graetz, deal with this aspect of Jewish
literature.
To comprehend the spirit of the Talmud it is necessary to read the text itself.
There is a German translation (almost complete) by Lazarus Goldschmidt. The
Talmud has this characteristic: that although the sections follow each other in
some fixed order, yet not one of them is strictly limited as regards its
subject matter. They all deal with practically the whole field of Talmudic
subjects. Hence by studying one or more of the (63) Tractates, it is
comparatively easy to obtain a fair notion of the contents of the whole, and
certainly, to find one’s way about in the great sea. Specially to be
recommended is the Tractate Baba Mezia and its two sister tractates [Baba
Kama and Baba Bafhra]. There is a good edition of Baba Mezia,
with an introduction and a translation by Dr. Sammter (1876).
A special branch of Tahnudic literature is composed of the so-called “Minor
Tractates,” usually found in an appendix to the Talmud, though often published
separately. These are Derech Erez Rabba (3rd century), Aboth, Aboth
de R. Nathan, Derech Erez Zutta (9th century, according to Zunz). Zunz calls
them Ethical Hagadoth because of their obvious intention of teaching
practical wisdom. They have had no small influence on the development of the
Jewish people and are therefore of great interest to us here. Next to the
Bible, these tractates enjoyed a widespread popularity. They formed the
principal reading of the layman, unacquainted with the Talmud. They were (are)
found in Prayer Books and devotional literature. Some of them have been issued
in German translations. R. Nathan’s System der Ethik und Moral,
translated by Kaim Pollock (1905). Derech Erez Zutta, translated by A.
Tawrogi (1885). Derech Erez Rabba, translated by M. Goldberg (1888). We
must also mention the Tosephta, which contains the teaching not included
in the Mishna. This also dates from the period of the Tanaim and
is arranged like the Mishna.
Finally, a word as to the Rabbinical commentaries or Midrashim, which
are partly halachic [i.e., legal] and partly hagadic [i.e., moral
and edifying]. The oldest of them, mostly halachic, are Mechilta (on
Exodus), Siphra (on Leviticus), and Siphre (on Numbers and
Deuteronomy).
The Targumim are the Aramaic translations of the O.T.
14. There is no good translation of the Shulchan Aruch.
The only available one is by Lowe (1837), which is incomplete and one-sided. On
the other hand, the Orach Chajim and the Jore Deah have been
published in a German dress by Rabbi P. Lederer (1906 and 1900), but not in a
complete form.
As for works on the Shulchan Aruch, they are mostly of the nature of
apologetic pamphlets. Anti-Semites have turned to the S. A. for material to
attack Jews and Judaism; and Jewish scholars have naturally replied. We may
mention, for instance, A. Lewin, Der Judenspiegel des Dr. Justus (1884),
and D. Hoffmann, Der Schulchan Aruch und die Rabbiner über das Verhältniss
der Juden zu Andersgldäuigen (1885). Thus there is no subjective treatment
of the Shulchan Aruch, though it deserves as thorough a consideration as
the Talmud. The only strictly scientific book with which I am acquainted and
which should be mentioned in this connexion is S. Back’s Die
religionsgeschichtliche Literatur der Juden in dem Zeitraume vom 15-18
Jahrhundert (1893), reprinted from Winter and Wiinsche, Die jüldische
Literatur seit Abschluss des Kanons, vol. 2. But Back’s book is not big and
his treatment therefore can only be of the nature of a sketch.
15. Paul Volz, Jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba (1903).
16. Furst, Untersuchungen über den Kanon des Alien Testaments
nach den Uberlieferungen in Talmud und Midrasch (1868).
17. L. Stem, Die Vorschriften der Thora, welche Israel in der
Zerstreuung w beobachten hat. Ein Lehrbuch der Religion für Schule und Famine (4th
ed., 1904), p. 28. This book, which may be looked upon as a type, gives the
view current in strictly orthodox circles.
18. Cf. Rabbi S. Mandl, Das Wesen des Judentums (1904), p.
14. Mandl relies on J. Gutmann, Uber Dogmenbildung und Judentum (1894).
Cf. also S. Schechter, “The Dogmas of Judaism,” in J.Q.R., vol. 1
(1889), pp. 48, 115. As is well known, Moses Mendelssohn was the first to
express (in his Jerusalem) the idea that Judaism has no dogmas, with some
degree of insistence.
19. The best that I am acquainted with is Ferdinand Weber’s System
der altsynagogalen palastinensischen Theologie aus Targum, Midrash und Talmud (1880).
20. Stem, op. cit., p. 5.
21. Döllinger, Heidentum und Judentum (1857), p. 634.
22. Rutilius Namatianus, “De reditu suo,” in Reinach’s Textes
d’auteurs grecs et remains relatifs au judaisme, vol. 1 (1895), p. 358.
23. Stem, op. cit., p. 49; S. R. Hirsch, Versuche über
Jissroëls Pflichlen in der Zerstreuung (4th ed., 1909), §711.
24. Cf. Weber, op. cit., p. 49. Weber has worked out this idea of
contract in Judaism better than any other writer. The treatment in the text
owes much to him, as will be apparent. I have also utilized his references. In
this particular instance, cf. Sifre, 12b, Wajjikra Rabba. c. 31.
25. Aboth, II, near the beginning.
26. Cf. Weber, op. cit., pp. 270, 272.
27. Ibid., p. 292.
28. R. Joseph Albo, Ikkarim, a book on the principles of
Judaism, dating from the 15th century. W. and L. Schlesinger have issued a
German translation [of the Hebrew] (1844). This particular problem is dealt
with in ch. 46.
29. S. R. Hirsch, op. cit., ch. 13, especially §§ 100 and 105.
30. J. F. Schroder, Talmudisch-rabbinisches Judentum (1851),
p. 47.
31. Graetz, vol. 2, p. 203 and note 14; J. Bergmann, Jüdische
Apologetik im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (1908), p. 120. For the spirit
of ancient Judaism, see Wellhausen, op. cit., ch. 15.
32. H. Deutsch, Die Sprüche Salomons nach der Auffassung in
Talmud und Midrasch (1885).
33. J. F. Bruch, Weisheitslehre der Hebräer (1851), p.
135.
34. Rabbi S. Schiffer, Das Buch Kohelet. Nach der Auffassung
der Weisen des Talmud und Midrasch (1884).
35. Cf. Graetz, vol. 4, p.
233; Wellhausen, op. cit., pp. 250, 339; and also the well-known works of
Müller, Schürer, and Marti.
36. Mandl, op. cit., p. 14.
37. S. R. Hirsch, op. cit., § 448.
38. A number of similar extracts from Talmudic literature will be
found in S. Schaffer, Das Recht und seine Stellung zur Moral nach
talmudischer Sitten-und Rechtslehre (1889), p. 28.
39. M. Lazarus, op. cit., p. 22. Lazarus has worked out the idea
that to be holy means to overcome your passions, exceedingly well, though he approaches
very closely to Kant’s system of Ethics.
40. Kiddushin, 30b, Baba Bathra, 16a.
41. Cf. Schaffer,
op. cit., p. 54.
42. Cf. Fassel, Tugend-und Rechtslehre des Talmud (1848),
p. 38.
43. Albo’s Ikkarim [note 28], ch. 24, deals fully with
this.
44. Cf. S. Back, op. cit.. Preface; also M. Lazarus, op.
cit., p. 20.
45. Stern, op. cit., p. 126.
46. Aboth de R. Nathan, xxi. 5 [also Aboth, III,
14].
47. G. F. Oehler, Theologie des A.T. (3rd ed., 1891), p.
878.
48. Lazarus, op. cit., p. 40.
49. Aboth de R. Nathan, xvi. 6.
50. Cf. Eceles. 1, 8; Prov. x. 8; x. 10; x. 31; xiv. 23; xvii.
27, 28; xviii. 7, 21; xxi. 23; Ecclus. iv. 34 (29); v. 15 (13); ix. 25 (18);
xix. 20, 22.
51. Stern, op. cit.. No. 127a.
52. Cf. also Prov. xii. 27; xiii. 11; xviii. 19; xxi. 20. For
further passages in praise of labour, cf. L. K. Amitai, La sociologie selon
la lègislation juive (1905), p. 90.
53. Hirsch, op. cit., § 448.
54. Ibid., § 463; and Stern, op. cit., p. 239.
55. Hirsch, op. cit., § 443, almost identically expressed by Stem,
op. cit., Nos. 125, 126.
56. J. Fromer, op. cit., p. 25.
57. Iggeret ha-Kodesh, first published in 1556; translated
into Latin by Gaffareli; cf. Graetz, vol. 7, p. 46.
58. Hirsch, op. cit., § 263. Cf. also § 264, § 267.
59. The figures are taken from Hugo Nathansohn, “Die unehelichen
Geburten bei den Juden,” in Z.D.S.J., vol. 6, (1910), p. 102.
60. We may mention as one of the foremost authorities S. Freud.
See his Sammlung kleiner Schriften zur Neurosehlehre (2nd series, 1909).
61. See Dr. Hoppe, “Die Kriminalitat der Juden und der Alkohol,”
in Z.D.S.J., vol. 3 (1907), p. 38; H. L. Eisenstadt, “Die Renaissance
der jüdischen Sozialhygiene,” in Archiv fur Rassen-und Gesellschaftsbiologie,
vol. 5 (1908), p. 714; L. Cheinisse, “Die Rassenpathologie und der Alkoholismus
bei den Juden,” in Z.D.S.J., vol. 6 (1910), p. 1. It can be proved with
great certainty that the Jew’s freedom from the evil effects of alcohol (as
also from syphilis) is due to his religion.
62. Wellhausen, op. cit., p. 119.
63. Cicero, Pro Flacco, ch. 28.
64. Mommsen, Römische Geschichfe, vol. 5, p. 545.
65. The passages may be found in Felix Stahelin, Der
Antisemitismus des Altertums (1905). Cf. Reinach, op. cit.
66. J. Bergmann, op. cit., p. 157.
67. Graetz, vol. 5, p. 73.
68. Graetz, vol. 5, p. 321.
69. Graetz, vol. 6, pp. 140, 161.
70. A comprehensive account of laws on interest in the old Jewish
legal system will be found in J. Heici, Das alttestamentliche Zinsverbot (Biblische
Studien, herausgegeben von O. Bardenhewer, vol. 12, No. 4, 1907).
71. Cf. a collection of “Responsa” by Hoffmann, in Schmollers
Forschungen, vol. 152.
72. Cf. Fassel, op. cit., p. 193; E. Grunebaum, Die
Sittenlehre der Juden andern Bekenntnissen gegenuber (2nd ed., 1878), p.
414; the same writer’s “Der Fremde nach rabbinischen Begriffen,” in Geigers
jüdische Zeitschrift, vols. 9 and 10; D. Hoffmann, op. cit., p. 129;
Lazarus, op. cit., § 144. Lazarus is curiously incomplete. What he says in his
third chapter about the duty of Israel towards non-Jews does his heart all
credit, but it is hardly in accord with historic truth.
73. Cf. Choshen Mishpat. §§ 188, 194, 227, 231, 259, 266,
272, 283, 348, 389, etc.
74. “When he appears before the divine Judge, the first question
that man is asked is. Have you been straightforward and honest in business?”
Sabbath, 31a. This Talmudic quotation is the motto of a little book (privately
printed) dealing with passages concerning honesty, Das Biblisch-rabbinische
Handelsgesetz, by Rabbi Stark.
75. Choshen Mishpat, § 231. The passage given in the text
is from § 227.
76. Graetz, vol. 10, pp. 62, 81.
77. Choshen Mishpat, § 227; Baba Mezia, 49b.
78. In addition, see John G. Dow, “Hebrew and Puritan,” in J.Q.R.,
vol. 3 (1891), p. 52.
79. Graetz, vol. 9, pp. 86, 213; vol. 10, p. 87; Hyamson, p. 164;
J.Q.R., vol. 3, p. 61.
Chapter 12
1. Cf. also R. S. Woodworth, “Racial Differences in Mental
Traits,” in Bulletin mensuel des Institut Solvay (1910), No. 21.
2. Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu, Israel chez les nations (1893),
p. 289; also cf. H. St. Chamberlain, Die Grundlagen des 19 Jahrhunderts (3rd
ed., 1901), p. 457. [An English edition of this book is now to be had.]
3. I cannot here enter into a disquisition of the various
meanings attached to the terms People, Nation, Nationality. The reader will find
all that he needs in that excellent study of F. J. Neumann, Volk und Nation
(1888). See, too. Otto Bauer, Die Nationalitätenfrage und die
Sozialdemokratie (1907); F. Rosenblüth, Zur Begriffsbestimmung von Volk und
Nation (1910).
4. A. Jellinek, Der jüdische Stamm in Sprichwortem (2nd
series, 1882), pp. 18, 91.
5. J. Zollschan, Das Rassenproblem writer besonderer
Berücksichtigung der theoretischen Grundlagen der jüdischen Rassenfrage (1910),
p. 298.
6. Jellinek, op. cit; (3rd series, 1885), p. 39.
7. Juan Huarte de San Juan, Examen de ingenios para las
Sciencias. Pomplona (1575), (Biblioteca de autores Españoles, lxv, p. 469).
8. Jellinek, op. cit. This book by the well-known Rabbi of Vienna
is one of the very best that has been written on the Jewish spirit Good, too,
is the booklet of D. Chwolson, Die semitischen Völker (1872), which
criticizes Renan’s Histoire générale et systeme compare de langues Sèmitique
(1855). A third writer who in my opinion has looked deep into the Jewish
soul is Kari Marx, in his Judenfrage (1844). What has been said about
the Jewish spirit since these men (all Jews!) wrote is either a repetition of
what they said or a distortion of the truth.
9. For Jews as mathematicians, see M. Steinschneider in Monatsschrift,
vols. 49–51 (1905–7).
10. For Jews as physicians, see M. Kayserling, “Zur Geschichte
der judischen Aerzte,” in Monatsschrift, vols. 8 (1859) and 17 (1868).
11. Zollschan, op. cit.. p. 159.
12. C. Lassen, Indische Altertumskunde, vol. 1 (1847), p.
414.
13. “Une certaine gravité orgueilleuse et un fierté noble fait le
caractère distinctif de cette nation,” Pinto, “Reflexions,” etc., in the Lettres
de quelques juifs, vol. 1, p. 19.
14. J. M. Jost, Geschichte des Judentums und seiner Sekten,
vol. 3 (1859), p. 207.
15. Derech Erez Zutta, ch. viii.
16. Megilla, 16.
17. Midrash Rabba to Genesis, 1, 44.
18. “Développer une chose qui existe en germe, perfectionner ce
qui est, exprimer tout ce qui tient dans une idée qu’il n’aurait pas trouvée
seul.”—M. Murel, L’esprit juif (1901), p. 40.
19. K. Knies, Credit, vol. 1, p. 240; vol. 2, p. 169.
Chapter 13
1. F. Martins, “Die Bedeutung der Vererbung fiir
Krankheitsenstehung und Rassenerhaltung,” in Archiv für Rass. und Ges.
Biologie, vol. 7 (1910), p. 477.
2. Some of the most important of recent works on the ethnology
and anthropology of the Jews are the following: von Luschan, “Die
anthropologische Stellung der Juden,” in Korrespondemblatt fur Anthropologie,
vol. 23 (1892); Judt, Die Juden als Rasse (1903). On the historic side,
much light has been thrown on the problem by Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten und
ihre Nachbarstamme (1906). Side by side with this excellent book may be
placed one somewhat older, A. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und der
Juden w den Fremden (1896). That the whole literature on Babylonia must be
mentioned here goes without saying, i.e., the works of Winkler, Jeremias, and
others. Recently there appeared a book by W. Erbt, Die Hebräer. Kanaan
im Zeitalter der hebraischen Wanderung und hebraischen Staatengründung (1906).
3. H. V. Hilprecht, The Babylonian Expedition of the
University of Pennsylvania. Series A, Cuneiform Texts, vol. 9 (1898), p.
28; the same author’s Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th Century (1903),
p. 409.
4. Cf. von Luschan, “Zur phys. Anthropologie der Juden,” in Z.D.S.J.,
vol. 1 (1905), p. 1.
5. The chief exponent of this theory is Ludwig Wilser, who has
set forth his view in numerous articles, and at great length in his book. Die
Germanen (1903). His chief opponent is Zollschan,op. cit., p. 24.
6. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, vol. 5, p. 549.
7. Graetz, vol. 5, pp. 188, 330, 370.
8. Graetz, vol. 7, p. 63.
9. All these instances in Undo [see note 22, Chapter 5], p. 10.
10. In his criticism of Hoeniger, who holds the view expressed in
the text as applicable to Cologne. Others who have supported Brann are Lau,
Kuessen, and A. Kober, Studie zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte der Juden in
Köln am Rhine (1903), p. 13.
11. Maurice Fishberg, “Zur Frage der Herkunft des blonden
Elements im Judentum” in Z.D.S.J., vol. 3 (1907), pp. 7, 25. A contrary
view in the same journal, vol. 3, p. 92, is Elias Auerbach’s “Bemerkungen zu
Fishbergs Theorie,” etc.
12. Cf. F. Sofer, “Uber die Plastizitat der menschlichen Rassen,”
in Archiv für Rass. und Ges. Biologie, vol. 5 (1908), p. 666; E.
Auerbach, “Die jüdisehe Rassenfrage,” in the same journal, vol. 4, p. 359; also
vol. 4, p. 370, where von Luschan expounds an almost identical view. Cf. also
Zollschan, op. cit; pp. 125, 134, etc.
13. See the results in Judt, op. cit. Cf. also A. D. Elkind, Die
Juden. Erne vergleichend-anthropologische Untersuchung (1903). I know the
book only from the review by Weinberg in Archiv für Rass. und Ges. Biologie,
vol. 1 (1904), p. 915. Cf. also Elkind’s “Anthropologische Untersuchungen über
die russ.-polnischen Juden,” in Z.D.S.J., vol. 2 (1906), pp. 49, 65, and
his other essay in vol. 4 (1908), p. 28; Leo Sofer, “Zur Anthropologische
Stellung der Juden,” in Pol. anthrop. Revue, vol. 7 (cf. review of this
in Z.D.S.J; vol. 4, p. 160). Cf. E. Auerbach, op. cit., p. 332; Aron Sandier, Anthropologie
und Zionismus (1904), though his results are not first-hand; Zollschan, op.
cit., pp. 125, 134, etc.
14. The theory of “racial differences” between Ashkenazim and
Sephardim is supported by S. Weissenberg, “Das jüdisehe Rassenproblem,” in Z.D.S.J..
vol. 1 (1905); M. Fishberg, “Beitrage zur phys. Anthropologie der
nordafrikanischen Juden,” ditto. Opponents of the view are most of the authors
mentioned in note 13.
15. For an all-round consideration of this question see Leo
Sofer, “Zur Biologie und Pathologie der judischen Rasse,” in Z.D.S.J..
vol. 2 (1906), p. 85. For further views, see the issues Biologie, vol. 4
(1907), pp. 47, 149: Siegfried Rosenfeld, “Die Sterblichkeit der Juden in Wien
und die Ursachen der jüdischen Mindersterblichkeit.”
16. F. Hertz, Moderne Rassen-Theorie (1904), p. 56.
17. C. H. Stratz, Was sind Juden? Eine
ethnographischanthropologische Studie (1903), p. 26.
18. Illustrations in Judt, op. cit., and elsewhere. Cf. also L.
Messerschmidt, Die Hettiter (1903).
19. Cf. Hans Friedenthal, Über einen experimentalen Nachweis
von Blutsverwandtschaft (1900). Also appeared in the author’s Arbeiten
aus dem Gebiete der experimentellen Physiologie (1908); also Carl Bruck,
“Die biologische Differenzierung von Affenarten und menschlichen Rassen durch
spezifische Blutreaktion,” reprinted from the Berliner Klinischen
Wochenschrift, vol. 4 (1907), p. 371.
20. Von Luschan, “Offener Brief an Herrn Dr. Elias Auerbach,” in Archiv
für Rassen und Ges. Biologie. vol. 4 (1907), p. 371.
21. A. Ruppin, “Die Mischehe,” in Z.D.S.J., vol. 4, p. 18.
22. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, vol. 5, p. 529.
23. M. Braunschweiger, Die Lehrer der Mischna (1890), p.
27.
24. Graetz, vol. 6, p. 22.
25. Graetz, vol. 6, 320.
26. Gregor. Ep. ix. 36, in Schipper, p. 16.
27. Herzfeld, Handelsgeschichte der Juden des Altertums,
p. 204.
28. Herzfeld has perhaps dealt most fully with these questions.
But besides many errors of textual interpretation he is also wrong as regards
the dates of documents. He still maintains the chronology current before the
age of criticism, and therefore places most of his sources in the pre-exilic
period.
29. For the Talmudic period, see Herzfeld, op. cit., p. 118,
where over a hundred imports into Palestine are given.
30. A. Bertholet, op. cit., p. 2.
31. Cf. Büchsenschutz, Besitz und Erwerb im griechischen
Altertum (1869), p. 443.
32. L. Friedlander, Sittengeschichte Roms, vol. 3, p. 571.
33. Kiddushin, 826.
34. Aboth de R. Nathan, xxx. 6.
35. Pesachim, 113a.
36. Pesachim, 506. Cf. also the articles “Welthandel” and
“Handel” in J. Hamburger’s Real-Encyklopädie des Judentums (1883, 1886)
for more material under this heading.
37. A. Bertholet, “Deuteronomium” (1899), in Marti’s Kurz.
Bandkommentar zum A.T. On the passage in the text, Bertholet remarks that
it refers to a period in which Israel is scattered all over the globe as a
people of traders, and is a force in the world because of its wealth. Bertholet
informs me that he regards the passage xv. 4–6 as a later addition to the text,
and because the words appear to point to an extensive distribution of Israel he
would incline to assign them to the Greek period after Alexander.
But for myself I cannot believe that the Jews were then a scattered commercial
people. In order to make quite sure that I had not overlooked important
passages I wrote to Professor Bertholet to ask him on what grounds he based his
opinion. In his reply he referred me to Prov. vii. 19; xii. 11; xiii. 11; xx.
21; xxiii. 4; xxiv. 27; xxviii. 19, 20, 22; Ecclus. xxvi. 29–xxvii. 2. These
passages deal with the dangers of wealth, and I have already discussed them in
another connexion. None of them, however, appear to me to point to trade on a
large scale. Certainly Prov. vii. 19 may have reference to a travelling
trader, but not necessarily. And when we are told of Tobit (to whom also
Professor Bertholet referred) that he was King Enemessar’s “agorastes” and as
such had a comfortable income, does not that rather point to a feudal state of
society? Again, Ananias, a merchant at the court of Adiabene (of whom Josephus
tells), may have been a Hofjude. Of course, I do not deny that Jews
participated in international trade. But I contend that this was not
characteristic of them. What was characteristic was the business of lending,
and of this it may be said, as Bertholet does, that Israel was then (in the
period after Alexander) a power in the earth.
38. I am indebted to Professor Bertholet for calling my attention
to this document.
39. E. Renan, Les Apôtres (1866), p. 289.
40. J. Wellhausen, Medina vor dem Islam (1889), p. 4.
41. Cf. Aronius, Regesten zur Geschichte der Juden im
frankischen und deutschen Reiche bis zum Jahre 1273 (1902), Nos. 45, 62.
42. Cf. Lindo, op. cit; p. 73.
43. Statutes of Jewry, in Cunningham, Growth of English
Industry and Commerce, vol. 1 (1905), p. 204.
44. Wassermann, “Die Entwickelung der jiidischen Bevolkerung in
d. Provin. Posen,” in Z.D.S.J; vol. 6 (1910), p. 37.
45. F. Delitzsch, Handel und Wandel in Altbabylon (1910),
p. 33. Cf. Heici, Alttestamentliches Zinsverbot (1907), p. 32, and
especially p. 54.
46. Weber, article “Agrargeschichte im Altertum,” in Handworterbuch
der Staatswissenschaften. Cf. also Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung,
vol. 2, p. 55.
47. In the years 1436 and 1437 a number of Jewish pawnbrokers
were invited to Florence by the city council, in order to assist the poor who
were in need of cash. Cf. M. Ciardemi, Banchieri ebrei in Firenze net secolo
XV e XVI (1907).
When the city of Ravenna was about to join itself to the Republic of Venice,
one of the conditions of its adhesion was that wealthy Jews should be sent
there to open a loan bank, so that the poverty of the population might be
lessened. Cf. Graetz, vol. 8, p. 235.
“We have seen that the business of finance in the period up to 1420 was
gradually increasing in the bands of the Jews of Rome; from 1420 to 1550
circumstances were even more favourable, and hence we find a still greater
growth. Indeed, it became customary for the Italian communes to make regular
agreements with Jews concerning money-lending.” Cf. Theiner, Cod. dipl. 3, 335,
in Paul Rieger’s Geschichte der Juden in Rom (1895), p. 14.
48. A. Moreau de Jonnes, Statistique des peuples de
I’antiquité, vol. 1 (1851), p. 98. For censuses in the Bible, cf. Max
Waldstein in Statistische Monatsschrift, Vienna (1881).
49. A. Jeremias, Das alte Testament im Lichte des alien
Orients (2nd ed., 1906), p. 534.
50. F. Buhl, Die sozialen Verhaltnisse der Israeliten (1899),
pp. 88, 128.
51. Biographies of the Tahnudic Rabbis are frequent enough. Cf.
Strack, op. cit.: Graetz, in vol. 4; A. Sammter in the Appendix to his
translation of Baba Mezia (1876) and M. Braunschweiger. Die Lehrer
der Mishna (1890).
52. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, vol. 5, p. 529.
53. The 58th Canon of the 4th Council of Toledo (633), quoted by
Lindo, op. cit., p. 14.
54. J. Wellhausen, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 14.
55. Cf. Graetz, vol. 5, p. 345.
56. Cf. Graetz, vol. 5, pp. 11, 39, 50; also the passages in
Schipper, op. cit., pp. 20, 35; Aronius, op. cit., Nos. 45, 62, 173, 206, 227,
etc. How Caro, op. cit., p. 83, arrives at the contrary conclusion it is not
easy to perceive.
57. For the period up to the 12th century, see the references in
Schipper, op. cit., also my Moderne Kapitalismus, vol. 1.
58. K. F. W. Freiherr von Diebitsch, Kosmopolitische,
unparteiische Gedanken über Juden und Christen (1804), p. 29.
59. I cannot give a complete bibliography of all the works on
biology, anthropology, ethnology, etc. Only a few will be mentioned for the
guidance of the reader.
The works of Moritz Wagner appear to me to be of great value: Die Darwinsche
Theorie und das Migrationsgesetz (1868); Uber den Einfluss der
geographischen Isolierung und Kolonienbildang auf die morphologische
Veränderung der Organismen (1871); Die Enstehung der Arten durch
räumliche Sonderung (1889).
Ludwig Gumploviez, Der Rassenkampf (1883); Die soziologische
Staatsidee (2nd ed., 1901); Ward, Reine Soziologie, vol. 1; L.
Woltmann, Politische Anthropologie (1903).
For the question of heredity, see H. E. Ziegler, Die Vererbungstehre in der
Biologie (1905); W. Schallmeyer, Vererbung und Auslese (2nd ed.,
1910); R. Sommer, Familienforschung und Vererbungslehre (1907); F.
Martius, Das pathologische Vererbungsproblem (1909); J. Schultz, Die
Maschinentheorie des Lebens (1909); W. Bolsche, Das Liebesleben in der
Natur (1909).
Chapter 14
1. For the social and economic conditions in ancient Palestine
there are not many books to hand. Perhaps the best is F. Buhl’s work [note 50,
Chapter 13]. A more recent book is Max Lohr’s Israels Kulturentwickelung (1911).
2. Wellhausen, Prolog., p. 10; cf. Budde, The Nomadic Ideal in
the O.T. (1895).
3. F. Ratzel, Völkerkunde, vol. 3, p. 47.
4. Kiddushin, 71a. Cf. Graetz, vol. 4, p. 273.
5. Graetz, vol. 4, p. 321.
6. For a list of Biblical passages in support, see Herzfeld, Handelsgeschichte
der Juden des Altertums, note 9.
7. For this estimation, see Buhl, op. cit., p. 52. 8. Philo, in Flaccum,
6 (II, 523, Mangey), in Stähelin, op. cit., p. 33.
9. L. Friedländer, Sittengeschichte Röms, vol. 3, p. 570.
10. Cassel, in the article “Juden” in Ersch and Gruber, p. 24.
11. Tacitus, Annal; II, 85; Suetonius and Josephus mention
only Jews.
12. The best accounts of the Diaspora will be found in Graetz,
vol. 3, p. 90; Frankel, “Die Diaspora zur Zeit des zweiten Ternpels,” in Monatsschrift,
vol. 2, p. 309; Herzfeld, op. cit., p. 200, and note 34.
13. An excellent example of Jewish migration within one
particular country is furnished by the history of the Jews in the province of
Posen. In 1849 there were 21 localities (out of a total of 131) with a
population of 30 to 40 per cent. of Jews while in 4 there were 41 to 50 per
cent. Jews, in 3 over 50 per cent. But in the last half century the Jewish
population of the Posen province has shrunk considerably. Cf. E. von Bergmann, Zur
Geschichte der deutschen, polnischen und jüdischen Bevölkerung in der Provinz
Posen (1883); Zwanzig Jahre deutscher Kulturarbeit (1906); B.
Breslauer, Die Abwanderung der Juden aus der Provinz, Posen (1909). For
the expulsion of the Jews from Vienna at the close of the 17th century cf.
David Kaufmann, Die letzte Vertreibung der Juden aus Wien und
Niederösterreich; ihre Vorgeschichte (1625–1670) und ihre Opfer (1889).
14. L. Neubaur, Die Sage vom ewigen Juden (2nd ed., 1893).
15. According to Gratian, Vita Joh. Commendoni, II, c. 15;
Victor von Karben, De Vita et Moribus Judieorum (1504); Graetz, vol. 9,
p. 62.
16. J. Ranke, Der Mensch, vol. 2, p. 533.
17. Ratzel, Völkerkunde, vol. 3, p. 743.
18. Juan Huarte de
19. F. Delitzsch, op. cit; p. 12.
20. A. Wahrraund, Das Gesetz des Nomadentums (1887), p.
16.
21. Ratzel, op. cit.. vol. 3, p. 56.
22. Pesachim, 87 b. Cf. also 1196.
23. W. Erbt, Die Hebraer (1906), p. 166.
24. Ephraim justifié (1758). L’editeur a Mr. Andre de
Pinto, Juif Portugais, Citoyen et négociant d’Amsterdam.
25. Pinto, “Réflex, critiques sur le premier chap. du vii tome
des oeuvres de M. Voltaire (1762),” in the Lettres de quelques juifs,
(5th ed., 1781), p. 10.
26. Graetz, vol. 11, p. 54.
27. “L’idée, ou ils sont généralement, d’être issus de la Tribe
de Juda, dont ils tiennent que les principales families furent envoyées en
Espagne du temps de la captivité de Babylone, nepeut que les porter à ces
distinctions et contribuer à cette élévation de sentimens qu’on remarque en
eux.”—Pinto, op. cit; p. 17.
28. A. Nossig, “Die Auserwähltheit der Juden im Lichte der
Biologie,” in Z.D.S.J., vol. 1. Cf. in same volume essay of Curt
Michaelis; also his “Prinzipien der natürlichen und sozialen
Entwicklungsgeschichte der Menschheit” (Natur und Staat, vol. 5) (1904),
p. 63.
29. A. Sandier, op. cit; p. 24.