PHILANTHROPY AND SOCIAL CONTROL IN THE ANGLO-JEWISH COMMUNITY DURING THE MID-NINETEENTH CENTURY (1850–1880)

Abstract

During the past decade, historians and social scientists have begun extensively to research the issue of philanthropy and charities in general, and that of Jewish philanthropy in particular. This paper reviews some of the main characteristics of philanthropic activity of the Jewish elite in post-emancipation Europe (1791–1878) and especially in Britain. Elite philanthropy was not the only form of philanthropy in the Jewish community. Middle-class philanthropy was another form, and traditional charitable activities constituted a third form. This paper focuses solely on elite philanthropy in England between c.1850–c.1880. Moses Montefiore and Lionel de Rotshchild were two of the most influential leaders of the Anglo-Jewish philanthropic elite. The paper deals mostly with the activities of these leaders of the Jewish community in mid-nineteenth-century Britain.

Notes

See Adam, Philanthropy, Patronage and Civil Society; Burlingame, Philanthropy in America; Cannadine and Pellew, History and Philanthropy.

See, for example, the discussions in Abosch, We Are Not Only English Jews; Penslar, Shylock's Children; Rozin, The Rich and the Poor; Bar-Chen, “Two Communities”, 111–21; Green, Moses Montefiore, 197–226; Weissbach, “The Nature of Philanthropy”, 191–204; Liedtke, Jewish Welfare.

I will not deal with the philanthropic activities of international Jewish organizations. On those see, for example: Bar-Chen, “Two Communities”, 111–12, and Penslar, Shylock's Children, 175. Penslar claims that in the 1860s, the strategy of those organizations changed and they began dealing with internal issues as well. I disagree and wish to claim here that internal issues were the very basis for establishing those organizations. On Britain see Clark, Albion and Jerusalem, esp. ch. 3.

See Penslar, Shylock's Children, passim. On middle-class Jewish philanthropy in the UK and Germany see Liedtke, Jewish Welfare.

The traditional Jewish approach to charity is that the wealthy should help the poor by tzdakah, by offering them food, clothing or shelter. The ideal giver should not publicize his actions in order not to shame the ones who receive it.

On the traditional mode of thought see the insights by Rabbi Herman N. Adler (the son of the Chief Rabbi Nathan Adler, and himself a Chief Rabbi from 1891 onwards), The Purpose and Methods of Charitable Relief.

See Rozin, The Rich and the Poor, 23–31; Abosch, We Are Not Only English Jews, 80–3; Penslar, “The Origins of Modern Jewish Philanthropy”, 197–214; Rodrigue, “Abraham de Camondo of Istanbul”, 46–56.

Adam, Philanthropy, Patronage and Civil Society, 4–5.

See Kaplan, “Redefining Judaism in Imperial Germany”, 1–33; Lässing, “How German Jewry turned Bourgeois”, 59–73; cf. Meron, “Sub-Ethnicity and Elites”, 177–220; and Hyman, “Recent Trends in European Jewish Historiography”, 345–56.

It was not solely a Jewish phenomenon: Morris, “Voluntary Societies and British Urban Elites”, 104.

See Bertrand and Schoar, “The Role of Family in Family Firms”, 73–96.

Ferguson, The World's Banker.

Ferguson, “The Caucasian Royal Family”, 295–325; Kraus, “The Rothschilds…”, 5–20.

See Schijf, “Jewish Bankers”, 191–215; Pearson and Richardson, “Business Networking”, 657–79.

Cassis, City Bankers, 214–17.

Hansert, “The Dynastic Power of the Rothschilds”; Kaplan, Nathan Mayer Rothschild.

Chapman, Merchant Enterprise in Britain, 182. Indeed, “In Britain, the percentage of Jewish businessman among non-landed millionaires born between 1800 and 1879 was 17% (26 out of 154), all of whom engaged in banking and finance in the City of London” (Cassis, City Bankers, 283).

Chapman, Merchant Enterprise in Britain, 93.

Gutwein, “Jewish Financiers and Industry”, 177–89.

See mainly Penslar, Shylock's Children.

See Rozin, The Rich and the Poor. On the concept of social control and its relation to philanthropy, see Deflem, “The Concept of Social Control.”

See my dissertation, Sperber, “Jewish Leadership”, 89–108 [in Hebrew].

Uri, “The ‘Shtadlan’ of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth”, 267–99.

Research on Montefiore as a communal leader is lacking. See mainly Finestein, “Sir Moses Montefiore”, 195–205, “The Uneasy Victorian”, 45–70; Green, “Rethinking Sir Moses Montefiore”, 631–58. See also the biography of Montefiore by Abigail Green, Moses Montefiore, Jewish Liberator, Imperial Hero, esp. 222–4.

As can be seen from his involvement in the futile attempt to establish a college for Rabbis without his support in the early 1840s. See Sperber, “Jewish Leadership in an Open Society”, 127–8. See also Israel Finestein's comment, “In spite of the adoption of a Constitution for the first time in 1835, the Board remained an informal body, a loose assembly of congressional notables… meeting as occasion was thought to require or, as the President might arbitrarily decide” (“The Uneasy Victorian”, 49). The Board referred to here is the Board of Deputies not the Board of Guardians that was created, as already mentioned, in 1859. Compare Green, Moses Montefiore, esp. 88–9.

See Finestein, “The Uneasy Victorian”, 48–9.

Both persons representing the two models were related. Moses Montefiore and Nathan Mayer Rothschild, Lionel's father, were married to two sisters. This did not prevent tensions between the two. See Sperber, “Jewish Leadership in an Open Society”, 81–4. On the relations between Moses Montefiore and Nathan Mayer see Kaplan, Nathan Mayer Rothschild, 3–19 and Green, Moses Montefiore, esp. ch. 2.

See Clark, Albion and Jerusalem, esp. ch. 2.

Jewish Chronicle, 6 April 1847; 21 May 1858.

Sperber, “Jewish Leadership in an Open Society”, 106.

“I am most firmly resolved not to give up the smallest part of our religious forms and privileges to obtain civil rights” (Loewe, The Diaries, 111).

Gilam, The Emancipation; Finestein, “Jewish Emancipationists in Victorian England”, esp. 43–7. See also Clark, Albion and Jerusalem, esp. 39–49.

Ferguson, “The World's Banker”, 276.

On the preferable images of the Jewish elite and Jewish bourgeoisie see Valman, “A Fresh Garment of Citizenship”, 35–45.

Penslar, Shylock's Children, 104, 177–8.On the popular image of the Jews in Victorian London, see Englander, “Booth's Jews”, 551–71.

Rozin, The Rich and the Poor, 169.

Endelman, The Jews of Britain, 246–7. See also Endelman, “Communal Solidarity”, 491–526.

When discussing the need to establish what later became the Jewish Board of Guardians, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle insisted that philanthropy was not about aiding the poor, but rather about changing the economic structure of the Jewish community. “Political Economy versus the Soup Kitchen”, Jewish Chronicle, 13 Feb. 1857. The Rothschild archive is running a project of mapping European Jewish philanthropic institutions, headed until recently by Dr Klaus Weber. Many of the institutions are schools and work-related institutions. Housing was aimed mainly towards immigrants.

Black, “Health and Medical Care”, 94. This was also the case in Turkey. See Rodrigue, “Abraham de Camondo of Istanbul”, esp. 51–5.

In 1847, David Salomons said, “The first duty of the rich is to educate the poor, that of the poor to learn” (quoted in Ebner, “The First Jewish Magistrates”, 65); in 1873, at a meeting of the United Synagogue, “a letter was read from Sir Anthony Rothschild calling attention to the large number of young men, mostly foreigners, who demand and receive Charity at the Holy days” (quoted in Abosch, We Are Not Only English Jews, 96).

Ostrower, Why the Wealthy Give, 46–62.Cf: “For the Jewish elite, the non-Jewish environment and models of non-Jewish philanthropy and social welfare became increasingly important” (Rozin, The Rich and the Poor, 3). For an example of similar attitudes in England see Thomas, “Power, Paternalism, Patronage and Philanthropy”, 99–117.

Rozin, The Rich and the Poor.

Sperber, ““Jewish Leadership in an Open Society”, 95–7.

The Rothschild donations in the 1870s see Penslar, Shylock's Children, 179; on the total Rothschild donations in the 1870s, see p. 181.

See Abosch, We Are Not Only English Jews, esp. ch. 3.

Feldman, Englishmen and Jews, 322.

Ibid.

Penslar, Shylock's Children, 96–101; The Rothschilds saw themselves as superior to the poor. On 2 November 1866, Charlotte de Rothschild wrote to her son Leopold on the “Superiority of the Brentford children over the two thousand two hundred and twenty children who are taught the rudiments of knowledge in Bell Lane. Mr. Cross, the secretary wanted me absolutely to make a speech, but I begged to be excused; next year, please God, you must help me”. Rothschild archive available at: <www.rothschildarchive.org/research/?doc=/research/articles/clderltrs>.

See Gutwein, The Divided Elite, 5–50.

Tananbaum, “Philanthropy and Identity”, 937–61. Rothschild women were aware of their duties. Louisa de Rothschild wrote: “My Present duties are to give an example of virtue and piety; to influence, if possible, the conduct of those around me; to make my husband as happy as lies in my power, fulfilling his desire and all things giving way to his wishes” (Battersea, Lady de Rothschild, 5). Charlotte saw philanthropy as a bother. She related to the East End of London as “the far east”. On 6 November 1866, she wrote to Leopold: “Yesterday I drove to the Jews' Hospital, where I found two ladies of the Goldsmid family assembled. The drive would have been long, had not the companionship of the “Times” beguiled the lengthy hours.” Rothschild archive available at: <www.rothschildarchive.org/research/?doc=/research/articles/clderltrs>.

Black, Lord Rothschild and the Barber, 241–63. On hospitals as philanthropic ventures in Victorian London, see Waddington, Charity and the London Hospitals.

Cf. Baader, “When Judaism Turned Bourgeois”, 113–23. This was certainly not a unique Jewish phenomenon: see Martin, “Gender, the City and the Politics of Schooling”, 143–64 and Elliott, The Angel Out of the House. For some comparative work on Jewish women's activity in Philanthropy in France, Italy and England see D'Ancona-Levi, “Notabili e dame”, 741–76. On Jewish women's involvement in philanthropy in Vienna see Rose, Jewish Women, ch. 2. On women's philanthropy in North America see Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, “The Moral Sublime”, 36–54 and Goldberg, “Sacrifices Upon the Altar of Charity”, 34–56.

See, for example, letters from Charlotte to Leopold, 15 Feb. 1864; 16 Feb. 1864; 17 Feb. 1864; 28 July 1864; 13 Feb. 1865; 22 Feb. 1865; 14 Sep. 1865; 9 Feb. 1866. Rothschild archive available at: <www.rothschildarchive.org/research/?doc=/research/articles/clderltrs>.

Cohen, Lady de Rothschild and her Daughter, 69. Cf. Kratz-Ritter, “Well-Educated and Seriously-Minded Daughters…”, 138–56. For similar attitudes in Victorian Britain see Anderson, “Victorian High Society and Social Duty”, 311–34.

Adler, The Purpose and Methods of Charitable Relief.

Quoted in Feldman, “Was Modernity Good for the Jews?”, 173.

Bar-Chen, “Two Communities”, 111–12.

Morris, “Market Solutions for Social Problems”, 525–45; White, Rothschild Buildings; Weber, “Housing for the Poor.” The 4% Dwelling Company established by Nathaniel Rothschild resembled contemporary British Companies. See Morris, “Market Solutions for Social Problems.”

Similar trends occurred in Germany see Bornstein, “The Role of Social Institutions”, 201–22; Penslar, “Philanthropy, the ‘Social Question’”, 51–73.

Ferguson, The World's Banker, 276.

Ferguson, The Cash Nexus.

Gutwein, The Divided Elite, 5–50; Mosse, The German-Jewish Economic Elite, 54–91.

“An engagement in welfare was one of the ‘alternative strategies’ of identity preservation for Jews who endeavoured to be, or were part of a multi-layered, increasingly secular society…” Liedtke, Jewish Welfare, 262–3. Finestein stated of Montefiore that “long before he moved from the station of communal affluence to the rank of aristocracy, he had come to enjoy within the Jewish community all the attributes of aristocracy” (“The Uneasy Victorian”, 50).

Graetz, “Jews in the Modern Period”, 156–76.

Wells, The Rise and Development of Organized Freemasonry, and Freemasonry in London since 1785. For a general review on Freemasonry in the UK, Europe and America, see Weisberger, McLeod and Brent Morris, Freemasonry on Both Sides of the Atlantic.

See, for example, the case in France: Halperin, “Freemasonry and Party Building”, 197–210. On England see Blackstock, “Outside the Lodge Room”, 311–21.

See Burt, “Freemasonry and Business Networking”, 657–88.

Ibid. On Freemasonry and Jewish pursuit of rights, see Weisberger, “Freemasonry As a Source of Jewish Civic Rights”, 419–46.

Capková, “Jewish Elites”; Weisberger, “Freemasonry As a Source of Jewish Civic Rights.” Jewish Freemasonry activity played a similar role in Turkey (Rodrigue, “Abraham de Camondo of Istanbul”, 52–4).

Shaftesley, “Jews in English Freemasonry”, 25–63; “Jews in English Regular Fremasonary”, 150–69. On Moses Montefiore and Freemasonry activities see Green, “Rethinking Sir Moses Montefiore”, 29, 48, 235, 403, 416.

See Charlotte de Rothschild's correspondences, <http://www.rothschildarchive.org/research/?doc=/research/articles/xferdinand.xml&headline=Research+Forum%3ABrief+Biography%3A+Ferdinand+%281839%2D1898%29>.

Penslar, Shylock's Children, 154. See, for example, “Illuminated Address to Baron de Rothschild presented by the London Committee of the Board of Deputies on 26th July 5618”, described in Barnett, Catalogue of the Permanent and Loan Collections of the Jewish Museum London, 135. For examples from the Hebrew press see Soffer, “Paper Territory”, 31–9.

Penslar, Shylock's Children, 154, 301, fns. 95, 96.

For the Anglo-Jewish press, see Cesarani, The ‘Jewish Chronicle’ and Anglo Jewry.

Lehrer and Salinger, “The Testimonials and the Legend”, 349–61. See also Penslar, Shylock's Children, 155–6. Cf. Harel, In “Ships Of Fire” To The West, 223 fn. 103, 307 fn. 159. For example, Bresslau, Modern Annals of Israel.

Adler, The Purpose and Methods of Charitable Relief.

Rubinstein, “Jews in the Economic Elites”, 5–35.

Meaning the Jewish Board of Guardians.

Rozin, The Rich and the Poor, 169.

Liedtke, Jewish Welfare, 234–5.

“The Rothschilds regarded charitable work as a religious obligation and this impulse was reinforced by the voluntarist ethos of Victorian liberalism” (Ferguson, The Cash Nexus, 275–6). See also Prochaska, The Voluntary Impulse.

Shapley, “Charity, Status and Leadership”, 157–77.

Jones, “Some Recent Trends in the History of Charity”; Cavallo, “The Motivations of Benefactors”.