The Exceptions to the Rule

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-12
Author(s):  
Cynthia Seton-Rogers

Abstract History has largely ignored Anglo-Jewish history in the years between the expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290 and their readmittance in 1656 by Cromwell. This article revisits that period and disputes the misconception that the Period of Expulsion left England without any Jews for nearly 400 years. Although the small Jewish population ebbed and flowed with the rising and waning tides of English anti-Jewish hostilities, it nevertheless persevered. This article highlights some of the more well-known and thus well-documented of these Jews, the majority of whom were Crypto-Jews of Spanish or Portuguese origin.

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-12
Author(s):  
Cynthia Seton-Rogers

History has largely ignored Anglo-Jewish history in the years between the expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290 and their readmittance in 1656 by Cromwell. This article revisits that period and disputes the misconception that the Period of Expulsion left England without any Jews for nearly 400 years. Although the small Jewish population ebbed and flowed with the rising and waning tides of English anti-Jewish hostilities, it nevertheless persevered. This article highlights some of the more well-known and thus well-documented of these Jews, the majority of whom were Crypto-Jews of Spanish or Portuguese origin.


2008 ◽  
pp. 177-205
Author(s):  
Adam Kopciowski

In the early years following World War II, the Lublin region was one of the most important centres of Jewish life. At the same time, during 1944-1946 it was the scene of anti-Jewish incidents: from anti-Semitic propaganda, accusation of ritual murder, economic boycott, to cases of individual or collective murder. The wave of anti-Jewish that lasted until autumn of 1946 resulted in a lengthy and, no doubt incomplete, list of 118 murdered Jews. Escalating anti-Jewish violence in the immediate post-war years was one of the main factors, albeit not the only one, to affect the demography (mass emigration) and the socio-political condition of the Jewish population in the Lublin region


Author(s):  
Sarunas Liekis ◽  
Lidia Miliakova ◽  
Antony Polonsky

This chapter presents three documents describing the anti-Jewish violence in Lida and in Vilna in April 1919. The documents on Lida come from the collection of the supreme command of the Polish army in the holdings of the Tsentr khraneniia istoriko-dokumentalnykh kollektsii (Moscow Centre for the Preservation of Historical and Document Collections). Lida was a small town about 60 miles south of Vilna, with which it was linked by rail. In 1919, its population was about 5,500, of whom the majority were Jews (67.7 per cent according to the census of 1897). Disputes arose almost immediately after the town was recaptured by Polish forces in April 1919, on the scale and reasons for the anti-Jewish violence which followed the establishment of Polish control. On 18 April 1919, the report of the Polish central headquarters covering the military developments in Lida claimed that ‘the Jewish population assisted the Bolsheviks by shooting Polish troops’.


2021 ◽  
pp. 463-494
Author(s):  
Szymon Rudnicki

This chapter mentions Jarosław Wołkonowski of Vilna and Przemysław Rózanski of Gdansk, who wrote about the events in Vilna based on materials located in US archives. It talks about opposing descriptions of the events in Vilna, in which there was denial of any anti-Jewish behaviour. It also discusses the significant decrease of the Jewish population of Vilna during the First World War, while the Polish population increased. The chapter examines the theory about negative attitudes towards the Poles, which was established a priori under the influence of prevailing anti-Jewish attitudes and the triumph of nationalist ideas. It explores the Poles' attitude towards Jews that arose because the Jewish population was seen above all as supportive of Bolshevism.


Author(s):  
Sergio Della Pergola

The scientific study of the Jewish population, also known as demography of the Jews or Jewish demography, does not actually claim the status of a distinct discipline. It is an area of specialization focusing on the changing size and composition of Jewish populations and on the determinants and consequences of such changes. This article outlines some of the main concepts, interpretative frameworks, and methodological issues in the field, followed by a short outline of substantive patterns and applied uses of available knowledge. The main scientific rationale for the study of Jewish populations rests with the growing interest in understanding the demography of religious, ethnic, and cultural groups and minorities. Demographic changes provide an important and occasionally indispensable background for an appraisal of Jewish history and cultural experience. Hence, the study of Jewish demography is organically tied to the development of Jewish studies.


2007 ◽  
pp. 178-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Kopciowski

In the early years following World War II, the Lublin region was one of the most important centres of Jewish life. At the same time, during 19441946 it was the scene of anti-Jewish incidents: from anti-Semitic propaganda, accusation of ritual murder, economic boycott, to cases of individual or collective murder. The wave of anti-Jewish that lasted until autumn of 1946 resulted in a lengthy and, no doubt incomplete, list of 118 murdered Jews. Escalating anti-Jewish violence in the immediate post-war years was one of the main factors, albeit not the only one, to affect the demography (mass emigration) and the socio-political condition of the Jewish population in the Lublin region


Aschkenas ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrich Hausmann

AbstractOn 12 November 1671 the Prince-elector Johann Philipp of Schönborn decided to reduce the Jewish population of Mainz to ten households, who henceforth should live together in a segregated and enclosed lane, i. e. a ghetto. Historians have struggled to understand the reason for Schönborn’s »anti-Jewish policy«, since during the Middle Ages, Jews were allowed to live next to their Christian neighbours and to own real estate anywhere across the city. According to Siegmund Salfeld, this measure was an act of pure discrimination and Johann Philipp – well known for his tolerance and therefore called the »German Solomon« – was simply an »enemy of the Jews«. However, such historiographical characterizations do not account for the complicated motives for the


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-204
Author(s):  
Carson Bay

AbstractThe fourth century of the Common Era was a period significant for witnessing the effective birth of Christian historiography and the (putatively) definitive separation of ‘Jew’ and ‘Christian’ as distinctive identities. A text emerged, known as Pseudo-Hegesippus or De Excidio Hierosolymitano (On the Destruction of Jerusalem). This text illustrates how Christian historiography and Christian anti-Jewish ideology at that time could engage with the traditions of classical antiquity. In particular, this article argues that Pseudo-Hegesippus deploys figures from the Hebrew Bible in the mode of classical exempla and that it does so within the largely classical conceptual framework of national decline. For Pseudo-Hegesippus, biblical figures presented as classical exempla serve to illustrate the historical decline of the Jews until their effective end in 70 CE (when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple). One passage, De Excidio 5.2.1, and its enlistment of five Hebrew heroes illustrates this point particularly well. The use of exemplarity and the theme of national decline employed there help us appreciate De Excidio as a distinctive contribution to early Christian historiography and anti-Jewish literature in late antiquity; this expands our ability to imagine the ways in which fourth-century Christian authors could conceive of and articulate Jewish history in classical terms.


Author(s):  
Kamil Kijek

For whom and about what? The Polin Museum, Jewish historiography and Jews as a “Polish cause”The article presents main threads of the ongoing debate around the permanent exhibition of the Polin Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw. Analyzing differences between two fields of research, Jewish studies and studies on Polish-Jewish relations, the article makes the case that many of the critical voices in this debate stem from a lack of understanding of the differences between these two fields of research; these in their turn arise from the current state of affairs in Poland, and the pressure of nationalism and ethnocentrism, exerted also on Polish historical debates. If the telling of the 1,000 years of the history of Jewish life in Poland were to concentrate on the attitudes of the majority population towards Jews, as the critics seem to suggest, should be the case, the Museum’s narrative would run the risk of falling into a teleological fallacy, whereby all previous events and processes are interpreted as mechanically leading to the Holocaust, and of omitting all of these elements of Jewish history which are not relevant from the perspective of the Holocaust and of antisemitism studies. Making anti-Jewish hatred or the attitudes of the general majority towards Jews into the central axis of Jewish history could deprive Jews of their own historical subjectivity. At the same time, the article points out where and how the narrative of the Polin Museum indeed insufficiently includes the subject of antisemitism as an important factor of Jewish experience and of Jewish history in Poland. Renewing the dialogue between representatives of Jewish studies and Polish-Jewish relations studies is crucial from the standpoint of the current situation in Poland, in which the Polin Museum can be used by various actors in their attempts to build highly biased, politicized and uncritical versions of the history of Poland generally and of Polish attitudes towards the Jews specifically. This kind of understanding between the fields of Jewish studies and Polish-Jewish relations studies and their representatives’ common struggle against such attempts require an understanding of the autonomy of and differences between these two fields of research. Dla kogo i o czym? Muzeum Polin, historiografia Żydów a Żydzi jako „sprawa polska”Artykuł ten przedstawia najważniejsze wątki krytycznej debaty wokół treści wystawy stałej Muzeum Historii Żydów Polskich Polin. Analizując różnice między dwoma polami badawczymi – studiami żydowskimi i studiami nad relacjami polsko-żydowskimi – autor broni tezy, że wiele krytycznych głosów w debacie wynika z niezrozumienia różnic między przedmiotem badań tych dwóch pól, po części wynikającego z obecnej sytuacji – panującego nacjonalizmu i etnocentryzmu, wywierających wpływ również na polskie debaty historyczne. Domaganie się od wystawy opowiadającej tysiącletnią historię Żydów na ziemiach polskich, aby koncentrowała się głównie na stosunku społeczeństwa większościowego do Żydów, grozi popełnieniem błędu teleologii, to jest interpretowaniem wcześniejszych wydarzeń i procesów jako nieuchronnie prowadzących do Zagłady, a także pomijaniem wszystkich tych elementów dziejów żydowskich, które z perspektywy Holokaustu i badań nad antysemityzmem nie mają znaczenia. Tego rodzaju postulaty i stojące za nimi metahistoryczne założenia grożą pozbawieniem Żydów roli podmiotów w ich własnej historii. Z drugiej strony autor tekstu wskazuje na elementy narracji wystawy stałej Muzeum Polin, w których rzeczywiście w niedostateczny sposób uwzględniona została problematyka antysemityzmu jako ważnego elementu żydowskiego doświadczenia i kluczowego czynnika dziejów Żydów w Polsce. Przywrócenie rzeczywistego dialogu i komunikacji pomiędzy przedstawicielami studiów żydowskich i badaczami relacji polsko-żydowskich, przy zachowaniu autonomii tych dwóch pól i zrozumieniu różnic pomiędzy nimi, jest też istotne z punktu widzenia niewątpliwych zagrożeń w postaci prób wykorzystania Muzeum Polin w budowie upolitycznionych, bezkrytycznych wizji historii Polski i stosunku Polaków do Żydów.


2021 ◽  
pp. 79-100
Author(s):  
Marek Tuszewicki

This chapter discusses the role of tsadikim and how the Jews viewed physicians. The Jewish population of eastern Europe was caught in the middle of a conflict between traditional treatments, represented by Orthodox circles, and the modern alternatives propagated by educated physicians. Tsadikim were often perceived as allies in the struggle for health and life. In the Talmud this was the term used to denote individuals of exceptional piety and probity, suffused with the grace of heaven in recognition of their virtues. Rabbis were also considered tsadikim; throughout Jewish history they would be approached for advice and prayers for the sick. The treatment process took a variety of forms, which depended not only on the type of ailment but also on the healer's own preferences. The ultimate effort that a tsadik could expend for the good of his community was the sacrifice of his life. The death of a tsadik did not mean the end of life, but marked the beginning of the holy man's constant, uninhibited access to the divine throne. Doctors were not greatly trusted; they were seen as godless proponents of Enlightenment heresies who dressed in European fashion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document