Voskhod

—History:

[Much of the history of the Jews of Russia having already appeared under the headings see See ALEXANDER (2), ARMENIA, CAUCASUS, Cossacks, etc., the present article has been framed so as to include only those facts which are necessary to supplement the data given in those articles.] In some of the territory included within the limits of the present Russian empire Jewish inhabitants were to be found in the very remote past; Armenian and Georgian historians record that after the destruction of the First Temple (587 B.C.) Nebuchadnezzar deported numbers of Jewish captives to Armenia and to the Caucasus. These exiles were joined later by coreligionists from Media and Judea. Some members of these early colonies, notably the BAGRATUNI, became prominent in local political life. The Bagratuni family stood high in the councils of the Armenian government until the fourth century of the present era; but religious pressure finally compelled its members to adopt Christianity. According to tradition, another influential Jewish family, the AMATUNI, came to Armenia in the reign of Artashes (85-127 C.E.). At the end of the fourth century there were Armenian cities possessing Jewish populations ranging from 10,000 to 30,000. The Jews were subjected to great suffering when the Persians invaded Armenia, most of the cities being destroyed, and many of the Jews being led into captivity (360-370).

Jews had lived in Georgia also since the destruction of the First Temple. The ruler of Mzchet assigned them a place for settlement on the River Zanav. This locality was subsequently named "Kerk," meaning "tribute," on account of the taxes imposed upon the Jews. After the capture of Jerusalem by Vespasian (70 C.E.) other Jewish exiles joined their coreligionists at Mzchet (see Jew. Enscyc. 2:117b, s. ARMENIA, and ib. 3:628, s. CAUCASUS).

Monuments consisting of marble slabs bearing Greek inscriptions, and preserved in the Hermitage, St. Petersburg, and in the museum at Feodosia (Kaffa), show that Jews lived in the Crimea and along the entire eastern coast of the Black Sea at the beginning, of the common era, and that they possessed well-organized communities with synagogues. They were then already Hellenized, bearing such Greek names as Hermis, Dionisiodorus, and Heracles. In the reign of Julius the Isaurian (175-210) the name "Volamiros" was common among the Jews of the Crimea. This was the origin of the Russian name "Vladimir." Most of the Greek inscriptions relate to the liberation of slaves who in obedience to religious vows had been dedicated to the Synagogue. The entire Jewish community thus became the guardian of these liberated slaves.

Early Period.

The presence of well-organized Jewish communities in that region serves to prove that Jews lived there a long time before the common era, and supports the statement of Strabo (b. in Pontus 63 B.C.) that it is not easy to find in the inhabited world a place without Jewish inhabitants. Philo Judæus also remarks that the Jews populated numerous cities on the continent and the islands of Europe and Asia. Beginning with the second half of the second century the Crimean inscriptions are exclusively in Hebrew, instead of in Greek as they formerly were, which goes to show that the first Jewish settlers in the Crimea were not from western Europe, but were Bosporian and Asiatic Jews. Of such inscriptions about 120 are unquestionably genuine; and these cover the period 157 to 1773 (see Jew. Encyc. 3:329b, s. Bosporus; also CRIMEA; KAFFA; KERTCH).

Jews from the Crimea moved eastward and northward and became the founders of Jewish communities along the shores of the Caspian Sea and of the lower Volga (ATEL), carrying with them a civilization more advanced than that of the native tribes among which they settled. Under their influence BULAN, the "chaghan" of the Chazars, and the ruling classes of Chazaria adopted Judaism in 731 or 740. The spread of Judaism among the Chazars rendered the entire region of the lower Don, the Volga, and the Dnieper especially attractive to Jewish settlers (see Jew. Encyc. i, s. CHAZARS). After the overthrow of the Chazarian kingdom by Swyatoslaw (969), Jews in large numbers fled to the Crimea, the Caucasus, and the Russian principality Of KIEV, formerly a part of the Chazar territory. There is even a tradition (unsupported, however, by sufficient documentary evidence) that the city of Kiev was founded by the Chazars. Mention is made, in Russian chronicles of the year 987, of Chazarian Jews who came to Prince Vladimir desiring to convert him to Judaism. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries the Jews occupied in Kiev a separate quarter, called the Jewish town ("Zhidy"), the gates leading to which were known as the Jewish gates ("Zhidovskiye vorota"). At this time Jews are found also in northeastern Russia, in the domains of Prince Andrei Bogolyubski (1169-1174).

From the writings of Ilarion, "Metropolitan of Kiev in the first half of the eleventh century, it appears that the local Jewish community possessed very considerable influence. It is also evident that that author's familiarity with Jewish matters was gained by personal contact with Jews, and that he found it necessary to combat the spread of Judaism. In 1321 Kiev, Volhynia, and Podolia were conquered by the Lithuanian grand duke Gedimin, who granted the Jewish inhabitants of these territories the same rights that were enjoyed by his Jewish subjects in LITHUANIA. These rights were subsequently amplified by the well-known charter of Witold in 1388, under which the Jews of Kiev and of other Russian principalities were accorded full citizenship, not a few of them serving in the body-guards of the Russian princes.

Jews lived in Lithuania and Poland as early as the tenth century, having come from South Russia,from Germany, and from other west-European countries. RUSSIA: see POLAND.

Muscovite Russia.

Documentary evidence as to the presence of Jews in Muscovite Russia is first found in the chronicles of 1471. The Grand Duke of Moscow, Ivan III. (1462-1505) was the first Muscovite prince to abolish the feudal organization and to establish a centralized government. The independent towns of Novgorod and Pskov alone remained unannexed to Russia. Novgorod, which was a member of the Hanseatic League, was frequently visited by foreign merchants, who thus helped to introduce Western ideas among the Russian people. The grand duke Ivan was eagerly watching events in Novgorod, where opposing political parties struggled for supremacy. One of these parties strongly favored annexation to the spiritual center of Greek-Orthodoxy, while the other, disapproving the growing religious formalism and ceremonial, attempted to lead the Russians toward the more progressive forms of western Europe. This political and religious unrest prepared a favorable soil for religious heresy. In 1470 the people of Novgorod invoked the aid of Prince Michael Olelkovich, brother of the viceroy of Kiev, in their struggle with Moscow. He brought with him the learned Jew Skhariyah, who converted the priest Dionis to Judaism (ALEKSEI; see Ivan III., Vassilivich; Judaizing Heresy).

The Judaizing sect rapidly gained adherents and spread to Moscow, where it won the support of influential men standing near to the grand duke. Ivan himself was favorably disposed toward the new religious movement, and for political reasons made no attempt to suppress it. It was with evident reluctance that he yielded to the appeal of the Bishop of Novgorod and the Metropolitan of Moscow to punish the offenders and to check the spread of the heresy. Very probably Ivan attempted to strengthen his influence in Lithuania with the aid of Michael Olelkovich and Skhariyah (LITHUANIA). There may have been some connection between the expulsion of the Jews from Lithuania by Alexander in 1495 and Ivan's attitude toward the Judaizing heresy. It is known that, although the Jews were readmitted in 1503, stern measures against the Judaizers were not taken until 1504. At any rate it is evident from many sources that Ivan attempted to further his schemes of conquest in Lithuania as well as in the Crimea by gaining the support of the Jews. Panov comes to the conclusion ("Yeres Zhidovstvuyushchikh," in "Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnavo Prosvyescheniya," 1876) that Skhariyah (Zacharias) of Kiẹv and Zacharias Guizolfi were one and the same person—a deduction which has very little justification, as may be seen from the facts set forth in the article see Guizolfi.

Ivan's dealings with the Jews were not limited, however, to the two Zachariases. There is documentary evidence that the grand duke corresponded with the Jew Khozei Kokos. He instructed the ambassador Beklemishev in 1474 to convey his greetings to Kokos, and in a message to the latter requested him to use his influence with the Crimean khan Mengli-Girei to induce that ruler to send not merely his assertions of friendship, but a formal treaty with Ivan. The grand duke also asked Kokos to assist his agents as theretofore, for which aid he promised due compensation; and he explained that the presents then forwarded to Kokos were of less value than they might have been "because the ambassador was unable to carry much baggage." The grand duke further requested Kokos to abstain from the use of Hebrew script in his correspondence, and to employ instead Russian or Tatar characters. The last request shows that on previous occasions letters in Hebrew had been received and translated at the Muscovite court. Other documents show that Kokos conducted negotiations relating to the marriage of the heir to the Muscovite throne with the daughter of the Prince of Mangup; and in 1486 the Russian ambassador was instructed to inform Kokos that, should his services prove as acceptable as theretofore, he would be rewarded by the grand duke "with palaces, amethysts, and fine pearls."

The grand duke's invitation to Zacharias Guizolfi to reside in Moscow indicates that no restrictions existed with regard to the residence in that city of wealthy and influential Jews. The execution of the Jewish court physician LEO (or Leon) did not affect Ivan's attitude toward the Jews; for in his subsequent correspondence (up to 1500) he still urged Guizolfi to settle in Moscow.

It is known that in the reign of Vasili Ivanovich IV. (1505-33) the Jews were held in ill repute mainly on account of the Judaizing heresy. While there is proof that Lithuanian Jewish merchants carried on trade with and visited Moscow and Smolensk, their transactions were made possible only by the lax enforcement of the restrictive regulations concerning the Jews; the grand duke's special ambassador to Rome, Dmitri Gerasimov, whose mission it was to establish a union between the Greek-Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches (1526), remarked to the historian Paolo Giovio, "We abhor the Jews and do not allow them to enter Russia."

Muscovite treatment of the Jews became harsher in the reign of Ivan IV., The Terrible (1533-84). Apart from the savage instincts of the czar, from which all of his subjects suffered, he vented upon the Jews his religious fanaticism and hatred, which were strengthened by the hostile attitude of the Catholic Church toward the Jews of western Europe. In his conquest of Polotsk, Ivan IV. ordered that all Jews who should decline to adopt Christianity should be drowned in the Düna. In the period of thirty years which intervened between the death of Ivan IV. and the accession of the first Romanof, Jews were connected more or less intimately with political events in the history of the Muscovite kingdom. Thus mention is made of Jews among the followers of the usurper Grishka Otrepyev. There is even a tradition that he himself was of Jewish origin.

The Russian chronicler who describes the times of the first pseudo-Demetrius (see "Regesty," 1:338) states that the Muscovite kingdom was overrun with foreign heretics, Lithuanians, Poles, and Jews to such an extent that there were scarcely any native Russians to be seen (1605).

The Romanofs.

In the reign of the first Romanof, Michael Feodorovich(1613-45), certain enactments placed the Jews on an equality with the Lithuanians, Germans, Tatars, and Circassians, all nationalities being treated in a spirit of tolerance. In a message of Oct. 9, 1634, to the governor of Great Perm, the czar ordered the release of certain Lithuanian prisoners (Germans, Jews, Tatars, and Circassians), who were to be permitted to return to their fatherlands or to remain in Russia, as they might decide.

Four years later (1638) the czar in his congratulatory message to the King of Poland displayed a changed attitude toward the Jews. He instructed his representatives at the Polish court to propose that Polish merchants should be prohibited from bringing into Russia certain merchandise, "and that Jews be forbidden to enter Russia at all" (AARON MARKOVICH OF WILNA). This attitude was undoubtedly inspired by purely religious motives; and the czar's message indicates that, notwithstanding the persecution of the Jews in Russia, they still entered the country for purposes of trade. On the whole, it is quite certain that there was no fixed policy in the treatment of the Jews by Michael's government, and that orders and decrees were frequently issued as special occasions required.

In the code of 1649, under Michael's successor, Alexis (Aleksei) Mikhailovich (1645-76) the attitude of the government toward the Jews was more clearly defined. This code contains no general direct limitations of the rights of the Jews then living in Russia, and where in exceptional cases such limitations are made they concern religious matters and foreign Jews only. The document furnishes strong proof that the former restrictions upon the Jews were inspired by religious intolerance, and that the expression of such intolerance was officially avoided in the written code. It may be inferred from the decrees issued subsequently to the code that the Jews had access to all the towns of Russia, including Moscow. By the first of these decrees, the ukase of July 30, 1654, the establishment of turnpikes was ordered so that all persons going to Moscow might be examined: "and such persons as shall prove to be from Mstislavl and other frontier cities, Lithuanians, Catholics, nonconformists, Jews, Tatars, and various unchristian people, all shall be admitted to Moscow." This enactment, later incorporated into the legal code, shows that the Jews were not singled out from the other peoples, and that they were subject to the general laws. On special occasions, however, decrees unfavorable to them were issued, as, for instance; in the case of the expulsion of the Jews from see Moghilef in 1654.

The ukase of March 7, 1655, ordering the transfer of "Lithuanians and Jews" from Kaluga, to Nijni-Novgorod, provided for their proper protection and for the payment to them of a liberal allowance for traveling expenses. Moreover, article of the treaty of Andrusov (1667), agreeing upon an armistice between Russia and Poland for a period of thirteen years and six months, provided that all Jews who so desired and who had not become converts to Christianity should be allowed by the czar to return to Polish territory, taking with them their wives, children, and possessions, and that those preferring to remain in Russia should be accorded the requisite permission.

The Ukrainian writer Joanniki Golyatovski, in his work "Messia Pravdivy" (1676), attacked the Jews with the intention of prejudicing the czar against them. Kostomarov, in commenting on this fact, states that, notwithstanding the disinclination of the Great Russians to admit the Jews to their country, the latter found their way to Moscow, usually concealing their racial and religious affiliations. It is worthy of note here that there were at that time in Moscow a considerable number of baptized Jews in the monasteries, especially in the Voskresenski monastery, concerning whom Archbishop Nikkon wrote to Alexis complaining that they "had again begun to practise their old Jewish religion, and to demoralize the young monks." It may be seen from the facts presented here and in the articles ALEXIS MIKHAILOVICH and Gaden that in this reign the Jews of Moscow had increased both in numbers and in influence. Alexis' son and successor, Feodor Alekseyevich. (1676-82), stipulated in his treaty (1678) with King John Sobieski of Poland that all Polish merchants, excepting those of the Jewish faith, should be allowed to visit Moscow ("Polnoye Sobraniye Zakonov," 1:148).

Under Peter the Great.

The Russian documents thus far accessible do not permit a definite conclusion as to the attitude of Peter the Great (1682-1725) toward his Jewish subjects. The Russian historian Solovyev, who was himself not without prejudice toward the Jews, points out ("Istoriya Rossii," vol. ) that when Peter invited talented foreigners to Russia, he invariably excepted Jews. No documentary evidence in proof of this assertion is, however, furnished. Peter's edict of April 16, 1702, which Solevyev cites, contains no reference to the Jews; and the historian's assertion is evidently based on Nartov's anecdote concerning Peter's so-journ in Holland (1698). When petitioned by the Jews of Amsterdam, through his old friend Burgo-master Witsen, for the admission of their coreligionists to Russia, Peter is reported to have replied, "The time has not yet come for a union of the Jews and the Russians." Nartov also cites Peter as having stated that he would rather call to Russia Mohammedans or heathen than Jews, who are "tricksters and cheats." Nartov adds that Peter remarked to the Jewish delegation petitioning for the right to trade in Great Russia: "You imagine that the Jews are so shrewd as to be able to gain advantage over the Christian merchants; but I assure you that my people are more cunning even than the Jews, and will not permit themselves to be deceived."

On the other hand, the selection of Baron Shafirov, a baptized Jew, as chancellor of the empire, and the confidence shown in him, as well as the advancement by Peter of Dewier, supposedly the son of a Portuguese Jewish barber, indicate that the czar personally had no race prejudices, and that he discouraged superstition in the Greek-Orthodox Church. Nevertheless he found it expedient to leave unchanged the religious legislation framed by his father, Aleksei, which contained many restrictions of the rights of non-Christian subjects of theempire. In a document of the pinḳes of Mstislavl, government of Moghilef, it is stated:

This incident does not necessarily show, however, that Peter was a steadfast friend of the Jews (Dubnow, in "Voskhod," 1889, pp. 1-2, 177).

Active measures against the Jews, especially those living in the Ukraine, were inaugurated by Peter's successor, Catherine I. (1725-27). On March 25, 1727, the empress issued a ukase prohibiting the leasing of inns and customs duties to Jews in Smolensk, and ordering the deportation beyond the frontier of Baruch Leibov and those associated with him. On May 7 of the same year another edict was promulgated ordering the expulsion of the Jews from Russia:

In signing this decree Catherine was apparently prompted by purely religious motives. She was strongly influenced by her religious advisers, notably by Feofan Prokopovich, elder of the Holy Synod. Prokopovich also secured the cooperation of Menshikov, who may have been provoked against the Jews by his quarrel with Shafirov. It was Menshikov who prohibited the election of Jews as general or military elders in Little Russia. The Ukrainians soon found that the removal of the Jewish merchants from among them resulted in great economic injury to the country, and their hetman, Apostol, petitioned the Senate for a revocation of this drastic law (1728).

Under Peter II. (1727-30) and Anna Ivanovna (1730-40) the strict measures against the Jews were at first somewhat relaxed. Toward the end of Anna's rule Jewish religious influences became more manifest. It was in her reign that the above-mentioned Baruch Leibov and the naval captain Voznitzyn were burned at the stake (July 15, 1738), the former for proselytizing, the latter for apostasy. By a decree of July 22, 1739, Anna ordered the expulsion of the Jews from Little Russia; and on Aug. 29 of the same year she issued another decree forbidding Jews to own or lease inns or other property in that territory. It was also in her reign and in the subsequent reign of Elizabeth Petrovna that the Jews of Lithuania and Ukraine suffered from the excesses of the HAIDAMACKS.

Elizabeth (1741-62), the daughter of Peter the Great, was especially harsh in enforcing anti-Jewish legislation. In her edict expelling the Jews from Little Russia she stated that "no other fruit may be expected from the haters of Christ the Savior's name than extreme injury to our faithful subjects." When the Senate, urged by the Little-Russian Cossacks and the merchants of Riga, decided to recommend to the empress a more liberal treatment of the Jews, in view of the great losses that would otherwise result to the two countries and to the imperial treasury, Elizabeth wrote on the margin of the report: "I will not derive any profit from the enemies of Christ" (1742). Having discovered that her court physician Sanchez was an adherent of the Jewish, religion, Elizabeth, notwithstanding the esteem in which he was held, summarily ordered him to resign from the Academy of Sciences and to give up his court practise (1748). The mathematician Leonhard Euler, who was also a member of the Academy of Sciences, wrote from Berlin: "I doubt much whether such strange procedures can add to the glory of the Academy of Sciences." It should be added, however, that the fanatical empress persecuted the Mohammedans as well. In 1743 she destroyed 418 of the 536 mosques in the government of Kazan.

Catherine II.

A broader conception of the rights of the Jews obtained under Catherine II. (1762-96). For while the empress, though talented and liberal in her personal views, was careful not to antagonize the prejudices of the Greek-Orthodox clergy, and still found it inexpedient to abolish entirely the time-honored discriminations against the Jews that had become a part of the imperial policy of the Romanofs, she nevertheless found it necessary to concede something to the spirit of the times. For this reason, and recognizing also the useful services that the Jewish merchants might render to the commerce of the empire, she encouraged a less stringent application of the existing laws. Thus, in spite of the protests of the merchants of Riga, she directed Governor-General Browne of Livonia to allow the temporary sojourn in Riga of a party Of Jews, who ostensibly had the intention of settling in the new Russian provinces (1765); and in 1769 Jews were permitted to settle in these provinces on equal terms with the other foreigners who had been invited to develop that uninhabited region. About this time occurred the first partition of Poland, resulting in the annexation to Russia of the White-Russian territory (1772), with its vast Jewish population.

The edict of Catherine, as promulgated by Governor-General Chernyshov, contained the following passage relating to the Jews:

Petition of the White-Russian Jews.

Notwithstanding the promise of Chernyshov (1772) that the White-Russian Jews would be allowed to enjoy all the rights and privileges thitherto granted to them, they continued to suffer from the oppression of the local administrations. In 1784 the Jews of White Russia petitioned the empress for theamelioration of their condition. They pointed out that, having lived for generations in villages on the estates of the landlords, they had established distilleries, breweries, etc., at great cost, and that the landlords had been pleased to lease various revenues to them. The governor-general had now prohibited the landlords from making any leases to them, so that they were in danger of becoming impoverished. By an imperial order the White-Russian Jews were eligible for election to municipal offices, but they had never been elected in practise, and were thus deprived of legal safeguards. They were at a further disadvantage because of their ignorance of the Russian language. They therefore asked for representation in the courts, particularly in cases between Jews and Christians, and that purely Jewish and religious affairs should be tried in Jewish courts according to Jewish law. They petitioned further for proper protection in the observance of their religion in accordance with the promises made to them. In some towns and villages Jews had built houses under a special arrangement with the landlords concerning the ground-rents; now the landlords had in some instances raised the rents without warning, and the Jews had in consequence been compelled to abandon their houses. They therefore asked that the rents be maintained as theretofore, or that at least a few years of grace be given them to enable them to make the necessary arrangements for removing to other places. In some towns, to make room for squares and to facilitate the more modern arrangement of the city streets, dwellings and other buildings had been torn down without compensation to the Jewish owners. Jews belonging to villages and townlets had been compelled by the authorities to build houses in the cities, and were thus brought to the verge of ruin.

After due consideration of this petition by the Senate, a ukase was issued (May 7, 1786) allowing landlords again to lease their distilleries and inns to Jews, and permitting the election of Jews to the courts, the merchant gilds, the magistracy, and the city councils. The request for special Jewish courts was not granted, though religious matters were placed under the jurisdiction of the rabbis and the ḳahals. Questions as to alleged extortionate rentcharges and damages sustained by the removal of buildings owned by Jews were left for adjustment to the local authorities. The petition of the Jews for protection in the exercise of their religion was granted.

Soon after the issue of this ukase White-Russian Jews came in larger numbers to Moscow, thus arousing the opposition of the merchants of that city. The latter applied to the military commander of Moscow (Feb., 1790) for the exclusion of the Jews, who, it was claimed, were undermining the prosperity of the merchants by selling goods below the standard price. Other stereotyped accusations were likewise made. From this application (preserved in Vorontzov's "Archives") it is evident that the Moscow merchants, whose usual business motto was "He who does not deceive makes no sales," were alarmed at the competition of the Jews; and, knowing that the tolerant empress would not countenance discrimination on religious grounds, they stated that they were free from religious prejudice and merely sought to protect their business interests. That they succeeded in their efforts is evident from the decision of the imperial council of Oct. 7, 1790, and from the ukase of the empress of Dec. 23, 1791, by which Jews were forbidden to register in the Moscow merchant gild.

Notwithstanding Catherine's liberal ideas, the perplexing Jewish question in Russia originated at the time of the first partition of Poland.

Paul I.

The tragic events in the life of Paul I. (1796-1801), as, for instance, the dethroning and the death by violence of his father, Peter III., and the subsequent attempts of his mother, Catherine II., to deprive him of the right of succession, made a serious impression upon him; and his reign was one of the darkest periods in the history of Russia. Nevertheless, his stormy reign was a propitious period for the Jews, toward whom Paul's attitude was one of tolerance and kindly regard. This is partly evidenced by the contemporary legislation, which consisted of only a few enactments. On the advice of his confidant, Baron Heiking, he granted the privilege of citizenship to the Jews of COURLAND, and gave them also municipal rights—a very important concession, as until then the Jews of Courland had been denied such privileges. But of even more importance is the fact that Paul I. opposed the expulsion of the Jews from the towns. Thus he prohibited their expulsion from Kamenetz-Podolsk and from Kiev. About this time (1796) the Senate without the emperor's knowledge enacted a law calling for a double payment for the gild license by the Jewish merchants. As to the decree of 1797 included in the legal code and imposing double taxation on the Jews, it is erroneously ascribed to Paul I. Such a decree was issued under Catherine II. in 1794, and although, in virtue thereof, the Jews continued to pay double taxes under Paul, he did not reenact it.

Paul's attitude toward the Jews and the part played by him in their historical life were of greater significance than may appear from his legislative measures. This is shown by contemporary official regulations not incorporated in the legal code.

In 1799 Senator Derzhavin, a Russian poet, was sent to White Russia commissioned to investigate the complaints of the Jewish inhabitants of Shklov against its owner, General Zorich. At about the same time one of the White-Russian courts was investigating a blood accusation against the Jews; and Derzhavin, who hated them as "the enemies of Christ" and wished also to help Zorich, proposed to Paul I. that the testimony of Jewish witnesses should not be accepted until the Jews proved that they were innocent of the accusation brought against them. This proposal, had it been accepted, would have been disastrous to the Russian Jews, for they would have been denied the right to testify at every trial of this nature, and the general effect would have been to deprive the Jewish population of the right of citizenship. Paul I., however, notified Derzhavin that when a case was once before a courtit was not necessary to confuse it with questions concerning Jewish witnesses.

The Ḥasidim.

Still more important was the solution of the question involving the attitude of the government toward the Jewish schism that concerned the Jews of Russia and led to the formation of the sect of ḤASIDIM. Under Paul the antagonism of the Ḥasidim toward their opponents became violent. The two parties began to make false accusations against each other to the government. The honored representative of the Ḥasidim, Zalman Borukhovich, was arrested and taken to St. Petersburg. According to the statement of his opponents, he has been guilty of active participation in an attempt to injure the government. Zalman succeeded, however, in proving his innocence, and at the same time in placing the Ḥasidim in a favorable light. He was released, and orders were issued directing that Ḥasidism be tolerated and that its adherents be left unmolested. Subsequently Zalman's enemies again succeeded in bringing about his imprisonment, but on the accession to the throne of Alexander I. he was liberated, and the sect was again declared deserving of toleration. These incidents resulted in again confining the religious controversy to the Jews themselves, and in lessening somewhat the aggressiveness of the antagonism.

Paul I. opposed the attempts of the Christian communities to expel, under the authority of old Polish privileges, the Jews from the cities. By his order the dispute between the Christians and Jews of Kovno, which had continued for many decades, was settled. He decreed that the Jews be allowed to remain in the city, and that no obstacles be placed in their way while in the pursuit of their trades or handicrafts. Consequent upon this there followed other decrees prohibiting the expulsion of the Jews from Kiev and Kamenetz-Podolsk. After the death of Paul I. the Christians of Kovno again petitioned for the expulsion of the Jews, but in view of Paul's decree their petition was not granted. During his reign, and apparently at his instance, the Senate began to collect material for comprehensive legislation concerning the Jews. His untimely death, however, prevented the immediate realization of his project, which was only completed under Alexander I.

In addition to the general censorship restrictions to which Russian literature was subjected in the reign of Paul, there was established a censorship for Jewish books. It had its center in Riga. Leon Elkan was appointed senior censor and was given two assistants, all being placed under the general Russian censorship committee in Riga. Paul I. was constantly informed of the reports of the censors on the books condemned, and thereby was able to take measures to strengthen the laws relating to objectionable books.

Alexander I.

The early years of the reign of Alexander I. (1801-1825) were marked by the prevalence of liberal ideas and by attempts at liberal legislation. As the pupil of Laharpe and the admirer of Rousseau, the young monarch was at first inclined to apply their teachings to practical government. The broader spirit in Russian legislation for the empire at large affected favorably the condition of its Jewish subjects also.

After the publication of the senatorial decree of Dec. 9, 1802, concerning the eligibility of Jews to municipal offices to the extent of one-third of the total number of such offices, the representatives of the Christian inhabitants of the city of Wilna applied (Feb. 1, 1803) to the chancellor of the empire, Count Vorontzov, for the repeal of this enactment, on the ground of its conflict with their ancient Lithuanian privileges. A similar spirit was manifested in many other towns of Russia.

Despite the hostility of the Christian merchants, the commencement of the political emancipation of the Jews may be said to have begun with the enactment of 1804. The administrative departments, however, either deliberately or unconsciously overlooked the true purpose of this law, and made no sincere attempt to further the solution of the Jewish question by ameliorating the economic condition of the Jews themselves. It was the purpose of the enactment to encourage in the first place the spread of modern education among the Jewish masses, to hasten their Russification, and to lead them to agricultural pursuits. Unfortunately those entrusted with the enforcement of these measures were not guided merely by motives of humanity and justice; and they endeavored to spread forcible baptism among the Jews. In consequence of this attitude the Jewish masses became suspicious of the government and its measures; and the latter could not therefore be carried out successfully (Alexander I., Pavlovich; see Israelite-Christians).

Nicholas I.

The reign of Nicholas I., Pavlovich (born 1796; reigned 1825 to 1855), whose oppressive rule fell as a pall on the Russian people, was one of constant affliction for his Jewish subjects also. Of the legal enactments concerning the Jews framed in Russia from 1649 until 1881, no less than six hundred, or one-half, belong to the period embraced by the reign of Nicholas I. These laws were drafted almost entirely under the immediate supervision of the emperor. His attitude toward the Jews was marked, on the one hand, by a hatred of their faith and by persistent attempts to convert them to Christianity; on the other hand, by mistrust of them, which originated in the conviction that they, or at least the bulk of them, formed a fanatical, criminal association, which found in religion a support for its evil deeds. There is no doubt that the Jews then concentrated in the PALE OF SETTLEMENT, and separated from the Christians by a series of legal restrictions and subject to the ḲAHAL, administration sanctioned by the government, lived a religious national life, narrow and marked by ignorance and fanaticism. Added to this was the extreme poverty of those within the Pale, which to some extent demoralized the outlawed Jewish population. But this unfortunate condition was not due to the exactions of their faith, and was only made worse by the measures now adopted.

Anti-Jewish Policy.

The system of limitations relating to the Jews which had developed in preceding reigns, and which considered them, because they were non-Christians, as the natural exploiters ofChristians, assumed under Nicholas I. peculiarly pronounced characteristics. In fact, the legislation of Nicholas I. relating to the Jews treated the following problems: First, according to the sense of one official document, "to diminish the number of Jews in the empire," which meant to convert as many of them to Christianity as possible. Secondly, to reeducate the Jews in such a manner as to deprive them of their individuality; that is, of their specific, religious, and national character. Thirdly, to render the Jewish population harmless to the Christians both economically and morally. The last two problems proved impossible of solution by the government mainly because it resorted to violent measures. In order to weaken the economic influence of the Jews, and to remove them from their religious and national isolation, it would have been necessary to scatter them by giving them an opportunity of settling in a vast region sparsely inhabited. Fearing, however, that even small groups of Jews would prove economically stronger than the ignorant, stolid people, most of whom were still serfs; and fearing also that the Jews would exert an ethical or even a religious influence on the Russians, the government refrained from encouraging more intimate relations between Jews and Christians, and reconcentrated the former, thus strengthening their isolation. Only by sudden and violent measures did the government ever remove a part of the Jewish population from its surroundings.

Conversionist Measures.

In order to encourage conversion to Christianity the government resorted to various measures, the most important among them being the endowing of baptized Jews with all the rights accorded to Christians of the same rank. There were also other auxiliary measures. For instance, baptized Jews were exempted from the payment of taxes for three years; murderers and other criminals who adopted Christianity were shown comparatively greater leniency than they otherwise would have received. But measures were also taken for compulsory conversion to Christianity. There is no doubt that it was in virtue of this consideration that the Jews, who until 1827 had paid a specified sum for relief from conscription, as was done also by the Russian merchant class, were called upon in that year to appear for personal service in the army. This regulation was framed ostensibly for the more equitable distribution of military burdens among all the citizens, but, as a matter of fact, the government was actuated by a desire to detach from Jewish society, by the aid of military service, a large number of Jews, and to transplant them elsewhere on Russian soil so as to deprive them of their Jewish traits, and, where practicable, also to baptize them. The conditions of the service under Nicholas were such that transfers of this kind could be made with impunity.

Conscription Measures.

Conscription, notwithstanding the fact that exemption had been purchased, continued for twenty-five years, the ages of the recruits ranging from twelve to twenty-five. (For its effect on children see the article CANTONISTS.) Special oppressive conditions of conscription were devised for the Jews in order to increase the number of Jewish soldiers. The Jews were compelled to furnish ten conscripts per thousand of their population, while the Christians had to furnish only seven recruits; moreover, the Jews were obliged to furnish conscripts for every conscription term, while the Christians were exempted at certain intervals. The Jews were furthermore made to furnish conscripts for arrears in the payment of taxes, one conscript for every one thousand rubles. Subsequently these extra recruits were taken as a mere fine for arrears without discharging the indebtedness thereby. This led to terrible suffering. For lack of able-bodied men (many fled, fearing the miseries of war and compulsory baptism) the Jewish communities, represented by the ḳahals, were unable to furnish such an excessive number of recruits; and yet for every conscript that was not furnished at the proper time two new conscripts were demanded. Thus it became necessary to recruit cripples, invalids, and old men, who were placed in the auxiliary companies; at times even members of the ḳahal were impressed into service, notwithstanding their advanced years. The sole supporters of families were also taken, and, finally, boys only eight years old. In spite of all these measures, however, the conscription arrears were on the increase. In order to remedy the shortage, the Jewish communities were permitted in 1853 to seize within their own district all the Jews who had no passports and belonged to other Jewish communities, and to enroll them in their own quota of recruits. The heads of families, whatever their standing, had the right to seize such Jews and to deliver them to the authorities as substitutes for themselves or for members of their families. Among other objects the government thereby intended to rid itself of those Jews whom the ḳahals refused to supply with passports in order to avoid the increase of tax and conscription arrears.

The "Poimaniki."

This measure was followed by the wide-spread persecution and capture of Jews who had no passports and who were known as "poimaniki." Furthermore, in localities where recruits were needed, the socalled "lovchiki" (catchers) began to seize even Jews possessing passports. Passports were stolen and destroyed, and the "poimaniki" were impressed into service without being able to secure redress. It was no longer safe for any man to leave his house. From motives of selfishness the local authorities encouraged this traffic in human beings. Children were made the special object of raids. They were torn by force or taken by cunning from the arms of their mothers in open daylight, and sold as having no passports. Nicholas I. himself was eager to increase the number of Jewish "cantonists." It happened, at times, that he permitted Jews to remain in localities from which they had been ordered to depart, on condition that they made cantonists of their sons, born or to be born.

Educational Policy.

The school reforms initiated by Nicholas I. were in their fundamental tendency similar to his military reforms. The education of Jewish children and youth at that time had a distinct religious and national character. This was caused largely by the conditionsof contemporary civic life, which discouraged intimate relations between Jews and Christians. The way to general enlightenment could have been paved most easily by the curtailment of the Jews' disabilities and by the improvement of their social condition. But Nicholas I. was, on the whole, not a friend of enlightenment or of civic tolerance, and his final consent to the initiation of school reforms was prompted, there is reason to believe, by a secret hope of the conversion of the Jews. Be this as it may, the school reform was directed under his influence with the view of forcing the reeducation of the growing generation of Jews in religious affairs. The reforms were outlined by the minister of public instruction, Uvarov, who was, apparently, a real friend of the Jews, and who found an able assistant in a German Jew, Max Lilienthal. The government established the so-called "government schools" of the first and second class, and for this purpose use was made of special Jewish funds and not of the general funds, notwithstanding the fact that the Jews paid their share of all the general taxes. According to a program previously worked out, instruction in the Talmud was to be included, but was to be nominal only, and was to be ultimately discontinued, as, in the opinion of the government, it tended to foster various evils. In Wilna and Jitomir two rabbinical schools for the training of teachers and rabbis were established. The schools were placed in charge of Christian principals, who were in most cases coarse and uneducated, and who were instructed to inculcate in the students a spirit contrary to the teachings of the Jewish faith. About the same time the persecution of the Jewish popular teachers ("melammedim"), who had been in charge of Jewish education for generations, was initiated. While it is true that the government schools had served the useful purpose of imparting to the Jewish masses a general education, yet they had failed to achieve the success that had been expected of them. The harsh methods, referred to above, created distrust and anxiety in the minds of the Jewish people, who were never made aware of the government's intentions. Moreover, certain laws were enacted simultaneously with the opening of the schools, and also later, that likewise awakened fear among the Jews. They ruthlessly forbade the obseryance of habits and customs made sacred by antiquity, but which were unimportant in themselves, and in the course of time would perhaps naturally have fallen into disuse. For the legislation on Jewish garments see the article COSTUME.

As an educational measure, the government of Nicholas I. attempted to direct the Jews into agricultural pursuits. This wise undertaking had its origin in the preceding reign, but assumed considerable practical importance under Nicholas I. Farmers were granted various privileges in the payment of taxes, and they and their descendant were freed from military service for a period of fifty years. Unfortunately, the severity subsequently displayed considerably reduced the number of would-be agriculturists. The enforcement of regulations for the proper management of the farms was entrusted to discharged non-commissioned officers, persons not at all fitted for the supervision of Jewish colonies. Besides, the Jews were forbidden to hire Christians to work for them. In 1844, however, these oppressive measures were repealed, and in 1852 new and broader provisions were enacted for inducing the Jews to take up agriculture on a larger scale.

Expulsions and Special Taxation.

Although the government made efforts to "reeducate" the Jews, placing a number of them in Russian environments, and although it introduced Russian influence among the young generation of Jews, also by forcible means, yet, fearing them, it provided likewise for the separation of the Jews from the Christians, unmindful of the fact that this segregation counteracted all its other enactments. To isolate the Jews, numbers of them were expelled, under various pretexts, from villages, towns, and entire provinces, though at intervals the measures of expulsion were relaxed. In 1843 the Jews were ordered from the 50-verst boundary-zone abutting Prussia and Austria, ostensibly because they were suspected of engaging in contraband trade (see below, s. Rural Communities). The enforcement of these measures gave ample opportunity for abuse- and oppression, and led to a gradual economic ruin of the Jews, the great bulk of whom were already greatly impoverished. Apart from general causes, their economic condition had steadily been growing worse because they had been compelled to pay double taxes from 1794 to 1817, and when these double taxes were abolished they were replaced by special Jewish taxes. To be sure, the law stated that these taxes were imposed for the maintenance of good order and for the strengthening of the charitable work within the Jewish communities; nevertheless, the government did not turn over to the Jews for their own needs all of the moneys collected, a considerable part remaining in the hands of the government.

Abolition of the Ḳahal.

The abolition of the ḳahal (1844) may perhaps be considered as the most advantageous and most useful measure of the reign of Nicholas I. This popular elective institution had served in its time a useful purpose in Poland, where it protected the Jews from the surrounding hostile and turbulent classes. Also in Russia the ḳahal repeatedly fought in the defense of Jewish interests, but the religious dissensions which broke out within Russian Jewry transformed the ḳahal into an arena of party strife and internal conflict. The ḳahals utilized the tax assessments and other prerogatives as instruments by which they might persecute their enemies. These abuses paralyzed the beneficent activities of the ḳahal, transformed it into a bugbear for the populace, and deprived it of all semblance of authority in the eyes of the government. In the days of Nicholas I. it had already lost the character of a representative body, and had degenerated into an institution concerned merely with the contribution of the Jewish taxes to the imperial treasury. The government strengthened the power of the ḳahal in order to secure a more uniform collection of taxes and a more uniform conscription among the Jews. The increased power brought with it new abuses. To its old weapons the ḳahal added a new one—conscription.This period coincided with that of the awakened desire among the Jews for western-European education, particularly for the study of German. The fanatical leaders of the ḳahal persecuted those imbued with the new ideas, and thus retarded considerably the new culture movement.

But the abolition of the ḳahal had also its negative side. When in the following reigns the condition of the Jews was improved, they no longer possessed the representative institution which might have served them a useful purpose in securing certain reforms. With the abolition of the ḳahal there was also lost that bond of union among the Jews that was indispensable to them in the defense of their common interests as a distinct portion of the city population. Most of the Jews lived in the cities, and almost all of them belonged to the burgher or merchant class; but while at that time city gilds and merchant and artisan gilds enjoyed a certain degree of self-government in administrative, economic, and judicial matters, the rights of the Jews in so far as this was concerned had been limited even before the accession of Nicholas I., and he imposed still greater restrictions. There was a rule that even in places where the Jewish population was quantitatively greater than the Christian, the Jews could participate in local self-government only to the extent of one-third of the total number of votes. Moreover, the holding of certain positions was not open to them. Thus, being without proper representation, they could not protect their interests, and hence municipal and general duties were imposed on them in undue proportion. They were entirely excluded from participation in jury service, even in the commercial courts. In some towns in which the merchant class was entirely composed of Jews, Christian blacksmiths were selected as members of the court, and they decided the commercial disputes of the Jews. All this naturally lowered the Jews in the esteem of their neighbors and estranged them from the Christians.

Notwithstanding his enmity toward the Jews Nicholas I. assumed the rôle of protector when the BLOOD ACCUSATION was brought against those of Velizh. Believing at first in the truth of the accusation, he treated the accused with great severity; but when it became clear to him that the accusation was false he condemned the irregular proceedings of the investigating commission, and it thus became possible to vindicate all the accused. Many of the decrees of limitation promulgated under Nicholas I. are still (1905) in force.

Alexander II. Favors the Jews.

A new era of hope and of partial realization came to the Jews of Russia with the accession to the throne of Alexander II., Nikolaievich (1855-81). The disastrous results of the Crimean war had demonstrated the unfitness of the government machine and of the existing legislation to cope with the needs of the day. Reforms became necessary, and some were introduced. Nevertheless, limited as was the application of these reforms, the effect was remarkable. Aside from the laws themselves, Russian society manifested a more tolerant attitude toward the Jews, contributing thereby to their rapid Russification and to the spread of secular learning among them. Unfortunately this movement was soon crossed by two opposing currents in Russian life—Nihilism and Panslavism. These resulted in bringing about a less tolerant sentiment toward the Jews, but this was through no fault of Alexander II., whom Lord Beaconsfield designated as "the most benevolent prince that ever ruled in Russia" (Alexander II., Nikolaievich).

Reactionary Attitude of Alexander III.

The reign of Alexander III. (1881-94) marks an era not only of reaction, but of return to medieval methods (see Alexander III., Alexandrovich). During this reign a commission, under the chairmanship of Count Pahlen, was entrusted with the investigation of the Jewish question; and its findings, were rather favorable to the Jews. One of the members of the commission, see Demidov, Prince of San-Donato, even advocated the abolition of the Pale of Settlement and the granting of equal rights to the Jews. However, the MAY LAWS, introduced by Ignatiev in 1882 as a temporary measure until the completion of the investigations by the Pahlen commission, had disastrous consequences. Alexander III. continued to be guided in his attitude toward the Jews by the procurator of the Holy Synod, Pobiedonostzev, who was appointed procurator-general in 1880, and who is reported to have stated that one-third of the Jews in Russia would be forced to emigrate, another third would be compelled to accept baptism, and the remainder would be brought to the verge of starvation. Pobiedonostzev's program maintained that absolutism and Greek-Orthodoxy were the mainstays of the empire, since they were sanctioned by God and founded on historical antecedents. He thus secured the approval of Alexander III. in the enforcement of despotic measures not against the Jews only, but also against Catholics, Lutherans, and Armenians.

Restrictions limiting the number of Jewish students in high schools and universities (1887), the exclusion of Jews from appointment or election as members of city councils or boards of aldermen, and the discharge of Jewish employees from railroads, and steamship lines, and even from certain institutions, as hospitals (although partly supported by Jews), were among the civil disabilities; and obstacles were raised also to the exercise of the Jewish religion. The violence of minor officials increased, and the situation was rendered more critical by the conversion of many towns and townlets into villages, and by the expulsion of the Jews therefrom. The districts of Rostov and Taganrog, which had formed a part of the Pale, were included in the military district of the Don, their Jewish inhabitants being summarily expelled (1889). A large number of Jewish mechanics was expelled from St. Petersburg between 1888 and 1890. Early in 1891, with the appointment of Grand Duke Sergius (assassinated 1905) as governor-general of Moscow, the banishment of the Jews from that city was determined upon. The intention of the administration was kept secret until the first and second days of Passover, a time deemed convenient by the police for entrapping a great number of Jews. It is estimated thatby June 14, 1892, 14,000 Jewish artisans had been banished from Moscow. Being unable to find purchasers for their household effects, the exiles frequently left them behind; and many debts remained uncollected. The inhumanity and brutality with which this banishment was carried out find an analogy only in the dark history of Spain(see Jew. Encyc. 9:41a, s. Moscow). Similar expulsions occurred in Tula, Novgorod, Kaluga, Ryazan, Riga, etc. Foreign Jews in great numbers were expelled from the country, and especially from South Russia. Many families were ordered to leave Riga and Libau in 1893; and in the same year all the Jewish residents of Yalta were directed to leave that city.

Bad as were the economic conditions within the Pale before these expulsions, they became indescribably worse after its population had been augmented by thousands of impoverished refugees from the interior of Russia. The struggle for mere existence became so fierce that the poor often worked for fifteen, eighteen, or even twenty hours a day and were able to afford no better food than bread and water. A large portion of the proletariat lived in a condition of semistarvation. In an article in the "Journal du Nord" for 1892 (Errera, "Les Juifs Russes," pp. 120-121) it was stated: "There are in Russia only 10,000 to 15,000 Jews who possess any certain means of existence. As to the masses, they possess nothing; and they are far poorer than the Christian populace, who at any rate own some land." The prevailing ignorance in foreign countries concerning these terrible conditions was due largely to the suppression by the censorship of any mention in the Russian newspapers of the brutal acts of the police. But isolated notices which found their way into the foreign press created a wave of indignation throughout Europe, and forced even Pobiedonostzev to make apologetic explanations. In an interview with Arnold White he declared that "everybody was sorry for the brutality of the chief of police in Moscow." It is well known, however, that the latter official merely carried out the instructions of Grand Duke Sergius, who himself applied in practise Pobiedonostzev's teachings. Speaking of these, the historian Mommsen said (Nov. 1, 1903): "Is it not possible to arrest the decay of a greatly vaunted civilization, the suicide of Russia? . . . But we may still hope that the statesmen of a great empire and the sovereign arbiter of Europe may no longer be dominated by the blind action of a resuscitated Torquemada."

As a result of this medieval policy the various factions in the Russian Jewry united for the purposes of national self-defense. Committees were organized throughout Russia and in other countries for the relief of the oppressed Jews. Considerable numbers of the more enterprising of the latter sought relief in emigration, with the result that during the last two decades of the nineteenth century more than 1,000,000 Jews left Russia, the greater part of whom went to the United States of America, while smaller numbers emigrated to Palestine, South America, and South Africa. Another movement directly traceable to the repressive legislation in Russia was the growth of nationalism among the Russian Jews, resulting in agricultural colonization in Palestine, and in the organization of Zionist societies (Agricultural Colonies; see Alexander III., Alexandrovich; Ignatiev; MAY LAWS; MOSCOW).

Nicholas II.

The hopes which the Jews of Russia reposed in Nicholas II., the pusillanimous heir of Alexander III., were not justified by the events subsequent to his accession (Nov. 1, 1894). The oppressive treatment of the Jews by Alexander III. at least left no room for misunderstanding as to his real intentions. The policy of Nicholas II., while no less oppressive, was more evasive. Where the legal discriminations against the Jews were somewhat relaxed, as in the discontinuance of expulsion from the interior provinces, or in the more liberal application of the 50-verst boundary law, such relaxation was due to utilitarian motives rather than to those of justice. Some influence in this direction was undoubtedly exerted by the petitions of many Christian merchants and farmers of Astrakhan, Tambov, Borisoglyebsk, Tzaritzyn, etc., who saw economic ruin in the removal of the Jews. On the other hand, additional heavy burdens were imposed by Nicholas' government on the Jews of Russia. The establishment of the government liquor monopoly (1896) deprived thousands of Jewish families of a livelihood. For ethical reasons the leading Jews of Russia were pleased to see their coreligionists eliminated from the retail liquor-trade; yet it was felt that in the execution of the law a more equitable treatment should have been accorded to the Jewish tavern-keepers. In the same year further restrictive measures were introduced concerning the right of residence of Jewish students at the University of Moscow, and an order was issued prohibiting the employment of Jews in the construction of the Siberian Railroad. The number of Jewish women eligible for admission to the medical school of St. Petersburg was limited to three per cent of the total number of students; and to the newly established school for engineers at Moscow no Jews were admitted. An ordinance was likewise issued prohibiting the employment of the Hebrew language or the Yiddish dialect by Jewish merchants in their business accounts; and in 1899 new restrictions were imposed on those Jewish merchants of Moscow who by law had hitherto been exempt from certain disabilities as members of the first merchant gild.

A blood accusation with its usual sequence—an anti-Jewish riot—was brought against the Jews of Irkutsk in 1896. In Feb., 1897, an anti-Jewish riot occurred in Shpola, government of Kiev, resulting in the destruction of much Jewish property. An anti-Jewish riot occurred also in Kantakuzov, government of Kherson, and a blood accusation in the government of Vladimir; in 1899 a number of anti-Jewish riots occurred in Nikolaief and elsewhere in South Russia, and in the following year the Jews suffered from additional riots and blood accusations. As a result the Jewish masses were ruined, and their pitiable condition was intensified by famine which spread in Bessarabia and in Kherson.

The economic crisis that culminated in 1899 brought great distress upon many Jewish communities in South Russia, but the Jewish Colonization Association took energetic measures to send timely help tothe needy. It is to the credit of the wealthier of the Russian Jews that they responded immed