Jeremy Smilg
Anglo-Jewish Response to the French Revolution

Jeremy Smilg - Anglo-Jewish Response to the French Revolution

- Well, good evening, everyone. It’s now my great pleasure to introduce Dr. Jeremy Smilg. Jeremy started life actually as an economist. He then had a big city career, which later on he changed to do his doctorate in Jewish history, and he actually looked at this particular period. This is his book, “Anglo-Jew and The Revolutionary Era”. And it’s an absolute pleasure to have you here, Jeremy, and I’m handing over to you. So welcome.

• Thank you very much, Trudy, and good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Jewish community of England during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era. A community that was faced with a major problem. As it was suggested that the Jews of England might be less than loyal, maybe they would be attracted to these new French radical ideas, such as equality before the law. Maybe they will be attracted to Napoleon, as he destroyed the walls of European ghettos. So let’s consider how the Jewish community of England responded to the suggestion of disloyalty. But first, let’s put this into some context. What did the Jewish community consist of? Well, the community, by this stage, is about 15,000 strong out of a total population of 9 million. If the first Jews to return to England after Crumb will let them back in in 1655, were Sephardi, by now you have a strong Ashkenazi majority. There had been large scale Ashkenazi immigration from Germany and Poland in the 1770s and 1780s of largely destitute single men, changing the whole nature of the community. By and large, whilst there were a few, and we will discuss some of them, very wealthy Jews who are financiers and merchants, most Jews were destitute peddlers. And we should always do well to remember that. This was a community that was poor. And whilst the Sephardic community was often looked upon as the elite community, the wealthier community, and there were more wealthy Sephardi than Ashkenazi, even inside the Sephardi community, there was vast extent of poverty and destitution.

But what this community was, was a highly acculturated community. A community that stood out in Europe for the extent to which Jews and non-Jews mixed. Wealthy Jews by this stage are acquiring houses for themselves, in Richmons, in Twickenham, and they are mixing with their non-Jewish neighbours. They are playing cards. They’re going for dinner. And occasionally, they’re converting and intermarrying with their non-Jewish neighbours. Equally, there are mixed gangs of pickpockets of Jews and non-Jews, mixed criminal enterprises, Jews mixed in all forms of non-Jewish life. So for instance, everyone remarked how the theatre attracted very large numbers of Jewish spectators. What you have is a community which, because of the defacto way in which Cromwell had permitted, readmissioned to England, does not have legal restrictions compared to Europe. There are no national rules on what Jews can and can’t do, where they have to live. And equally, their rabbinate has no powers to enforce behaviour upon the Jewish community. This struck most visitors as remarkable. So for instance, the Voltaire, in his famous quote to writing mid-century, comments, “He praises the London Stock Exchange where all nations govern together for the utility of men.

Here, Jew, Mohammedan, and Christian, deal with each other as though very they were of the same faith and only apply the word infidel to people who go bankrupt. Here, the Presbyterian trusts the Anabaptist, and the Anglican accepts a promise from the Quaker. On leaving these peaceful and free assemblies, some go to the synagogue and others for a drink. This one goes to be baptised in a great bath in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That one has his son’s foreskin cut and has some Hebrew words he doesn’t understand, mumbled over the child. Others go to their church and await the inspiration of God with their hats on and everyone is happy.” Now, Voltaire is, of course, exaggerating. He is having a dig at France in this comparison to England, commenting, for example, as one rabbi did in the late 18th century, that the Jews of England knew more about Christmas pudding than they knew about Matsa. Now this may have given a fairly idyllic impression of the Jewish community. In fact, Jews in England did suffer all kinds of discrimination. For a start, Jews arriving were aliens. Their children were fortunate as in England, unlike on the continent of Europe, second generation Jews were generally considered as English citizens. But first generation Jews, those arriving in the country, were aliens and suffered all kinds of restrictions, not because that they were Jews, but because they were not English citizens. A very minor measure in 1753, wonderfully known as the Jew Bill, which would’ve enabled a very small number of Jews to become English citizens without taking holy communion and swearing on the Bible of the Church of England, led to an immense fury. Now this was not, it did not lead to a pogrom European style.

No one was murdered, but it did lead to hundreds of columns of newspaper inches, denouncing the Jewish community. And this plan to make it easier for them to become English citizens, leading to the bill having to be repealed one year after it had passed. Then the Jews faced the problem, The Test and Corporation Acts. Now these were not aimed at the Jewish community. They were aimed at Catholics who suffered, by far, the greatest degree of discrimination in 18th century England. And non-conforming Protestants, i.e. Protestants who are not members of the Church of England. But they did restrict you from standing for parliament. In theory, for voting in an election, for becoming a member of the civil service, for becoming an army officer. Now since they were not aimed at Jews, this had a very different psychological effect, but it did mean that there were certain anti-Jewish restrictions on what you could do. Thirdly, there were some specific anti-Jewish restrictions laid down in various spirals. So for instance, and this is the one that really caused problems, in the city of London, Jews could not become free men. And as a result of this, Jews could not open shops in the city of London. I am talking about the historic city of London, that very small area in the heart of the city. This caused great resentment in the Jewish community, but the greatest resentment was about around the issue of property. Jews, and Trudy has talked so eloquently about the campaign later in the 19th century to gain political emancipation and the ability to become an MP, but really, this was not of any interest to Jews In the 18th century.

Few Jews sat around going, “Oh my God, it’s a disaster.” And we are, of course, in practise, talking only about sons. “My son cannot become an MP.” This really wasn’t what worried them. What did worry them was their lack of legal certainty, and we can discuss this more during questions, over whether Jews could legally own property. And a result of that, many Jews owned property who trust arrangements through non-Jewish lawyers. And this was the issue which really concerned the Jewish community in the 18th century. So we can see a Jewish community which considered itself the immensely better position than the vast majority of Jewish communities in Europe, but was still not problem-free. Moreover, far more importantly than the legal problems, was the feeling that they were constantly being sneered at and laughed at. You can see this in popular art forms. You can see this in some of the plays produced. You can see this in some of the songs. You can see this, above all, in some of the prints. So this is a print from Thomas Rowlandson, one of the leading artists of the period, showing two ugly Jewish printers trying to sell some clothes to a poor innocent housemaid. And you can see one of them has its hand through the crotch of the garment in an unmistakably panicked nature. Here again is a Thomas Rowlandson cartoon, “Get Money Still and then let Virtue follow if she will”, who here, evil looking Jews are plotting. They are in Duke’s place, the centre of the Jewish community, coming up with some financial skulduggery. Now we need to recognise that there was a problem of criminality in the Jewish community in the 18th century. We simply can’t dismiss it completely as anti-Semitism. But this problem of criminality needs to be set inside the context that Jews did not suffer more from criminality than they are the other group in their economic position, i.e., a group that was largely destitute, which could not look to the church, the traditional provider of welfare for support, and which in many cases, had no family in England, largely having arrived, as I’ve said, as new immigrants.

So given that comparison, there is no more or less criminality in the Jewish community than in any other section of English society in the period. But in the images portrayed, Jews are very much aware that they’re constantly being portrayed as criminals. So that is the Jewish community. And once the French Revolution breaks out, it has an immediate problem. The first onslaught against the community is led by Edmund Burke. Now Edmund Burke is, today, a hero of the conservative political movement. Conservatives around the world love quoting Edmund Burke. But in 1789, Burke was seen as a radical. He had denounced England’s presence in India. He had supported the American Revolution. And in particular, from a Jewish point of view, he had defended to the Jews of St. Eustatius. St. Eustatius was a small island in the West Indies, where the merchants had played a key part in smuggling arms and munitions to the American Revolution. It was captured during the war by Admiral Rodney, who drove the Jews out, looted everything they had, and behaved particularly badly to them. For any Americans listening, as a result of spending so much time in Eustatius looting from the Jews, Admiral Rodney turned up late for the Battle of Yorktown, one of the key battles, naval battles, of the war of the American Revolution, and was promptly blamed by Admiral Howell for the loss of a whole American colonies. Anyhow, Edmund Burke had been a great defender of Jews, both the Jews of St. Eustatius and the Jewish community of of England. But his attitude to Jews is transformed during the French Revolution. He is appalled by the French Revolution.

He is terrified that free of all restraints, we will end up with mass slaughter, that people will lose any respect for morality. And he is happy to use any method in order to attack the French Revolution, including using what he perceives as being a general anti-Jewish sentiment throughout the country. So he repeatedly uses anti-Jewish comments in his onslaught on the French Revolution. For instance, we know who it was that drove the money changes out of the temple. This obviously is a pretty clear Christian traditional anti-Semitic text. “We see, too, who it is that brings them in again. We have in London very respectable persons of the Jewish nation who we will keep, but we have of the same tribe, others of a very different description, housebreakers and receivers of stolen goods and forgers of paper currency, more than we can conveniently hang. These we can spare to France to fill the new Episcopal thrones, men well-versed in swearing and who will scruple no oath, which the fertile genius of any of your reformers can devise.” And this is just one example. You will see repeatedly Burke using anti-Jewish motifs in his attack. But as time passes, the doubts about the Jewish community go well beyond someone like Edmund Burke. After all, step back and think about the French Revolution. You see the eventual political emancipation of Jews in France and the concept, at least, of equality before the law being promoted. Now the emancipation of jury during the French Revolution is another whole story. It takes 32 debates, 32, before the National Assembly determines that Jews should be given equal rights to Frenchmen.

And again, we are obviously talking only about Jewish men here. But the concept of equality before the law is the critical concept that comes out of the French Revolution. That you should be treated the same, regardless of your religion, which from the point of view of the Jews of Europe is an entirely revolutionary concept. You saw the podium destroying ghettos throughout Europe. You saw the podium going to the Middle East, going to the Holy Land. And then the official French journal, suggesting that maybe Jews should go back to the Holy Land and that France should help them to do so. You saw the calling of the Assembly of Notables and of the Sanhedrin. Now in fact, and again, it’s another topic. Jews at the Sanhedrin came under great pressure as Napoleon forced them to demonstrate their loyalty to France rather than their fellow Jews. But the calling of the Sanhedrin caused enormous uncertainty throughout Europe as Napoleon, very shrewdly, doesn’t just invite Jews from France and Italy, most of which is conquered at this at this point, but invites Jews throughout Europe. The Jews from Sweden are threatened with expulsion if any of their leaders go. But even in England, enormous concern is raised that here we have the Calling of the Sanhedrin, the first Sanhedrin in 1500 years, an event which tracks enormous excitement in the Christian world because there is this real belief in the Arianism, a belief that the Jews are part of the plan that Jews need to return to the Holy Land for the second coming of Jesus Christ and that the Calling of the Sanhedrin may be the first step towards this. So you can see how the calling and invitation to Jews in England to attend can only lead to questions about their loyalty. And so here, you have a more direct cartoon attacking the Jewish community.

This is Napoleon planning the invasion of England. He has three advisors. A Dutch and Spanish advisor, who are producing various military plans to drive the Jews out. But on the far right, you can see that it is Moses the Jew. And Napoleon indicates that it is Moses, the Jew’s plan that he prefers. And what is that plan? Moses the Jew says in pigeon English. “I think if I lend them a little bit my march, 40%, it will soon annihilate them.” So you can see the way in which Jews are being portrayed by some as the enemy of England. So the question arises as to what is the communal elite response to this? Well, the communal elite response, is in many senses, a traditional response that are endless prayers and sermons, praising England, praising England’s receptions of its Jews. Luckily for us, some of these published and publicised and they all have a common theme. They all use Jeremiah’s instructions to Jews on their exile in Babylon to seek the welfare of the city where I’ve sent in exile, pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare, you will find your welfare. And they quote from the Talmud, which instructed Jews that the laws of the kingdom in which you live are the laws. So the Jews sermon after sermon stress their loyalty to England and disassociate themselves entirely from anything that Jews in France may be saying. Jews go out of their way to provide financial support, both to government and charities. So wealthy Jewish financiers, like the Goldsmid brothers, play a key role in England’s fundraising during the Napoleonic wars. And their role is very much appreciated. This is a different world from today. Newspaper articles comments on how supportive the Jews are being in funding the war. And they also go out of their way to fund charities which are looking after sailors and soldiers. And again, this gets picked up by newspapers and generates plays. The Jews joined the militia in vast numbers.

And indeed, in a town like Portsmouth, where first they are prevented from joining the militia, they protest to the war office very strongly about their keenness to join the militia and demonstrate their loyalty to the country. You can see this in some of the newspaper coverage of the period. “The Seventh Regiment mustered at 10 o'clock at that parade ground and proceeded to Aldgate Church. The sermon preached to them on the occasion was delivered by the Reverend Mr. A. Hart. As many gentlemen belonging to the Corps of Jews, when the oath of allegiance was administered to the Corps, they retired to the Vestry to receive it according to the forms of their religion”, The Times from October, 1803. So you can see this concentrated effort in order to stress loyalty. Here you have Abraham Goldsmid, one of the leaders of the Jewish community. A fine figure of a clean-shaven Englishman, rabbis get very upset because their community dress in many cases, like Englishmen, and are keen to make people even forget that they’re Jewish. Goldsmid is, for instance, a friend of Nelson’s. Nelson actually attends a ball Goldsmid held the night before he goes off to fight Trafalgar. He donates to many charities. He is friendly with the royal princes when he dies and he and his brother commits suicide after a financial disaster. He receives vast quantities of praise throughout the English press. Here you have, for instance, the princes of the royal family, visiting the Duke Synagogue in 1809. This is a visit which Goldsmid had organised. Now this is a cartoon pillaring that visit, but what I think is interesting is that it’s not the rabbis and the Jewish elders who are pillared.

It is the royal princes, the Prince of Cumberland, the Prince of Cambridge, the Prince of Suffolk, who are made fun of. Now partially, they’re made fun of because they are visiting a synagogue. But partially, they’re made fun of because 18th century, early 19th century, cartoons loved making fun of royal princes. I have a feeling that perhaps princes today would be a bit shocked to discover that whilst the technology of phone hacking isn’t something new, the mockery of princes and newspaper hostility to them has a very long history indeed. What I want to stress is that this constant and indeed, craven stressing of loyalty is successful. Now this is not popular in some quarters. People tend to prefer discussing Jewish bravery, courage, and I am speaking only for this period. In fact, being defensive, constantly stressing your loyalty actually is successful. And you can see that in The Aien Act of 1793. And very often, people talk about the Act of 1905 as written being Britain’s first Alien Act and entirely wrong. In 1793, there is an Alien Act aimed at loyalist Catholic refugees fleeing from France, where the government is concerned that Jacobin revolutionaries may be hidden amongst these royalist refugees and may be infiltrating England. So they passed an Alien Act, which in 10 pages, and I suspect the same legislation today would take at least 700 pages, introduces a set of draconian controls on new arrivals to England. The ship which brings them in has to register them with the local port officials. Port officials then have to send to London for documents to enable these individuals to travel to London. If they want to move anywhere, they have to seek permission to move somewhere. If you were to provide lodging, you have have to notify your local officials in the town where you provide that lodging. And so on.

The Times is delighted and the new British press have always lives up to the lowest point. So here we have The Times in 1793 commenting that thanks to the Alien Act, London was now cleared of the hundreds of French vermin who came hither to breed rebellion and assassination. Now this legislation, which is passed as emergency legislation and is designed to last for one year, is promptly renewed for another 30 years. And we should remember that when people talk about emergency short-term legislation, and has a chilling effect on Jewish immigration over that 30 years to England. But it is not aimed at the Jewish community. And indeed, thanks to the attitude of the communal elite who lobby, who stress their loyalty, very quickly, Jews, and this captures all those Jews who had arrived in the country in the 1770s and 1780s. So there are large numbers of Jewish aliens who are caught by this. But Jews are allowed to register rather than standing in vast queues at the ADN office in White Hall. They can register in Duke’s place of the great Synagogue or Bevis Marks. Equally, one of the provisions of The Alien Act is to prevent aliens visiting ports. Obviously, ports have got military significance, but the role of Jews in ports is significant. By this stage, most Jews have been living in London, the vast majority, or you are starting to see some provincial centres and in particular, ports given the economic demands of ports. And Jews are permitted on a case by case basis, Jewish aliens to visit ports where it can be shown that they have an economic reason to go so. And this attitude that the Jews are on our side does begin to permeate. So this is a cartoon from 1803. A Jewish soldier is facing a French soldier who is asking him to surrender. The Jew responds and yes, the response is in pigeon English. It is making fun of the Jew, but nevertheless, it is demonstrating his loyalty. “Vat Shurender Jean Bools”, which is John Bull.

John Bull is the symbol of England. “Property, never whilst I am a Shew”, a Jew. “I’ll let you know, Mounsheer, dat I fight for King Sheorge and de Synagogue.” So yeah, as I say, pigeon English, but demonstrating his loyalty. So this is the mainstream Jewish community. A community desperate to demonstrate its loyalty. But there are some who are prepared to speak out. Now they are few in number or at least few that we know about given our problems with sourcing evidence from the period and sourcing texts. They also, under enormous pressure from the mainstream communal elite not to speak out, not to express themselves. So for instance, here is Rule XXVII of the Ascamot, the rules of Bevis Marks Synagogue, the leading Sephardi synagogue. “Also no one of the Yehidim or Congregantes of the Kaal”, no one in the congregation, “Shall enter into public disputes or controversies or print any such thing on the subject of religion, nor join in any parties or opposition, which any of the people form against the government, the ministry or judicial administration of this kingdom in order to avoid the serious evil that might ensue to us from such contact, in which the Jewish nation has experienced in other times for much more trivial causes. There is repeated pressure on anyone who does speak up to keep quiet and simply stick to the official communal line. Of course, a small number of Jews ignore this. Who does? Well, perhaps obviously, Lord George Gordon, who’s the subject of another lecture.

But Lord George Gordon is a convert to Judaism, a Protestant aristocrat, responsible at least, to some extent, for the anti-Catholic riots of 1780, who ends up in the Tower of London, who has converted to Judaism, who has become a very Orthodox Jew, and repeatedly lobbies, both in England and in Europe, for Jewish communities and support of the French Revolution. Then we have the remarkable figure of John King. John King is remarkable. He is one of the very first Jews who is a radical and who talks on entirely non-Jewish matters. He starts his life as a peddler. He becomes a radical. He is a friend of Tom Payne, the great hero of the American Revolution. And corresponds with Tom Payne, a correspondence which is published, which is why we have it today, and demonstrates king’s significance. He denounces his Britain’s role in India as an early anti-imperialist supporter of the American Revolution, and largely supports the French Revolution. Although, there is a time when he backtracks, and perhaps under pressure from the British government. He’s an involvement, the precise nature of that involvement is unclear, possibly a deputy editor, possibly is the founder of a revolutionary newspaper called the Argus. The entire radical British presses shut down in the 1790s following the French Revolution. As gagging orders become very more extreme, a series of oppressive measures is introduced in England to stop free speech. And the Argus is one of the last newspapers, which is effectively shut down by the government. Other newspapers like The Times, they simply go and bribe in order to stick to an official government line.

So the question might arise, why don’t we know more about John King, who is largely rescued from oblivion by Professor Todd Endelman, who is the leading Jewish historian of the 18th century? Well, I would suggest to you that the problem with John King is that as well as being a radical, he is also, not to mix my words, a major no good. He is a criminal. He is involved in blackmail. He is involved in fraud. He and his second wife, Lady Lanesborough, his first wife is Jewish, but he is divorced from her in a case which is later referred to in an English court where the judge says that the first Mrs. King divorces his wife because he is not due enough for her. But having been divorced from his first wife, he then marries an aristocrat, which improves his position in society. And this Lady Lanesborough, has a taste for crime and joins John King in much of his criminal activity. And the two of them twice have to abscond from the country in order to avoid going to jail. And this is perhaps for this reason that he gets very much neglected by early Jewish historians, but he’s a fascinating example of a very early Jewish radical. Then we have people in the Orthodox Jewish community, Rabbi Isaac Luria and Lazarus Cohen, who are appalled at the attitude of French Jews, who are appalled of the French Jewish responses to Napoleon and the assembly of nobles, notables, and the Sanhedrin at the way in which they basically deny any concept of the Jews or our people stress that they are fundamentally, I’m glossing here, but they are Frenchmen of Jewish faith.

And want to stress that Jews do have ethnic loyalties. Isaac Luria gets a remarkable sermon, which he says, "Yes, we Jews, where you should, will fight on behalf of England, but you need to understand it’s not easy for an English Jew to kill a French Jew in battle.” And then we have Isaac D'Israeli and David Levi. And I shall briefly turn to these. Isaac D'Israeli, well, Trudy has all. Well, let me first talk about David Levi. David Levi has been described by Professor David Luderman as a One Man Defamation League. Basically, David Levi argues with everybody. He knew anyone who writes on any Jewish subject, David Levi, who is also associated with the great Bevis Marks, he writes prayers. He’s responsible for all kinds of liturgical translations, but he is prepared to go into argument with you. So for instance, when Tom Payne launches an attack on Judaism, particularly attacking Moses, focusing on such issues as the massacre of the Midianites, where Moses is instructed by God to send the Jews back because although they’ve massacred the Midianite men and taken captive all the Midianite women, they’re then sent back to massacre all Midianite women who are not virgin. So he picks on examples like this and denounces Moses. And Levi launches an enormous defence of Moses. Again, he is in conflict with Priestly. Priestly is a unitarian as we’ve already touched on. There is this enormous desire to convert Jews and get them to go back to the holy land in order to bring on the second coming of Jesus Christ. And Levi launches an onslaught on Priestly for thinking that the Jews could possibly want to become Unitarians. And as part of his onslaught with people, he is not worried about saying things that might upset many Christians.

For instance, he comments, “It is clear from all history that Christianity cannot be the peaceable kingdom of the Messiah as foretold by the prophet Isaiah. But need with the authority of history and proof of this? Have we not the evidence of our own senses? Can any impartial person lay his hand on his heart and declare that the known world at present enjoys such universal peace? Surely not.” So Levi is not concerned to turn the party alone. And whilst he avoids a direct attack on the Church of England, he upsets many. On the other hand, interestingly, Levi does also become popular with some religious Christians because in a world of the enlightenment, where people are increasingly cynical about stories of miracles, Levi argues that the survival of the Jews, the survival of the Jews 2000 years after the destruction of the temple and after the exile is a miracle that demonstrates the existence of a God. And this argument makes him very popular in certain Christian. And finally, we come to Isaac D'Israeli. Now Trudy has already talked about Isaac D'Israeli’s life, but what I want to suggest to you is that Isaac D'Israeli in the 1790s holds very different views than he would do later. Isaac D'Israeli would later have a major onslaught on the Talmud. He sees such things as cashew as a simple main way for the rabbis to ensure the segregation of Jews and non-Jews and keeping them apart. Isaac D'Israeli thinks that this is nuts. But in 1797, he writes a book called “Vaurien”. Now “Vaurien” is largely, and it is, I have to say, a lousy book. I don’t recommend any of you read it, but “Vaurien” is a novel designed to attack the French Revolution and designed to attack radicals in England. And therefore, it is generally greeted with great approval by conservatives in England. But they are really upset by two aspects of “Vaurien”.

Firstly, Isaac D'Israeli defends the position of prostitutes. He argues that these are not fallen women who are evil, morally at fault, but simply, in the vast majority of cases, economically destitute. Secondly, he defends the Jews of England and he defends them using very powerful language. Let me just give you a few examples. The Jews have never used any wood for the purpose of crucifying Christians. But the Christians have employed a great deal of burning Jews, or the state of Jews is not less severe than the ancient. They groaned in ages of persecution and in ages of toleration, they are degraded. In England, it is doubtful whether the Jews be citizens. They are merely tolerated inhabitants. Even this expression is too gentle. You can see Isaac D'Israeli not towing the party line. Again, he denounces England saying, “The Jew cannot purchase the house which he inhabits.” Now Jews were busy purchasing houses as I’ve discussed, but the use of lawyers created all kinds of problems and increasingly, they buy them directly. But you can see some of the issues. If I tell you that some of the Goldsmid personal property was registered to get around this problem in the name of Mr. Hamilton, who was a tutor, who lived with them, and tutored their children. And who at one point, it was suggested, might be having an affair with the wife of Mr. Benjamin Goldsmid. You can now may only imagine what kind of problems that might have created. And again, Isaac D'Israeli envoy attacks, for instance, this is why aimed at the Catholic church, but the idiocy and cruelty of transsubstantiation. He’s not holding back, yes.

Now obviously, as we know, he would, in due course, many years later convert his children to the Church of England. But this is not due to any lack of Jewish feeling. This is very much a question of what he saw as advantageous for them and perhaps that feeling that it was advantageous will only have been increased when there’s one of the responses he received what can only will we refer to as an anti-Jewish letter in which the author refers to Isaac D'Israeli as having a mean Jewish spirit. He may have decided that he should free from his children from this kind of anti-Semitic experience. Now we only know about a very small number of Jews who were prepared to speak out. We don’t have, sadly, I never thought I’d say this sentence in my life, but sadly we have no Jewish chronicle. We have no Jewish press. The board of deputies exists, but it meets very rarely and its minutes are not desperately helpful. But what I would suggest to you is the possibility that when they are attacking Christianity, when they are attacking England’s treatments of its Jews, maybe some of the dissidents are not simply speaking for themselves. Maybe there were others in the Jewish community who shared their views. David Levi may have been a unique figure, but he’s financially dependent upon the Goldsmids, Abraham and Benjamin.

I’ll leave it to you to wonder whether, perhaps whether he would really have been so outspoken, if the Goldsmids had been completely appalled by some of the things he was saying. Isaac D'Israeli is not some kind of outsider to the Jewish community. His wife Maria Basevi is at the heart of the Jewish community. They are related between them to the Lindos, the Marcotas, the Costas, the Montefiores, the Zimmines, the Goldsmids. He may be unusual in being interested in literature. He may have be unusual in being a writer, but he is not unique in the Jewish community. He is not alone and separate from it. And this response which he gives, this distress that receiving an anti-Jewish letter is exactly the process which many other Jewish, particularly, Sephardi, wealthy elite members go through, in which they lead them to convert either themselves or their children. And Benjamin D'Israeli is therefore not unusual in being converted in this fashion. Thank you. I hope you found that of interest. Let’s have a look at questions and select a few of them.

Q&A and Comments:

• [Host] There’s one comment. It is from Yanna and she says, “Please note that the title "Vaurien” means worthless.

• Absolutely. And and much of the book, as I say, consists the title figure is “Vaurien”, who has officially come here as a French Jacobin insurrectionist. And that is why it is given that title.

• [Host] Thank you. I think you’ve stun them all into silence.

• Lovely, in that case, we shall leave it there.

• Let me, before you go, that was absolutely incredible, Jeremy. I really, really enjoyed it. And I loved your slides on Isaac D'Israeli. So thank you so much and come again soon, take care.

• Absolute pleasure, lovely to see you, Judy. Bye.

• Bye bye, everyone. Good evening and thank you, Lauren.