Introduction

Introduction In the preceding sections we have looked into the general strategies of London’s Sephardi congregation with regard to oversight of printed materials as they transpired from the Mahamad’s decisions, and offered an analysis of the logics behind these strategies, as they translated into a defined language policy. In brief, the congregation consciously sought to have full control over printed materials, while at the same time, and not following any specific deci- sion, it created four realms of activity, with each allotted a specific language. This analysis will not be complete without an address of the practices of implementation over the years. Part 3 explores the extent to which the print regulations were applied and the degree to which community members inter- ested in publishing sought out the Mahamad’s permission. Did the Mahamad actually strive to implement its censorial policies? Was it able to effectively apply them? It will be safe to assume that changes made to the censorship by- law over the course of time were not devoid of context and reflected the shifting challenges with which the Mahamad had to cope (some of those challenges were hinted at above). Perhaps then, the best way to analyze the pat- terns of censorship and their amendment over time will be to look into the publications on the one hand, and the censorial trends on the other, that char- acterized the periods between the various versions of the Ascamot, from 1664 and up to the beginning of the nineteenth century. This analysis will also give us a new perspective through which we can understand the metamorphosis of the congregation with the passing of time. As asserted above, London never became a major Jewish printing center. This statement is especially relevant regarding the Sephardic community. It never owned a publishing house and it always relied on gentile printers, or, since the last quarter of the eighteenth century, on Ashkenazi ones. In the whole period covered by this research, the Sephardic Diaspora in London produced relatively few publications. Most of these were translations of prayers books and other religious books. There were many sermons preached at Bevis Marks synagogue that were later brought to the printing press, some dedicated to religious festivities, others in honor of governing sovereigns and others in memory of deceased ones. But these were rather short publications in pamphlet format and not influential or innovative theological treatises. With the exception of the period during which the prolific Hakham David Nieto (1654– 1728) held the principal rabbinate position of the congregation © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2018 | DOI 10.1163/9789004367050_011 108 Introduction in the first two decades of the eighteenth century, we seldom find any major publications by members of the community on religious issues. This was not the result of the tough censorship imposed by the wardens of the community. Although from reading the Ascamot on publications, one might assume that the wardens had to deal with a deluge of authors and manuscripts. Nor were there cases where members of the congregation preferred to publish their manuscripts in other ex- converso centers such as Amsterdam, Leghorn or Hamburg. Furthermore, during the period analyzed here, there were instances where members, not afraid of being subject to communal sanctions, decided to publish their books despite not having been given permission by the Mahamad. Those among the congregation who became scientific scholars, like Jahacob de Castro Sarmento (1691– 1762), did not even bother to ask for the Mahamad’s license, since their books did not deal at all with subjects that could have been considered problematic from the congregation’s point of view. Rather, it seems that the lack of a significant production of books by London’s Sephardim was the result of a paucity of religious and intellectual curiosity on the part of the community, which was comprised mainly of per- sons whose main occupation was trade and hardly ever produced scholarly luminaries. The tough measures against unlicensed publications seem then disproportionate when compared with what was actually presented for licensing, and what was in fact printed. This disproportionality is just one fur- ther proof of the extreme a priori effort by the wardens to keep strict control over its members in all aspects of their religious and communal life. If we were to focus only on the policy for control of publishing, and compare it with what was actually sent to press, we could have easily come to the conclusion that the community was titling at windmills. Other measures enacted by the communal leadership also seem disproportionate when confronted with the actual offenses. Thus, the harsh penalty of Herem, or a set of sanctions equal to it were applied in obviously non- critical cases such as sending gentiles to the butchery to fetch kosher meat or in cases where a newcomer refused to pay communal taxes.1 The reason for this disproportionality may lie not in the 1 CAHJP/ HM2/ 991, Minutes of the Mahamad, 18 Adar 5456 (21 February 1696); ibid., 10 Nisan 5456 (12 April 1696); LMA/ 4521/ A/ 01/ 01/ 002— Book of Ascamot passed in Menahem 5437, fol. 22, entry of 2 Sivan 5463 (17 May 1703); CAHJP/ HM2/ 991, Minutes of the Mahamad, entry of 14 Nisan 5451(13 April 1691); ibid., article 4; CAHJP/ HM2/ 990 Libro de los Acuerdos— 15 and 18 Tevet 5431 (28 and 31 December 1670); CAHJP/ HM2/ 991, Minutes of the Mahamad, entry of 24 Tisry 5456 (3 October 1695)..

Load more