Dr. Meyer Schomberg's Attack on the Jews of London, 1746 by Edgar R
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Dr. Meyer Schomberg's Attack on the Jews of London, 1746 By Edgar R. Samuel This paper owes its origin to the initiative of my latefather, Wilfred S. Samuel. He first obtained a photographic copy of themanuscript of Emunat Omen {see Plates 11-19) from the Jewish Theological Seminary inNew York; he persuaded Mr. Harold Levy to make the excellent English translation of themanuscript which is printed in this volume {pp. 101-111)/ and he began, but was not able to finish, research into Dr. Meyer Schomberg's biography. Before his death inDecember, 1958, my father had undertaken to read a paper to our Society with the titlewhich I have taken over. He was never well enough to set about its composition, so the ensuing paper, though based partly on material collected by my father and on a subject which we discussed together,was written, with the help of many kind friends, by myself. It so happened that my father died on my thirtieth birthday, a day on which? according to theMishna1?a man enters into his full strength. So if the readerfinds any faults in this attempt of mine to conclude a study started by my father, they are entirely my own, if any merits, they are thefruit of his instruction. I would like to acknowledge the valuable help of Rabbi Dr. A. Altman, Mr. G. W. Busse, Mr. A. Schischa, Master A. S. Diamond, Mr. R. J. D'Arcy Hart, my brothers Andrew P. Samuel and Oliver W. Samuel, and ofMr. Harold Levy. It need hardly be said that withoutMr. Levy's excellent translation thispaper would not even have been started. I should like to thank theLibrarian of theJewish Theological Seminary ofAmerica, New York, for permission topublish the text of Emunat Omen, theRegistrar of theRoyal College of Physicians for permission to publish extracts from the Annals of the Royal College, and the Secretary of theRoyal Society for permission topublish a letterof Meyer Schomberg's in the Royal Society's Miscellaneous Manuscripts collection.?E. R. S. Y i 1HE subject of this paper is a Hebrew manuscript at present in the possession of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. It is a short essay of thirty eight pages entitled Emunat Omen composed by Dr. Meyer Loew Sch?mberg and dated London, 1746.2 The manuscript was shown in the Jewish Historical Exhibition of 1887 by its then owner, the Chief Rabbi, Dr. Nathan Marcus Adler.3 It was inherited by his son, the late Elkan Adler, and was acquired by the Jewish Theological Seminary together with the rest of Elkan Adler's collection ofHebrew manuscripts.4 How themanuscript came into the possession of Dr. N. M. Adler and who had owned it previously is not known. 1Pirke 24. 2 Aboth, V, The date on the appears to be the Christian date, not the customary Jewish one. 8 title-page Joseph Jacobs and Lucien Wolf, Catalogue of the Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition, London, item783. 1888,4 Catalogue ofHebrew Manuscripts in the Collection of Elkan Adler, Cambridge, 1921, p. 55, item2245v, illustration25b. JewishTheological SeminaryMS., ENA 2245. 83 Jewish Historical Society of England is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Transactions Jewish Historical Society of England ® www.jstor.org 84 DR. MEYER SCHOMBERG'S ATTACK ON THE JEWS OF LONDON, 1746 How the essay came to be written and what purpose it was intended to serve is equally obscure. The work in question bears the Hebrew title Emunat Omen. This is a play on words which refers to a phrase in Isaiah Emunah Omen1?Faithfulness?Faithfulness which has been modified by the author to Faithfulness of Faithfulness or The True Faith. The phrase can also be read as The Faith of an Artist or The Faith of a Pro? fessional Man?so we can take it to mean either The True Faith?or, since the author was a medical man, as The Faith of a Physician. The resemblance of thiswork to Sir Thomas Browne's famous Religio Medici hardly proceeds further than the title, and the content of Schomberg's essay is in no sense the same in quality or in intention. Emunat Omen is divided into three parts. It opens with a recitation of the first seven of theThirteen Principles of the Jewish Faith ofMaimonides, the last six Principles of Faith being omitted.2 The second section is a violently phrased denunciation of the Jews of London for breaking each of the Ten Commandments. This is followed by a vigorous defence of the author against an accusation by these very transgressors thathe is himself a Sabbath-breaker. The third section, which is written in an entirely different manner, is a discussion in which the author uses Midrashic and Talmudic sources in an attempt to deduce the fundamental dogmas of Judaism. The last two sections are presented in a way which implies that while Judaism requires its adherents to live virtuously it does not insist upon the performance of all the Commandments. This impression is achieved by very selective quotation and, in at least one case,3 by taking a passage from the Talmud right out of its context. The statement of the Principles of Faith gives us a fair idea of Schomberg's religious position. The first seven principles which he accepts state that: 1. God is the sole creator of all things. 2. God is One. 3. God has no bodily form. 4. God is the First and the Last. 5. To God alone is it right to pray. 6. That the prophecy ofMoses was true and that he was the chief of the Prophets. 7. That the words of the Prophets are true. The last six principles, which he omits and presumably rejects, state that:? 8. The whole Law in our possession is the same thatwas given toMoses. 9. That the Law is immutable. 10. That God knows the hearts and minds ofmen. 11. That God rewards those that keep his commandments and punishes those that transgress them. 12. That theMessiah will come. 13. That the dead will be resurrected. 1 Isaiah xxv3 1. 2 The text of Maimonides' Thirteen Principles with which Schomberg's version has been compared is that printed by S. Singer in The Authorized Daily Prayer Book, London, 1890 et seq., p. 89. 3 Discussed on p. 98. DR. MEYER SCH?MBERG^ ATTACK ON THE JEWS OF LONDON, 1746 85 The most significant points here are that Sch?mberg seems to reject the validity of the Oral Law; the uniqueness of the revelation on Sinai; and the need to observe the commandments, an attitude which, as we have seen, recurs in the later part of the text. He rephrases some of the first seven principles and transposes the sixth and seventh, but these last alterations do not seem to be significant. A subjective impression from reading Emunat Omen is that Sch?mberg had read and was influenced by the New Testament; that he was very favourably impressed by Christianity as practised inGeorgian England and though he could not accept the central beliefs of Christianity he saw no point in continuing to practise Judaism or in deterring his children from becoming Christians. But this is reading between the lines and such a proposition is not stated in the text, though there are one or two echoes of theNew Testament,1 and the emphasis on "Faith" to the exclusion of "Works" in the latter part of his essay?though entirely based on Jewish sources?may possibly show some Christian influence. The manuscript is written in "square" or "Chaldean" Hebrew script,with one or two lapses into "Rashi" script (see Plate 16, sheet 20). The hand is Ashkenasi? probably Dutch Ashkenasi. The copyist's initials seem to have been "M. R." because these two letters have been starred in three places on the title page. There are some errors in copying, the most notable being Nitas di Bangui instead ofNotas do Banco {i.e. "banknotes"), which shows that the copyist did not understand a Portuguese phrase used by the author.2 The fact thatMeyer Sch?mberg employed a scribe to rewrite his manuscript in square script does seem to suggest that he wished to prepare it for the press. Apart from the points discussed in Schomberg's essay which deal with timeless questions of religious belief and daily conduct, there is a certain limited amount of historical information to be derived from his attack on the Jews of London in the second part of his paper. Some of the accusations brought by Sch?mberg against his contemporaries sound plausible. One can imagine that therewas truth behind his story that the London Jews used to walk home from Synagogue on the Sabbath by way of Exchange Alley in order to learn the latest Stock Exchange prices.3 One can well believe that Jewish patients were unreasonably exacting in their demands on the Jewish physicians and yet prepared to pay higher fees to a Christian consultant.4 However, some of the other accusations seem coloured by prejudice and indignation to say the least. Many of the hostile com? ments made by Sch?mberg are specifically directed against the Portuguese Jews and it is even possible that he has them in mind throughout his diatribe,5 though some of his remarks may equally well apply to both sections of the Jewish community. 1 For example:? "Let them go to the physician to get the mote removed from their own eye" (Sheet 15) is a phrase which could well be based on a Rabbinic source, but one is reminded ofMatthew vii, 3.