Talk:Jews in the Middle Ages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The persecution of the Jews in Turkey ... in the middle of the seventeenth century came to the aid of the visionaries and dreamers." This is an excerpt from the main article. Could you please give me some references for these persecutions in Turkey in 17th century. thanks -feyz 21.57 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- From Islam and Judaism: "...under Murad IV (1623-40) the Jews of Jerusalem were persecuted by an Arab who had purchased the governorship of that city from the governor of the province; and in the time of Ibrahim I. (1640-49) there was a massacre of Ashkenazic Jews who were expecting the Messiah in the year 1648, and who had probably provoked the Moslems by their demonstrations and meetings. The war with Venice in the first year of this sultan's reign interrupted commerce and caused many Jews to remove to Smyrna, where they could carry on their trade undisturbed. In 1660, under Mohammed IV. (1649-1687), Safed was destroyed and in the same year there was a fire in Constantinople in which the Jews suffered severe loss..." (this is from the same source as this article, the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1904. The persecutions were certainly not as bad as the massacres in Poland, but they were still pretty nasty, leading up to the Zevi debacle. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- Dear Goodoldpolonius2, thanks for the examples and references. Below are some info I found regarding the events you mentioned:
-
- 1. Regarding Jews moving to Symrna here is some info about the reasons from Sephardic Studies: " ...During his (Sultan Murad) reign the Jewish community with great timidity tried to get out of its shell. We see again doctors in palace service as Moiz Amaradji and Yakup Abbasoglu Musa. Some historians say that Rabbi Yehuda Kovo from Salonica came to Constantinople to pay taxes and that he was executed. The story of Rabbi Kovo is quite different: At that time, the fabric for uniforms of the army was manufactured by the weavers of Salonica who worked at home and sold to the army great quantities of fabric. The army refused the fabrics that were below standards. All of Salonica's Jews faced the danger of bankruptcy. That is how Rabbi Kovo was involved just to help the people and he was accused of delivering faulty material to the army. That caused his execution. Due to the crisis that broke, good many families from Salonica moved to Izmir which at that time had a small Jewish community." The source is a Turkish Sephardic organization. This seems to be the mentioned interrupted commerce during the war with Venice.
-
- 2. Regarding the fire in Constantinople: Most of the houses in the city were wooden and fire was a common problem at those times; I don't think it can be considered a persecution of Jews in Turkey.
-
- 3. In your quotation from Jewish Encyclopedia of 1904 you have missed the sentence which comes right after the mention of Istanbul fire and then Zevi: "It is characteristic of the Turkish attitude toward the Jews, and in striking contrast with the attitude of European powers, that no steps were taken to punish the Jews who took part in the agitation." This sentence is to explain how Jews were treated after upheavel by Zevi.
-
- 4. You also missed another part in your quotation. Jewish Encyclopedia of 1904 says that "Safed was destroyed by the Arabs" under Mohammed IV. (1649-1687) in 1660. But then it continues as "Under the same sultan Jews from Frankfort-on-the-Main settled in Constantinople" Also at the same time the emperor's ambassador to Sweden was Jewish: "During the reign of Sultan Mehmed IV, on the demand of King Charles August of Sweden a treaty is signed against Russia and Moses Beberi is appointed ambassador to Sweden, after his death in 1674 his son Yehuda is appointed ambassador. "
-
- 5. I have to still check this one "(1640-49) there was a massacre of Ashkenazic Jews who were expecting the Messiah in the year 1648". But in the case of Sabbathai Zevi, I know that Zevi declared he was called by God to visit Constantinople. He was expected to overthrow the Sultan and to conquer Palestine. To end the rumors among his many followers and to discredited him, sultan gave him the choice of either dying at stake or converting to Islam - he chose to convert, disillusioning many of his followers.
-
- Also after the massacres of Poland, some Jews were given refuge by Ottoman Empire. From Sephardic Studiesabout the events in Poland between 1648-1658: "A petty aristocrat by the name of Bogdan Chmielnitzki kills the land owners, the priest and the Jews. 300 communities disappear 150,000 jews are killed, money is gathered all over Europe and a slave market starts in Crimea. Jews are exported like cattle. With the acceptance of Mehmet IV, Jews are settled on the banks of the Danube in Morea, Kavala, Istanbul and Salonica."
-
- I am not sure if it is historically true to compare or equate the persecutions in Turkey and Poland in 17th century. In Poland and all over Europe Jews faced persecution due to anti-semitism and I am not sure if there is an equivalent to these events committed by Ottoman rule. I am aware of some incidents where Christian subjects of the Empire attacked the Jewish subjects due to anti-semitism (mostly in 19th century) but this was not encouraged by the Ottoman Rule. In fact Sultan Abdulmecid issues a firman (on November 6th, 1840) to protect the Jews against blood libels stating that Jews did not use blood in the ceremonies and his subjects should not claim opposite (from ISFSP).
-
- Therefore, if there are no other persecutions you are aware of, I suggest modifying the sentence "The persecution of the Jews in Turkey and in Poland in the middle of the seventeenth century came to the aid of the visionaries and dreamers." to "The persecution of the Jews in Poland in the middle of the seventeenth century came to the aid of the visionaries and dreamers.". I think it gives quite a wrong impression: as if pogroms of Poland and East Europe were also present in Turkey at that time. Any suggestions? --feyz 7:47 20 May 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Feyz, well argued. I think your modification makes sense. Certainly the situation in Turkey proper was better than that in Poland, though I do wonder about the 1648 massacre that was referred to, as it does seem different than the Chmielnitzki attacks. While it sounds like things were worse in other areas of the Ottoman Empire than in Turkey itself, we don't have any good specifics, and it was probably still better than Europe at that time. Unless we can get more information about these particular persecutions (and I can't find any), go ahead and make the change. And again, great research job. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I did the modification. I will keep you updated when I find out about the 1648 massacre. By the way, I am really surprised to learn about the above mentioned two Arab attacks to Jews in 17th century. That might be something interesting to investigate. I had the notion that Arabs and Jews were relatively in good terms up till the recent times. Also, in the main article there is no mention of Arabs except for how they created a relatively safe haven for Jews in Pyrenean peninsula. Except for these two events and some 'medieval' law enforcement persecutions, Ottoman Empire seems to be relatively peaceful. But we should still mention that, according to Sephardic Studies, the Jewish community declined at 17th century with the decline of the Empire and there were less (sometimes none) Jews in the Palace compared to the previous centuries. Things seem to improve in 18th century. --feyz 21:15 20 May 2005 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Inappopriate Narrative Tone
I read the article and I see a slightly editoralized, tone that I think is inappropriate. These reinforce an ethnocentric perspective and a moderately dramatized version of events. We should instead discuss what happened and leave projections out of the article. Examples include:
"Not until the beginning of the ninth century did the Church succeed in drawing all of humanity within its jurisdiction." - Chinese, Africans, Native Americans, East Indians, and a variety of others were not and never came under the influence of the Church. It seems the writer only considered those within Roman influence as a relevant part of humanity, while the rest of the world is not. That's inappropriate, so I changed it.
"which could not be bridged." - Tone is overly dramatic and slightly redundant.
"On the other hand, the Church found itself compelled to make the Jew a fellow citizen of the believer; for it enforced upon her own communities the Biblical prohibition against usury; and thus the only way to conduct financial operations was to seek loans at a legally determined rate of interest from the adherents of another faith. Through these peculiar conditions the Jews rapidly acquired influence. At the same time they were compelled to find their pleasures at home and in their own circles only. Their sole intellectual food came from their own literature, to which they devoted themselves with all the strength of their nature."
should be changed to
"On the other hand, the Church enforced upon her own communities the Biblical prohibition against usury; and the only way to conduct financial operations was to seek loans at a legally determined rate of interest from the adherents of another faith. Through these peculiar conditions the Jews rapidly acquired influence. At the same time they were compelled to find their pleasures at home and in their own circles only. Their sole intellectual food came from their own literature, to which they devoted themselves unwaveringly."
I am concerned with the undertones in the article. It sounds like the writer creates a dramatized picture of Jewish and Roman relations. As I have learned how important objectivity and NPOV is, I certainly would like to know how you all think of this? Another example:
"The Crusades. The trials which the Jews endured from time to time in the different kingdoms of the Christian West were only indications of the catastrophe which broke over them at the time of the Crusades. A wild, unrestrained throng, for which the crusade was only an excuse to indulge its rapacity, fell upon the peaceful Jews and sacrificed them to its fanaticism. In the First Crusade (1096) flourishing communities on the Rhine and the Danube were utterly destroyed; see German Crusade, 1096. In the Second Crusade (1147) the Jews in France suffered especially. Philip Augustus treated them with exceptional severity. In his days the Third Crusade took place (1188); and the preparations for it proved to be momentous for the English Jews. After unspeakable trials, Jews were banished from England in 1290; and 365 years passed before they were allowed to settle again in the British Isles (see History of the Jews in England). The Jews were also subjected to attacks by the Shepherds' Crusades of 1251 and 1320."
should be changed to
The Crusades. In the First Crusade (1096) flourishing communities on the Rhine and the Danube were utterly destroyed; see German Crusade, 1096. In the Second Crusade (1147) the Jews in France were (list actual events, not narrative interpretations) In his days the Third Crusade took place (1188); and the preparations for it proved to be momentous for the English Jews. After (such and such trials carried out by such and such people), Jews were banished from England in 1290 (by a decree from who and where); and 365 years passed before they were allowed to settle again in the British Isles (see History of the Jews in England). The Jews were also subjected to attacks by the Shepherds' Crusades of 1251 and 1320.
it seems that the writer is overly narrative of the events. I get a picture of emotional drama, but I really do not get an objective or clear understanding of what happened. We should refrain from drawing conclusions without objective information. It almost sounds like the writer is writing more chapters to an unpublished ancient scripture, like a sequel to the old testament. I honestly did not get a clear picture of what happened, but I got a good dramatic visual interpretation. Some of this obviously can be cross referenced in the other articles, but it's not characteristic of how the other articles are handled. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- The text you are referring to is directly from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. Its tone was occasionally a bit florid or torrid or Victorian, though always interesting (and well-researched). Feel free to make changes to bring it inline with modern encyclopedic tone, I think your above changed make a lot of sense. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the op. Even now I'm still finding a lot of weasel words. I'll be adding the appropriate tag soon. RSimione 01:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Dear goodness, I didn't realize how bad the article was until I tried editing it! Though I am trying to edit the language, I'm not knowledgeable in the subject, and this article need sources very desperately. RSimione 02:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History of antisemitism
The above article was until recently only a timeline and I am trying to make it more of a history. I have copied into it a chunk of material from Antisemitism (that appears to duplicate much of this article) and intend to edit it and shorten it drastically there. I have also put links from Antisemitism and History of antisemitism to this article, considered as a sub-article of each of those. Would be pleased to read any comments. Thanks.Itsmejudith 10:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Cantebury Tales
consider mentioning this, especially the Priores' tale. Niyant (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)