Cecil Roth says that, as far back as 1179 AD, the Catholic Church forbade Jews and Christians from living together. But these rules weren’t enforced, Jewish segregation was incomplete. The concept of a completely segregated neighborhood arose in Venice in 1516. Since the Jewish neighborhood was located where a foundry had been, it was called “ghetto” from the Italian word for foundry.
Jews probably regarded the ghetto as painful and humiliating oppression, but they also found advantages in it. In fact, Italian Jews had “an annual feast day” to celebrate the establishment of the ghetto. “The Ghetto walls, though intended to keep the victims in, were no less useful in keeping their enemies out. It is significant that the gates were furnished in many cases with bolts on the inner side for use in emergency.”
The ghetto not only helped to preserve the physical life of Jews, it also helped to preserve religious and cultural life. “Segregation, however humiliating it might be, tended to be a powerful preservative of solidarity and culture.”
Perhaps one reason for the establishment of the ghetto was to prevent sexual relationships, inter-breeding, inter-marriage, between Jews and Gentiles. “After nightfall it was considered a serious crime for any Jew to be found outside the Ghetto, or any Christian within it.” (In a recent issue, I wrote, “Sometimes Jews were required to wear a hat of a particular shape, or a particular color. ‘This was ostensibly in order to prevent the heinous offence of unwitting sexual intercourse between adherents of the two faiths, considered as little better than incest and frequently punished by death.’”)
Frankfort had an old Jewish community, and an old ghetto. Each house in Frankfort’s ghetto had a sign, and families took their names from their signs. At the sign of the red shield lived the Rothschilds; at the sign of the eagle, the Adlers; and at the sign of the ship, the Shiffs. Houses were identified by the symbols/colors of their signs, rather than by numbers.
The ghetto couldn’t be expanded horizontally, so if the population rose, it was expanded vertically — an additional story was added to buildings. While the footprint of the building stayed the same, it could be built up or out (out over the street). “From a distance, indeed, it seemed sometimes as though the Jewish quarter, towering high above the city, was actually constructed on rising ground.”
Jews were prohibited from owning real estate, so those who lived in the ghetto had to pay rent. To give themselves some leverage with their landlords, Jews agreed among themselves not to bid against each other, not to dispossess each other. One might call this a system of “rent control” imposed, not by the government, but by tenants themselves. Roth says that this system was enforced, within the Jewish community, by “the most severe social and religious sanctions.”
Like prostitutes, Jews had to wear a badge. Like cattle, Jews in Germany “had to pay a special toll, or Leibzoll, when they crossed the frontiers of the innumerable petty states, or entered any city. They could be forced to present a set of dice, or an equivalent monetary gift, at every customs-house in expiation of the casting of lots for Jesus’ clothing at the time of the Passion.” In French-controlled Alsace, this toll was called impôt du pied fourchu (toll of the cloven foot), perhaps because it applied to cattle, perhaps because the devil was said to have a cloven foot.
When Jews were in a Gentile court, it was felt that the standard oath wouldn’t compel Jews to tell the truth, since the standard oath involved a Christian Bible, and Christian beliefs. So Jews had to swear a special oath, the Oath More Judaico (Jewish-style oath), which involved swearing on the Torah, or some other Jewish text/belief. As they swore this special oath, Jews were subjected to various indignities, such as kneeling or standing barefoot, or wearing a crown of thorns.
Jews were subjected to other indignities. “Each year, at the Carnival season, gorged Jews,
stripped almost naked, had to run a race down the Corso at Rome for the delight of the populace....
The veriest urchin... expected every Jew to get out of the way respectfully when he approached.”
In Germany, it was felt that Jews might be useful (as money-lenders, or in some other capacity). But only a limited number of Jews were needed; it wasn’t necessary to have a growing number of Jews. So Jewish marriages were restricted; a license was required for a wedding, and sometimes only the eldest son could get a wedding license. Sometimes the number of Jewish weddings was limited to the number of Jewish deaths.
Jews were subjected to various forms of economic degradation:
| They were not allowed to sell new commodities of any sort; though they were grudgingly permitted to deal in second-hand wares, this becoming a typical occupation down to our own days. To enter the textile or any other industry was to invite protest from rivals, generally followed by suppression by the government. It was only in tailoring that they were generally permitted to engage without interference, though they were not allowed to sell their wares direct to the consumer. It is not surprising, under the circumstances, that they had recourse to ingenious subterfuges — such as introducing an insignificant tear into a new article of clothing, so as to render it technically second-hand. Not being allowed to open shops outside their own quarter, they were driven into peddling, which, in time, they almost came to monopolize. The Jewish itinerant huckster, pack on back, was a feature in the rural scene, by the eighteenth century, all over Europe. |
I recall a passage from Kafka’s Letter to Father: “You have always reproached me... for living in peace and quiet, warmth and abundance... thanks to your hard work. I think of remarks that must positively have worn grooves in my brain, such as: ‘When I was only seven I had to push a handcart from village to village.’”
In places where Jews enjoyed more freedom, such as Prague and Poland, Jews formed guilds. Prague had four Jewish guilds: butchers, goldsmiths, tailors, and shoemakers. In the major cities of Poland, each guild had its own synagogue.
A large Jewish community, like Prague’s, had its own town-hall, prison, public-bath, hospital, inn, etc. It was a state within a state (imperium in imperio).
Jews continued practicing medicine. Often the same student would become both a doctor and a rabbi. “It was customary for young men to combine their medical studies in the University of Padua with attendance at the famous Talmudical academy of that city.”
The synagogue was often referred to as a “school.” The synagogue was “a center, not only of worship, but also of study.” In lands controlled by the Pope (the “Papal states”), it was prohibited to have more than one synagogue in a town. So Jews in Rome built five synagogues under one roof — one synagogue for Spanish services, one for German, etc.
Schools in the Jewish ghetto were free to parents; schools were supported by the community, by voluntary contributions. Poor students received free meals, free winter clothing, etc.
The Jewish community had a variety of charitable organizations:
| Brides were dowered by one fraternity, and prisoners solaced by another. In the great maritime ports, such as Venice, there were special bodies which saw to the ransoming of Jewish travelers captured and sold into slavery by the Knights of Malta or the Barbary Corsairs. At every stage of want or necessity the unfortunate could confidently expect succor from their neighbors.... When a man fell ill, the fraternity for visiting the sick came to comfort him: when he died, one fraternity looked after the mourners, while another saw to his burial. |
The holiday of Purim commemorated the victory of Esther over Haman, who was plotting to kill the Jews of Persia. Celebrated in March, Purim included
| buffoonery and masquerades.... Even the students allowed themselves some relaxation, and elected a Lord of Misrule, who flouted the Rabbi himself. The elaboration of the story of Esther and Mordecai gave rise to what was known in northern Europe as the Purimspiel, developing into a rudimentary drama. Itinerant play-actors went from place to place giving representations of this, or of scenes from the lives of the Patriarchs. |
Roth says that the Ghetto had a number of harmful consequences:
| The circle of human interests was intolerably confined. Life became indescribably petty. There was a superlative degree of inbreeding, physical, social, and intellectual.... By the time that the Ghetto had been in existence for a couple of centuries, it was possible to see the result. Physically, the Jew had degenerated. He had lost inches off his stature; he had acquired a perpetual stoop; he had become timorous and in many cases neurotic. Degrading occupations, originally imposed by law — such as money-lending and dealing in old clothes — became a second nature, hard to throw off. His sense of solidarity with his fellow-Jews had become fantastically exaggerated, and was accompanied in many cases by a perpetual sense of grievance against the Gentiles responsible for his lot. As a counterpoise to the attempt of the authorities (and indeed of the whole world) to repress him, the Jew was driven to evasion; and sharp practices, at one time condonable, retained their hold in certain unhappy instances after their justification had passed. |
Jewish scholarship degenerated, and became mechanical. “The production of outstanding scholars even in the purely Rabbinic field was increasingly uncommon.”
A. Darkest Hour is a great movie. It deals with May 1940, when Churchill becomes Prime Minister, and the Germans are in the ascendant. Made in 2017, Darkest Hour was popular with both critics and the public. It can teach you as much about Churchill as a documentary can.
B. The writer of Darkest Hour, Anthony McCarten, also wrote the screenplay for The Theory of Everything (2014), which is about Stephen Hawking. The Theory of Everything is a good movie with a great ending. The romantic lives of Hawking and his wife diverge, and their marriage dissolves. But they have good lives nonetheless, they overcome enormous challenges, and they remain friends.
Hawking’s discussion of quantum physics, in A Brief History of Time, is sorely lacking. He doesn’t mention paired particles, he doesn’t mention telepathy, he doesn’t mention action-at-a-distance or magic, he doesn’t mention the “groupiness” of particles. It’s quantum physics for Blockhead Rationalists. Is that why his Brief History was so popular? Is that why his academic career was so successful?
In an earlier issue, I criticized Hawking’s remarks on philosophy. He seems to regard philosophy as a subset of physics. But I don’t think he understands what the big questions are, much less provide answers to them. The interesting questions involve spirit, Hawking focuses on matter. Hawking was fond of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics, but I value quantum physics because it contributes to our understanding of this world.
The above stones show, in my view, that Native Americans liked to lean stones against each other, to create openings, niches, caves. Notice that the large top stone has been propped against smaller stones. Native Americans were fond of leaning and propping, and could do it with extremely large boulders, perhaps using long ropes made of plant-fibers.
Native Americans liked to put stones in the air. Nature settles stones in the earth, Native Americans put them in the air, and thereby overcome gravity. NativeAmerican stone-work reminds me of ballet, since ballet is also about being in the air, minimizing contact with the ground, overcoming gravity. When we’re in the air, we’re alive; in death, we settle into the earth. So being in the air affirms life, the will to live, the courage to live.
The Ballet Theory has a rival, which I call The Wash-out Theory. The Wash-out Theory says that propped boulders may not be man-made, they may be the result of natural forces — melting glaciers washing away the soil, leaving behind a boulder and a propping stone. The Ballet Theory emphasizes human agency, freedom, creativity, while The Wash-out Theory strips away human agency, and leaves behind only blind mechanical forces. I don’t deny that The Wash-out Theory is conceivable. But it’s the exception, not the rule; it’s misleading, not enlightening; it should be ignored, not emphasized.
In my view, The Wash-out Theory is a good example of the reductive thinking that’s popular in academia, especially in the sciences. The Wash-out Theory reminds me of Establishment Darwinism, which removes agency/freedom, and emphasizes the blind mechanism of chance.
When you realize how many propped boulders there are, and how large they are, you’re forced to conclude that Native Americans spent a considerable amount of time on stone-work. But for them, it wasn’t work, it was art, play, perhaps religion. Since it wasn’t work, they didn’t try to minimize the amount of time they were spending, they didn’t try to “get through” the project. On the other hand, when white settlers worked with stones, they were trying to get through. I estimate that one-third of New England’s stone walls were built by white settlers, one-third by Native Americans, and one-third by Native Americans hired by white settlers.
NativeAmerican stone-work is beautiful because it was made with joy. I’m reminded of Ruskin’s theory that visual art must be made with joy. Ruskin wrote,
| I believe the right question to ask, respecting all ornament, is simply this: Was it done with enjoyment — was the carver happy while he was about it? It may be the hardest work possible... but it must have been happy too, or it will not be living.1 |
NativeAmerican stone-work is a free, creative, joyful art; it serves no practical purpose; it profits no one.
White settlers had art, play, and religion, but they weren’t based on stones, they weren’t close to nature. NativeAmerican culture was close to nature; Native Americans usually didn’t carve stones, they moved/propped stones. NativeAmerican culture was an outdoor culture, a culture of nature and in nature.
There are certain constants in the human condition, constants that apply across cultures. One of these constants is that life is hard, life involves suffering. Another constant is that there are 24 hours in the day, and these hours must somehow be passed. Stone-work helped Native Americans to cope with life, to stay upbeat, and to pass the time.
When I was traveling in Maine, I encountered the concept of a “museum in the streets,” i.e., signs that describe places of architectural or historical interest. NativeAmerican stone-work created a museum in the woods. Since Native Americans lived in the woods, their stone-work adorned their home, beautified their surroundings, made nature feel more like home.
Below is a common kind of propped boulder. Notice the small propping-stone concealed by the shadow. Notice, too, how much of the boulder is in the air.
Below is a larger boulder, perhaps 10' X 10' X 12'. Notice how it has been put almost completely in the air.
Below is a propped boulder that creates a cave. Multiple propping-stones have been used. A small manitou stone (upward-pointing stone) leans against the front of the cave.
All four of the above pictures were taken within a mile of each other, at Lincoln Woods State Park in Lincoln, RI. This gives you an idea of the density of such works.
In the picture below, note the leaning boulder in the lower right. I think it’s likely that Native Americans created this.
When I sent this photo to a friend, he responded, “I wonder how many people spotted this same feature within this photo. Makes sense since it does not look like there are any other boulders around in the picture.”
The Democrats, always ready with a Dirty Trick, created an October Surprise by trotting out John Kelly, the retired general, to criticize Trump. The mainstream media, always ready to help the Democrats, asked Kelly if Trump was really a fascist, instead of asking him, Why did you wait until just before the election to say this? It could have been said three months ago, or three years ago.
The Dirty Trick was effective, and gave Harris a momentum-bump. Trump’s lead in the prediction markets dropped from about 22% to 16%. But Harris’ bump didn’t last, and now Trump’s lead is back to 22%. It’s hard to persuade voters that, if Trump wins, the BrownShirts are coming; Trump was President for four years, and not a single BrownShirt was seen.
Norman Mailer said, “I detest Political Correctness. I think it’s The Enemy. One person is trying to tell another person how to think. It’s the Fascism of the Left. The Left is just as capable of Fascism as the Right.”2 Trump often speaks in an unfiltered way, a politically-incorrect way. Does he thereby enlarge the domain of freedom, and weaken Political Correctness?
If you want to see “fascism,” look at the way Biden pursued his student-loan boondoggle, in defiance of the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Even Nancy Pelosi said the President can’t pay off student loans without Congressional approval, but Biden did so.
If you want to see “fascism,” consider how Harris is still receptive to packing the Supreme Court. What could be more contrary to the rule of law than court-packing?
Conservatives on the Supreme Court gave Democrats their best issue by overturning Roe v. Wade. Did these conservatives realize how much damage they were doing to the conservative cause? We should aim for stability in our politics, though it may mean accepting flaws. The Supreme Court shouldn’t overturn something as deeply-rooted and widely-accepted as Roe, though Roe was a flawed ruling.
The Democrats have a “huge cash advantage,” and are hoping to buy the election, but so far, their spending has born little fruit. Trump may even win the popular vote.
© L. James Hammond 2024
feedback
visit Phlit home page
become a patron via Patreon
make a donation via PayPal
| Footnotes | |
| 1. | The Seven Lamps of Architecture, V, 24 back |
| 2. | See the documentary about Mailer, How to Come Alive with Norman Mailer (58:54) back |