|
(Concluded from
page 298.)
By the Rev. Abraham De Sola
|
The Rabbi, it will be perceived, does not
ride the doubtful and unsettled ocean of hypothesis, but treads
the terra firma of facts; this is an express declaration, a
direct assertion. Taking it as such, we shall now enter upon what
we have more particularly regarded as our part in this inquiry;
and we shall, without any reference to the assertion of Rabbi
David Gans, or the opinion of Mr. Waller, adduce those
considerations which we think eminently show the correctness of
their ideas, leaving it to the reader to calculate the aggregate
amount of probability, if we may so say, and then strike the
balance. In the first place we observe,
<<350>>Britain, and London in
particular, were highly celebrated for their commerce, in the time
of Augustus, and even before the invasion by Julius Caesar. |
|
| 10. Without stopping to
examine the probability of the assertion made by Godfrey of
Monmouth, the Welsh historian, who
“reporteth that Brute* builded this citye (London) about the year
of the world 2858, and 1108 before the Christian era, near unto
the river now called Thames, or Trenovant,† and named it
Troynovant;” or whether the far-famed King Lud, the royal and
original proprietor of Lud’s gate, known to the Londoners as
Ludgate,‡ “did repaire this citye, and also increased the same
with many fayre buildings, calling it Lud-din, i.e. the city of
Lud, or Lloyd.Ӥ |
Reputation and
advantages of London for trade in the reign of Augustus. |
| We remark that Tacitus,|| about half
a century after Augustus, tells us that London had become a
“nobile emporium,” a city highly
favoured for her great conflux of merchants, her extensive
commerce, and plenty of all things. |
Testimony of Tacitus. |
| And Strabo, who
flourished under Augustus, says,
“Britain produceth corn, cattle, gold, silver, and iron; besides
which, skins, slaves, and dogs¶ naturally excellent hunters, are
exported from that island.” |
Of Strabo. |
| And even Caesar admits that the
Britons already before his time, were very numerous and
<<351>>powerful,
and had, more particularly in the southeastern parts, considerably
advanced in the arts of tillage and agriculture. |
And of Caesar. |
|
| From these authorities some have
concluded that it is only from the time of Caesar, that Britain
began to be known as a place famous for its commerce; but it can
soon be shown that such was not really the case. For in the first
place, if from her peculiar situation, Britain presented many
advantages for commerce, her situation was always the same, and
consequently the same inducements for visiting the island always
existed. Secondly. It would appear very improbable that during the
few years intervening between its invasion and the accession of
Augustus, it should have become such a place for commerce as
Strabo describes it, (see above;) and
lastly, we know that the Phoenecians traded with the Britons in
lead and tin,* long before the Roman eagle had made its appearance
in the “sea-girt isle;” so that we
have here sufficient grounds for rejecting the supposition that
“Britain was a place of but little note in point of commerce,
before its conquest by the Romans,Ӡ and for adopting the opinion
of such as maintain that “London grew into a city of importance by
her trade with the Greeks and Phoenicians.”‡ |
|
|
| 11. From the days of King
Solomon the Jews more fully applied themselves to commercial
pursuits, and in the reign of Augustus Caesar, they were so
occupied very extensively. |
|
| The Jews, nationally, appear to have
displayed but little spirit of enterprise and taste for commerce
previous to the reign of King Solomon. But when this monarch, who
“passed all the kings of the earth in
riches and wisdom,” made a navy of ships in Ezion Geber, which
went to Tarshish with the servants of
<<352>>Horam (Hiram), and came once
every three years, bringing gold and silver, ivory, apes, and
peacocks,* the nation appears to have gradually acquired a taste
for so exciting an avocation. And although the navy which King
Jehoshaphat made to trade to Tarshish was destroyed, as a judgment
of God for joining himself with Ahaziah;† still does the nation
appear to have regarded it merely as such, and their newly imbibed
spirit of traffic was not at all damped. |
Spirit of commercial
enterprise among the Jews in the days of King Solomon. |
| Thus, previous to the Babylonian
captivity, their trade had become to extensive that even those who
had always held the first rank as a commercial people, the
Syrians, are represented by the prophet Ezekiel as being envious
of them, rejoicing at the overthrow of Jerusalem, and
congratulating themselves that they would be replenished
“now that she is laid waste.”‡ |
Of the prophet
Ezekiel. |
| But to draw nearer to the period with
which we are most concerned, we shall find that in the time of
Pompey, there were many Jews engaged in naval and commercial
pursuits; for the ambassador of Hyrcanus accused Aristobulus
before him of having been privy to, and concerned in, the many
piracies which had lately taken place.§
And although this accusation, proceeding as it did from an
opponent, may not be entitled to much credit per se: yet it
is sufficient to show us that there must have been some
considerable portion of the Jewish nation engaged at this time in
naval matters, or the ambassador would scarcely have dared to
prefer such a charge, when experience would lead Pompey to
question its probability. |
Of Pompey. |
|
| Again, when Pompey, after profaning
the holy temple with his “heathen
presence,” had incurred the displeasure and hatred of the Jews,
these generally joined themselves to the party and interests of
Caesar, who, according to Josephus, did not prove ungrateful, but
granted them many privileges, and even made a pillar of brass for
<<353>>the Jews at Alexandria, “ and declared publicly that they were
citizens of Alexandria.”* Thus in |
|
| Caesar’s
time we find them enjoying all the privileges of their gentile
countrymen. Stimulated by these advantages, their spirit of
enterprise sought and found full scope; so that Herod found it
necessary to build Caesarea, a seaport, the beauty and grandeur of
which called forth alike the astonishment and praise of Jewish and
gentile writers. And although this city may be justly regarded as |
Of Julius Caesar |
| being a proof of what Milman calls
Herod’s “costly adulation” to
Augustus: yet if we look to the extent of its commerce, its
favourable situation, reputation, and magnificence, we shall be
satisfied that the Jews at this time had obtained a celebrity in
commercial matters such as they had never before possessed. |
And of Augustus. |
|
| From the foregoing, it becomes in
the highest degree probable that the Jews began to settle in
England shortly after its conquest by Julius Caesar. |
|
| 12. If Britain was a place of
most important and inviting character for commerce in the time of
Augustus; if the Romans then traded into Britain; if the Jews then
residing in Rome were enjoying particular privileges; if their
taste for commerce and spirit of enterprise which had sprung into
existence as early as the days of Solomon, had now arrived at its
fullest development, and if probability be at all of any weight or
value in argument: then we think that in support of the
proposition which heads this section, we have presented
considerations than which nothing can be more conclusive or
satisfactory. In deed, it would be entirely opposed to reason
and experience to suppose, that the Roman Jews in the reign of
Augustus, should have slighted the advantages which were then
within their grasp, and settled down in a slothful indifference:
when we know that many of them at this time reached very great
emi<<354>>nence in the paths of literature and science.* |
Coacervatio
argumentorum. |
|
| Now if we admit this, and we think
that we should not be wrong to do so: then it would be no more
than consistent and proper for us to admit, that it is from this
time that the Jews must have commenced settling in England. For it
would have been most difficult, if not impossible, for them to
have embarked in pursuits such as the pearl or slave trades, which
were the principal and most profitable sections of British
commerce, unless they were on the spot, as in these transactions
their judgment would be necessarily required. A person carrying on the chief part
if not the whole of his business in a certain place, is much more
likely to reside in that place, than elsewhere. The same must it
have been with the Jewish merchants trading with Britain. And in
this connexion we cannot but observe that it is very remarkable
that the Roman brick
before spoken of, should have been found just in Mark Lane,
“a place, it will be remembered,
where the Romans, and not improbably the ancient Britons, used to
barter their commodities.”
From this coincidence we have
probability supporting probability; for if the Jews traded into
Britain <<355>>(and the one probability tells us they did), then we have
every reason to believe that some of them did actually reside in
Mark or Mart Lane, the then chief spot for trade, and that the
brick was really the work of an Israelite, since its subject (a
Scriptural one) would not allow us, as Mr. Waller observes, to
suppose it to be of Roman make. And if this brick was really the
work of a Jew (and the other probability tells us it was), then
vice versa it is equally probable that it was the work of a
Jewish merchant residing in Britain; since it is most
likely, as we have before observed, that they should settle where
their avocations principally called them.Here then we have again some
important though small particulars tending to show the correctness
of the view we, jointly with R. David Gans and Mr. Waller, have
taken of the matter. But we have said that we would leave it with
our readers to decide, and we must not deprive them of their
vocation. This much, however, we would add in conclusion. If, as
Rollin remarks, where certainty is not to be had, a reasonable
person should be satisfied with probability: then we most
assuredly should not slight in our Inquiry the use of those means,
which if they will not permit us to decide with certainty, will
nevertheless lead us to something which approaches very nearly to
it. And if considered as partaking of this character, if the
considerations which we have urged to show that the earliest
settlement of Jews in England must have taken place while that
country was a dependency of Rome, be regarded as satisfactory, and
if we have shown through them the correctness of the assertion
made by one of our most able chronologists: then will the purpose
for which we originated this Inquiry have been served. |
|
