The importance of being editor: The Jewish Chronicle, 1841-1991

<plain_text><page sequence="1">The importance of being editor: The Jewish Chronicle, 1841-1991* DAVID CESARANI The 150th anniversary of the Jewish Chronicle has been marked by a flurry of articles in the British press, programmes on the BBC and a commemorative stamp issued by the Israeli postal service. The 'JC, to use the term with which thousands of people ask for it at newsagents every Friday morning, has been called 'British Jewry's family newspaper'.1 Indeed, the social and personal pages, dubbed 'hatched, matched and dispatched', have often been credited with both the paper's commercial success and the affection in which it is held by the majority of Jews in the United Kingdom. But this alone cannot explain why the Jewish Chronicle has survived to become the oldest, continuously published Jewish newspaper in the world. Nor does it do justice to the paper's immense significance in Anglo-Jewish history. The Jewish Chronicle is, to paraphrase Freud on dreams, the highroad to under? standing the modern Anglo-Jewish experience. Its coverage of Jewish life in Britain, its leading articles, the correspondence it prints and the advertising it carries offer a unique insight into the development of British Jewry. Each editor of the Jewish Chronicle has ridden his own hobby-horse and associated the paper with particular Anglo-Jewish causes. Since the late 1930s, the directors have also played a significant role in defining the paper's policy. On several occasions board? room decisions, until now almost unknown to the paper's readers, have been critical in determining its future. This article assesses the role of the editors and directors of the Jewish Chronicle and the way they have guided it over 150 years, with profound consequences for Anglo-Jewry as a whole.2 By the end of the 18th century, popular literacy and Britain's burgeoning urban population had created a market for newspapers and advertising. Between 1800 and 1855, improvements in printing technology, the declining cost of newsprint and the relaxation of taxes and controls all made newspaper publishing com? mercially attractive.3 Political parties, pressure groups and religious denominations took advantage of the possibilities which now opened up. The Catholic Tablet was founded in May 1840, the Nonconformist in April 1841 and the Unitarian Inquirer in July 1842. These religious papers carried news from within their respective communities, reports on the activities of missionaries and co-religionists abroad, * Paper presented to the Society on u December 1991. 259</page><page sequence="2">David Cesarani and covered relevant debates in Parliament. They campaigned for full civil rights on behalf of the groups they represented, sought to edify their readers according to the tenets of their particular faith, and attacked schismatics with self-righteous fervour.4 The Anglo-Jewish press was cast in the same mould, although it was influenced also by the Jewish press already in existence on the Continent. Since 1837, Ludwig Philippson had published the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums in Frankfurt. This journal was dedicated to raising the intellectual and civic standing of German Jews as part of their quest for acceptance and equality, a process known as Bildung. These aspirations would find a strong echo in London. More immediately, the Damascus Affair of 1840 revealed the need for a press that would put Jews in touch with one another as well as serve in the struggle for public opinion. The Archives Israelites, founded by French Jews in 1840, was an expression of this new? found Jewish solidarity and marked another step in the crystallization of a modern, post-emancipation Jewish identity.5 While the Damascus Affair exposed the lack of an Anglo-Jewish press to raise international issues, there were compelling local reasons too. By 1840, the Jews of Britain were more geographically dispersed than ever before. The bulk of the population, living in London, now required a medium for inter-communication and information on communal affairs. The campaign for civil emancipation was hampered by the absence of an organ of opinion. Finally, the formation of the Reform congregation in 1840 provoked an intense controversy which highlighted the need for a public arena in which issues could be discussed and efforts made to win hearts and minds. In terms of social origin and political outiook the pioneers of the Anglo-Jewish press were remarkably similar to the men who built up the popular press in mid nineteenth-century Britain.6 Isaac Vallentine (1793-1868), the founder of the Jewish Chronicle, was a Belgian-born bookseller and publisher of almanacs. His trade was typical of the middle-class entrepreneurs who ventured into newspaper publishing. Like most other proprietors he was a Liberal in politics, and saw education as the guarantor of progress for Jews and the whole of society. In 1828 Vallentine had helped to establish the Jewish Association for the Diffusion of Religious Knowledge. He was also active in Sussex Hall, the Jewish adult-educa? tion institute in Leadenhall Street. To edit his paper, Vallentine recruited David Meldola (1797-1853), a minister at Bevis Marks, and Moses Angel (1819-98), a school teacher at Jews' Free School in Bell Lane. When it appeared in November 1841, the Jewish Chronicle declared that 'Our creed is peace to all mankind - opposition to none and love of God'. This sounded like a message of tolerance, but it launched fearsome attacks on the Reform congregation. The editors called for higher standards of Jewish education and improvements in the synagogue service, but drew the line at embracing radical change. 260</page><page sequence="3">The importance of being editor: The Jewish Chronicle, 1841-1991 The first series of the Jewish Chronicle was brief and turbulent. It was preempted by the Voice of Jacob, owned by Jacob Franklin, a member of the large and much respected Franklin family. Vallentine's journal never gained a sufficient market share to ensure its survival. His financial resources were less than those available to the rival paper. Moreover, Vallentine jeopardized the security of his editors by publishing their names on the front page. Meldola was subsequendy compelled to give up journalism by the elders of Bevis Marks, who regarded it as an occupation beneath the dignity of a Sephardi cleric. Angel was lured away to the Voice of Jacob. In May 1842 Franklin persuaded Vallentine to wind up the Jewish Chronicle. The paper was revived as the Jewish Chronicle and Working Man's Friend m 1844 by Joseph Mitchell (d. 1854), a self-made man from East London who liked to characterize himself as 'a representative of the working classes'. Although it is not clear how Mitchell acquired his wealth, he was the patron of several charities based in the East End, such as the Widow's Home Asylum and the National Friendly Association for the Manufacture of Passover Bread. Mitchell's religious oudook appears to have been pragmatic. He first came to public notice as a champion of Jewish education and was a vociferous member of the Association for Preserving Inviolate the Ancient Rites and Ceremonies of Israel, which, as the name suggests, was devoted to opposing Reform Judaism.7 However, as owner and editor of the Jewish Chronicle, Mitchell was far more tolerant of the Reform congregation, if not of Reform Judaism, than Jacob Franklin. Advance notices for his paper declared that it would be 'thrown open to all creeds ... not being the organ of any party or sect, but striving for truth and justice'. This open approach rested on Mitchell's commitment to emancipation. In 1847 he established the Jewish Association for the Removal of Civil and Religious Disabilities, intended as a grass-roots organization to campaign for civic equality. His leading articles bitterly criticized the perpetuation of the cherem on the West London synagogue of British Jews and the exclusion of Reform Jews from the Board of Deputies, because these actions compromised the claims which Jews were making for toleration and equality within British society. The Jewish Chronicle was never an organ of Reform Judaism, as the Voice of Jacob alleged, but the myth that it was has passed into history. True, the paper advocated improvements to the liturgy and ritual in the synagogue, notably shortening the Sabbath services, ending the auctioning of honours, improving decorum, and providing sermons in English. But these goals were not inspired by Reform Judaism in England or elsewhere. On the contrary the paper warned that: 'Recent events in England and Germany are undeniable witnesses to the fact that the refusal to accede to necessary improvements, which the spirit of the age loudly demands, is as dangerous as the indiscriminate agitation for reform. If you obstinately refuse necessary reforms, these applicants will take the reins into their own hands, and will then go further and more rashly than you expected, and than they themselves originally intended to go.'8 261</page><page sequence="4">David Cesarani Mitchell employed Marcus Hyman Bresslau (d. 1864) as his editor. Born in Hamburg, Bresslau had much in common with the maskilim on the Continent and brought a high standard of erudition to the paper. But he was a tetchy character and quarrelled with Mitchell repeatedly. For most of the time, Mitchell edited and ran the Jewish Chronicle single-handed. In June 1854 Mitchell fell into financial difficulties, and he committed suicide in Houndsditch. The records of the Great Synagogue report that he was buried 'by the wall'. Perhaps because of this sad end he has remained a shadowy and neglected figure in Anglo-Jewish history. His own paper did not even award him an obituary.9 Mitchell had seen off Franklin's Voice of Jacob, edited by Abraham Benisch (1811-78) in 1848. But five years later Benisch turned the tables on his old competitor. In January 1853, Abraham Pierpoint Shaw founded the Hebrew Observer and took Benisch on as editor. Benisch soon bought the paper from its owner and attracted the fickle pen of Marcus Bresslau. After Mitchell's death, Bresslau returned to the Jewish Chronicle only to find the task of running a paper beyond him. Benisch then stepped in to arrange a 'merger' of the two publications. However, after he had successfully created the Jewish Chronicle and Hebrew Observer he ejected Bresslau. The former proprietor and editor died forgotten, alone and in poverty in the German Hospital in Dalston in 1864. One of his last publications in the paper that he had once owned was a Hebrew translation of 'God Save The Queen'.10 Benisch, now owner-editor, was a native of Bohemia. He was very much a maskil, who had had a traditional Jewish schooling followed by secular education. He had studied medicine in Prague and attended Vienna University, where he met Moritz Steinschneider and Albert Loewy, with whom he was involved in a proto Zionist student group. Benisch came to London in 1841, probably hoping to win over prominent Anglo-Jewish figures and British politicians to the idea of restoring the Jews to Palestine. This project came to nothing, but he found employment as secretary to the committee in charge of selecting a new Chief Rabbi. From there he went on to edit the Voice of Jacob for Franklin.11 With the sole assistance of his wife Henrietta (probably the first Jewish woman journalist), Benisch edited and managed the Jewish Chronicle for nearly fifteen years. He restored the paper's commercial position and built up its circulation from around 500 to 2000 by the mid-i86os. Like his predecessor he used the paper to promote the cause of emancipation, and aligned himself firmly with the Liberal Party. This was a matter of conviction, not of convenience. In an editorial on 15 February 1867, setting out the reasons why, in his opinion, most Jews should support the Liberals, he wrote: 'The Jew feels instinctively that, politically, he is nothing if he is not a Liberal; and the reflecting Hebrew, moreover, is conscious that the special religious mission entrusted to him from on high cannot be dis? charged unless the principle of liberalism prevails generally.' The paper campaigned for the reform of the Board of Deputies, the creation of a centralized 262</page><page sequence="5">The importance of being editor: The Jewish Chronicle, 1841-1991 welfare system and improvements in the practice of Judaism. All these causes were related to the struggle for emancipation as well as the editor's innate liberalism. The Jewish Chronicle profited from the wave of company flotations in the 1860s. Benisch not only published large advertisements for new issues of stock, but puffed certain companies in the editorial columns. In 1868, however, the market crashed and soon afterwards Benisch was personally in financial trouble. At just this time he was facing stiff competition from the penny Jewish Record, which emulated the price and populism of the Daily Telegraph. To fight back he reduced the price of the Jewish Chronicle and broadened its coverage. The effect was disastrous. Benisch was forced to relinquish control to a consortium of prominent London Jews comprising Lionel Louis Cohen (1837-87), Samuel Montagu (1832-1911) and Lionel van Oven (1829-1905). The consortium placed Benisch's assistant, Michael Henry (1830-74), in charge of the paper. Henry was born in South London into a highly educated and cultured Anglo-Jewish family. He ran a patent agency, but had gained experience as a journalist on several trade papers. Henry caught the attention of Benisch when he wrote a letter to the Jewish Chronicle on the subject of charities. He was soon invited to contribute leading articles on a range of topics to which he brought the advanced social thinking of his day. Yet, while he was an ardent patriot and au courant with modern intellectual trends, he was also a fervent defender of Judaism. Henry recognized that Jewish emancipation had generated as many problems as it had solved. As full citizens Jews now had to reconcile the duty to obey the law and serve the State with their own distinctive requirements. The more the State interfered in the life of citizens, the more it brushed up against and highlighted Jewish particularism. For example, Henry deplored the application of compulsory State education to the Jewish population. In 1870, after the passing of the Forster Education Act, he warned British Jews 'before it is too late, to shun the govern? ment schools, to shun government interference, and to manage and support their own schools just as they manage and support their own synagogues and their own burial grounds. If they do otherwise they will regret their decision. The Jews are essentially, irrefutably, inevitably divided from their Christian fellow-countrymen in the sphere of juvenile instruction.'12 Henry was disconcerted by the trend toward State intervention under the Liberal Government of 1868 to 1874. In November 1871 he wrote: 'it is not sensible or advisable to imagine that our community stands on the same footing as other denominations; or that arrangements which can be readily adapted to those can be as easily adapted, or in some cases adapted at all, to our Anglo-Jewish body ... We trust that in all we have said we have not manifested any ungracious consideration of the indulgence shewn our community by parliament and by the administration of parliamentary statutes; but it is natural that we should be anxious for the intact maintenance of Jewish requirements, even more than of Jewish 263</page><page sequence="6">David Cesarani material interests .. .'13 Such an attitude led him to favour Disraeli and the Conservative Party. Under Henry's guidance, the Jewish Chronicle began to swing away from unquestioning support for Liberalism. After only five years as editor, Henry died in a curious accident at his home. His clothing caught fire while he was reading a newspaper by candlelight and he subsequendy expired from the effects of shock. Since he was an enthusiast for the life-boat fund, after his death money was raised for a boat to be named in his memory. Michael Henry is the only editor of the Jewish Chronicle to have caught fire and to have had a sea-going vessel named after him.14 From 1875 t0 Benisch resumed control of the paper. These were tumultuous years. The editor found himself embroiled in controversy with Glad? stone and the Liberal Party over the 'Bulgarian Atrocities'. Most British Jews regarded Turkish rule as a better option for their co-religionists than the emerging Christian states of Romania and Bulgaria, backed as they were by Russia. When Gladstone led an outcry against the Turks over their atrocious treatment of Bulgarian Christians, non-conformist Protestants in the ranks of the Liberal Party berated pro-Turkish British Jews for placing Jewish interests before those of the nation and, implicitiy, Christians in need. Benisch was appalled by the intolerance which Gladstone and Liberal polemicists, notably A. E. Freeman and Goldwin Smith, displayed towards Jews.15 Benisch personally tried to dissuade Gladstone from standing by his charges against the Jews, but was unable to effect a reconcili? ation between the Liberals and Anglo-Jewry. He died in 1878, of natural causes. Under Benisch's will the Jewish Chronicle passed to the Anglo-Jewish Associa? tion which he had helped to found. However, the AJA had no desire to run a newspaper and sold it to Israel Davis (1847-1927), a barrister, and Sidney Mon? tagu Samuel (1848-84), a businessman. As stipulated in the legacy, they appointed the assistant editor, Asher Myers (1848-1902), to the editorship, a post he held for twenty-four years. The son of a synagogue official and bookseller, Myers had lost a lot of money in connection with the short-lived Jewish Record. After this unfortunate experience he worked briefly for the Board of Guardians, before Benisch brought him into the Jewish Chronicle. His first employment was taking down the leading articles dic? tated by the ageing and ailing editor. Myers was a member of the Institute for Journalists, which indicates how he viewed his function: the paper was now owned by a proprietor and he was stricdy a professional employee. Leading articles were often written by Lionel Cohen and Joseph Jacobs, while Israel Davis reserved the right to scrutinize and amend all editorial content. Myers modernized the Jewish Chronicle typographically and editorially. He fol? lowed the general press in responding to changes in society and using new informa? tion-gathering technology. Columns appeared on trades-union affairs, sports and leisure activities. Since compulsory schooling had created a large youth reader? ship, Myers started a children's column. He carried more provincial news than 264</page><page sequence="7">The importance of being editor: The Jewish Chronicle, 1841-1991 before. Foreign stories were sent in by cable from correspondents in Vienna, Berlin and Paris. Display advertising was introduced, reflecting the growth of consumption by the middle classes. The content of these advertisements is reveal? ing. The Jewish Chronicle of the 1880s did not baulk at notices for beef lozenges or turde soup. Myers was a member of the middle-class Jewish intelligentsia clustered in the London postal district of NW6. He was close to London's Jewish cultural elite, including Israel Abrahams, Herbert Bentwich, Moses Gaster, Joseph Jacobs, Solomon J. Solomon and Israel Zangwill. With them he helped to found and publicize the Maccabeans, a dining club which was intended to secure the adhe? sion of Jewish professionals and to invigorate communal life. They shared Myers' concern with the increasing inroads which assimilation was making into the com? munity. It may be for this reason, as well as the prevailing fashion, that the paper devoted so much attention to Jewish marriages. Coverage of a society wedding could occupy a whole page, with minute detail afforded to the ritual, the speeches and the gifts. However, the main focus of attention was the effect of persecution on the Jews of Russia and the wave of immigration which it stimulated. More and more the paper was preoccupied with anti-alienism in the press and parliament. Myers did not see Zionism as a solution to either anti-Jewish feeling or Jewish emigration from Russia. Herzl's diary records that they soon fell into disagreement when they met at the Revd Simeon Singer's home on 26 November 1895. Myers called Herzl a 'bad Jew' ('schlechte Jude') and told Singer that he should have nothing to do with the central committee which Herzl was proposing to set up to guide his new movement. Writing in his diary later that day, Herzl described Myers as 'intolerant'. This was a little unfair since he had asked Herzl for a resume of his ideas for the paper. Indeed it published the first version of Herzl's Jewish State, in January 1896.16 Although the Jewish Chronicle reported the affairs of the Zionist movement objectively and gave them the prominence demanded by their news value, editorial comment was usually negative. In the 1900s, the paper was the subject of often-repeated denunciations at meetings of the English Zionist Federation. Myers died at the helm in 1902. He was replaced by Morris Duparc (1852 1942), his deputy, who had been a staff reporter since 1873. Duparc had a wealth of experience, but power really lay in the hands of Israel Davis who was a fussy and obsessive proprietor. Davis did not like to offend anyone, which was a drawback for a newspaper that was traditionally combative. At the time, the Jewish Chronicle was Lrcefully resisting parliamentary moves to introduce controls on alien immigration. But when the Aliens Act was passed in August 1905, Davis wanted to end opposition and to announce that Jews would accept it as loyal citizens. The paper's star journalist and leader writer, Simon Gelberg (later Gilbert [1869 1946]) refused to write a meekly submissive editorial and threatened to resign if 265</page><page sequence="8">David Cesarani Davis insisted he do so. The proprietor relented and the Jewish Chronicle called for repeal or modification of the offending statute. Like Lord Northcliffe, Davis evinced a prudish distaste for any mention of underwear or certain medicinal remedies in his paper. Large advertisements for corsets and laxatives supplied a not inconsiderable proportion of the paper's advertising revenue: their gradual elimination reduced its income at a time when more and more competitors, especially in the Yiddish press, were entering the field. Wearied by the task of running the Jewish Chronicle, in December 1906 Davis put it up for sale. The consortium which owned the Jewish World was interested, but Leopold Greenberg (1861-1931), a leading English Zionist who ran an advertising agency, preempted their bid. It was a transaction of historic importance in the long term; but in the short term it almost turned into a disaster. Greenberg anticipated that the money for the purchase of the Jewish Chronicle would be provided by the World Zionist Organization (WZO), via the Jewish Colonial Trust. But Russian Jews learned of the deal and protested that it was a waste of precious resources. Nahum Sokolow told David Wolffsohn, president of the WZO, that buying the paper would cause a revolt among the rank and file that would parallel the crisis over East Africa.17 The WZO backed out, leaving Greenberg with a bill for ?13,000. He saved the day by forming a company with a group of friends and fellow Zionists, including Joseph Cowen (1868-193 2), Jacobus Kann (1872-1944) and Leopold Kessler (1864-1944). The company issued 13,000 ?1 shares, the largest portion of which was held by Greenberg. Cowan, Kann and Kessler were appointed directors and Israel Davis served as chairman . Greenberg, who was formally the controlling editor from 1907 until he died, dominated the paper. He brought to it a new lease of life after the late-Victorian stuffiness of Israel Davis. Born in Birmingham, he had worked as a journalist on the Liberal Daily News and the Pall Mall Gazette. He was an admirer of Gladstone, whose portrait adorned his office wall, and was on good terms with 'Radical' Joe Chamberlain, the former mayor of Birmingham and a prominent Liberal. Greenberg was also a staunch, if unconventional, Jew. His first wife, Marion Gates, was a Reform convert, although with Joseph Jacobs he produced a monthly, Young Israel, in the 1890s, which was notable for its anti-assimilationist ideology. Anti-assimilationism propelled Greenberg's Jewish nationalism. He was one of Herzl's earliest admirers in Britain and undertook several diplomatic missions on his behalf. At the time he purchased the Jewish Chronicle, Greenberg was on the Inner Actions Committee of the WZO. Previously neglected correspondence in the Central Zionist Archive leaves no doubt that he was acting in the interest of the Zionist movement. In so doing he was behaving in a similar fashion to British politicians who invested in newspapers to support their party.18 When he saw the paper was for sale, he told his friend Jacobus Kann, a Dutch banker, that 'There is 266</page><page sequence="9">The importance of being editor: The Jewish Chronicle, 1841-1991 no necessity for me to point out to you the extreme value to Zionism in having such an organ, not only in so far as England is concerned, but because I believe that the future of our Movement is largely dependent upon this country, and the J.C. has an influence outside the community.'19 Although it did not come under the direct control of the WZO, the paper was still in the hands of a group of Zionists. Yet this did not entail slavish adherence to the policies of the movement. On the contrary, the Jewish Chronicle was not only independent, it was fiercely critical of the Zionist leadership. Greenberg was a shrewd judge of politics and never trusted the British government to implement the promises in the Balfour Declaration. In 1919 he wrote to Israel Zangwill that 'it seems to me that they have sucked the Jewish orange and are now throwing the pulp into our face. Having got the kudos they wanted out of their benevolent intentions to the Jewish people, they are now disposed to hold us at arms length and to place an interpretation upon their Declaration strictiy in accordance with the ideas of the League of British Jews. Of course, technically they are unimpeach? able because the wording of the Declaration can mean so little, while it was intended to appear to be so much.'20 In letters to confidants and in the editorial columns of the Jewish Chronicle he berated Chaim Weizmann for not demanding a Jewish state at the Versailles Peace Conference or in the subsequent negotiations. He wrote to Kann that 'so far as I am able to judge, the proposals he [Weizmann] made to the Peace Conference and the general scheme are far too indefinite and are based far too excessively on Chovevi-Zionism. There is not sufficient political guarantee in the whole thing and without political guarantee, we cannot have what we really want - however much we may disguise it - a Jewish state (of course, I do not mean at once but ultimately).'21 As long as Greenberg was in the saddle, the Jewish Chronicle was a ferocious critic of the Jewish Agency and any initiatives that he felt diluted the fundamentals of Zionism to appease anti-Zionist Jews or the British or the Arabs. Greenberg's editorials and his regular feature, 'in the communal armchair', were distinguished by a muscular and abrasive style. For example, when a gather? ing of immigrant rabbis in Leeds in 1911 reiterated the traditional ban on mixed dancing, protested against theatre going and objected to the Ivrit b'lvrit (Hebrew in Hebrew) method of teaching, he thundered: 'These narrow-minded, dark asceticisms are not, thank God, even remotely connected with the essentials of Judaism. They are parasitic growths . .. like dank mould, clustered round it in the noisome ghetto.'22 Under Greenberg's energetic guidance, \ht Jewish Chronicle prospered. Profits before the First World War reached ?25 00 per year and in 1913 he was able to buy the sickly Jewish World. He instigated a fresh and open coverage of all aspects of Jewish life, including crime and prostitution. The latter had previously been mentioned only with such diffidence and delicacy that reports were ail-but opaque to the uninitiated. He broadened the coverage of women's affairs and commis 267</page><page sequence="10">David Cesarani sioned the cookery column written by his second wife, Florence. She was a doughty woman who was decorated for her bravery when serving as a nurse off Gallipoli during the First World War. Greenberg died in 1931, worn out by his exertions during the First World War and the subsequent decade of turmoil at home and abroad. He left instructions that he should be cremated and his remains buried, without any religious ceremony, near Mount Scopus in Palestine. This was a testimony to his nationalist ardour, but the fate of his ashes once they arrived in Palestine is a curious footnote to his tempestuous career as a Zionist. The casket containing his remains arrived in Haifa in November 1931, but the Orthodox rabbinate in Jerusalem learned of the shipment and insisted that since Jewish law prohibits cremation, the casket could not be buried in consecrated ground. Letters flew back and forth between London and Palestine as his son, Ivan, tried to resolve the impasse. In January 1932, Joe Linton, one of Weizmann's aides, suggested burying the urn in Herbert Bent wich's private garden which was near Mount Scopus. This would have been a nice irony since the two men had loathed one another. In any event, such a solution was overruled by the rabbinate. By May 1932 the casket was still in the customs office in Haifa and officials threatened to throw it out if something was not done. Eventually, through the combined efforts of Moshe Sharett and Chaim Arlosoroff, a resting place for Greenberg's remains was found at Kibbutz Degania by the shore of Lake Galilee where his tombstone can be seen to this day.23 Joseph Cowan, chairman of the board since the death of Israel Davis in 1927, died shordy after Greenberg. This double loss ushered in a period of instability and conflict among the directors who, for the first time, could influence the paper's policy. A damaging rift emerged between Mortimer Epstein (1880-1946), the managing director, and Leopold Kessler, who became chairman. In 1919, Greenberg had invited Epstein, the editor of several prestigious annu? als, to contribute a column to the Jewish Chronicle. When Greenberg became seriously ill in the last months of his life, he made Epstein managing director, while his son Ivan (1896-1966) acted effectively as editor. Ivan expected to succeed his father, but Epstein appointed Jack Rich (1897-1987), the secretary of the Board of Deputies, to the post and told Ivan that he should 'give up all hope' of becoming editor. Embittered by this rebuff, Ivan sought help from Cowen and Kann, but they declined to interfere. Instead, he remained second-in-command, nursing his ambition for the editorial chair.24 With Cowan's death, equity in the paper came on to the market and Epstein began to build up his shareholding. At the same time, he requested that his contract should be extended from one to two and then to five years. Leopold Kessler was suspicious of Epstein and his protege, Rich. In confidence he told Kann that 'neither of the two men have really fulfilled our expectations when they were chosen to replace Greenberg. But acceptance of Dr Epstein's proposal would mean loss of control by us and I have quite definitely told him that I am absolutely 268</page><page sequence="11">The importance of being editor: The Jewish Chronicle, 1841-1991 opposed to it on principle. If he should continue to strive after sole control then the necessity might arise to ask him to resign.' He implied that Epstein was not personally trustworthy or reliable on Zionist matters: 'I feel that Dr Epstein requires watching'.25 Epstein was adept at boardroom politics. He played off Kann againt Kessler, exploiting the former's sense that he was being excluded from the running of the paper. Kann complained that he was not informed of decisions taken by Kessler about the purchase of a new building in Finsbury Square or new composing machinery. He was also unhappy that Kessler wanted to appoint his son David to the board to fill the vacancy left by the death of Cowan. In 1933 Kann agreed that both his son and David Kessler would join the board, but this did not end the strife between the two elder statesmen of the paper. When Kann pere et fils arrived at a board meeting in 1935 and opposed the issue of debentures to finance the buying of new equipment, Leopold Kessler protested that he had been ambushed and was obliged to hand over the chair to Epstein while he contested this move by his old friend. Peace was only restored on the intervention of Michel Oppenheimer (1884-1980), the late Leopold Greenberg's brother-in-law, who had become a director in the Greenberg interest. To prevent Epstein consolidating his position, Kessler recalled his son David from Palestine, where he was working for the entrepreneur Moshe Novomysky. The two Kesslers and Oppenheimer then counter-attacked. At a meeting of the board in January 1936, Epstein was replaced as a director by Leonard Stein (1887-1974) and Jacobus Kann left the board in favour of Oppenheimer. In May, Rich was removed as editor and replaced by Ivan Greenberg. Seven months later, Epstein resigned from the board.26 The crisis at the Jewish Chronicle in 1935-6 had many strands. Mortimer Epstein and Leopold Kessler were at odds over the running of the paper. Epstein was a businessman and saw it largely as a profit-making enterprise. Kessler placed the accent more on the public service function of the Jewish Chronicle, to provide Anglo-Jewry with objective news and comment even at the cost of making less money. As an old friend of the Greenberg family he felt uncomfortable with the way that Ivan had been passed over for the editorship and was uneasy about the close ties between Rich and the communal leadership. Epstein and Rich were both keen Weizmann supporters, but Kessler was fiercely critical of Weizmann's leadership of the Zionist movement. His concern over the paper's stance towards the national movement may have been the factor which made him so determined to prevent Epstein and Rich running the paper. Ironically, Ivan Greenberg was also to be sacked by the board after editing the paper for eleven strenuous years. Ivan had served as an officer in the Royal Artillery in the Great War and spent several years travelling the world as a journalist. He joined the Jewish Chronicle as assistant editor in 1925. When he finally took the editorial chair he continued the vigorous style established by his father. Like him, Ivan was a fiery Zionist. This entailed not only renewed criticism 269</page><page sequence="12">David Cesarani of Weizmann, but an increasingly open sympathy with the Revisionist movement led by Ze'ev Jabotinsky. The paper bent over backwards to explain the activities of the Jewish underground which waged war against the Arabs and, later, the British forces in Palestine. During the Second World War, the Jewish Chronicle promoted the cause of a Jewish army, an idea associated with Revisionists in America. At the same time that he was writing editorials for the Jewish Chronicle, Ivan was contribu? ting leading articles to the Revisionist Jewish Standard started in London by Abraham Abrahams in 1939. Appalled by the casual indifference of the world to the persecution of the Jews in Europe and the continuing policy of denying them refuge in what had been intended as their National Home, Greenberg's editorials became more and more strident. When the Irgun and Lehi stepped up their attacks on British targets in 1945-6, the Jewish Chronicle began to report their activities under a column headed 'Jewish Resistance'. The directors, Michel Oppenheimer, Leonard Stein and David Kessler, who returned from military service in April 1946, were alarmed by the tone of the paper. The events in Palestine were causing anti-Jewish feeling to run high in Britain: these reports and the editorials in the paper were like matches thrown on to dry tinder. It is now possible to reveal the inside story of events which led to Ivan Greenberg's downfall. At noon on 24 May 1946, a special meeting of the board convened at the company's offices at 88 Chancery Lane. Michel Oppenheimer took the chair, with Stein, Kessler and Alex Gumb, who had joined on Leopold Kessler's death in New York in 1944, present as directors. Neville Laski, who had been an acting director while David Kessler was in the army, was also in attendance. Together they confronted Greenberg, who had come down from the paper's wartime offices in High Wycombe. The directors 'expressed strong dis? satisfaction' at the conduct of editorial policy. They stressed that Greenberg had been 'entirely unreceptive' to 'suggestions put forward by either Mr Laski or Mr Stein'. The paper 'was not maintaining the high standard of journalistic good taste which the Board expected'. In particular, the policy on Palestine 'tended too far in the direction of Revisionism'. The Board condemned the language used in the attacks on 'Civil Servants and leading citizens'. In short, the 'presentation of news was frequendy lacking in objectivity' and the paper 'had ceased to be an independent forum for the expression of all shades of opinion'. Greenberg 'replied fully to the charges which were levelled against him, and affirmed that it was his intention to edit the paper in conformity with the wishes of the Board, provided, of course, that the policy laid down by the Board did not offend against his conscience'. The directors and the editor then discussed ways of establishing closer liaison between themselves, but this proved impossible in view of Greenberg's reluctance to leave High Wycombe except to deal with necessary business in London each Friday. Instead, the 'main lines' of the paper's policy were set out so as to guide Greenberg in future. These were that the Jewish 270</page><page sequence="13">The importance of being editor: The Jewish Chronicle, 1841-1991 Chronicle should be: 'Moderate Zionist in respect to Palestine. Orthodox as regards the Jewish religion: Stricdy loyal in relation to HMG.' The Board con? cluded by telling Greenberg that 'henceforth they were resolved that the paper should pursue a policy which was acceptable to them. They were not prepared to tolerate any further breaches of these instructions and warned the Editor that if, in their opinion, serious infringements occurred again they would not hesitate to take the necessary steps to terminate his appointment.'27 Greenberg ignored the guidelines. Oppenheimer met with him again in June to demand a modification of the editorial accent, but Stein threatened to resign unless the editor was sacked. On 26 June, when the board met again, Kessler backed Stein and noted how Greenberg had shown, 'in spite of every warning by the Board, that he was incapable of editing the paper as the Directors desired'. Oppenheimer and Gumb were not convinced that the 'infractions' were so grave and suggested another meeting with the editor. There was, for the moment, a stalemate and the board agreed to meet again on 2 July.28 The directors were divided, but Kessler and Stein were committed to ending Greenberg's editorship. Gumb resigned from the board in protest, while Oppen heimer still refused to support the dismissal of the editor whose family he had known for many years. When the board reconvened at the start of July 1946, Stein and Kessler prevailed: Greenberg's appointment was terminated as of 5 July. Oppenheimer tendered his resignation, but after Stein and Kessler 'pleaded with him to reconsider' he put his decision into abeyance.29 Greenberg did not take his dismissal lying down. During September and October 1946 he negotiated with the Anglo-Palestine Bank in Tel Aviv, in a bid to purchase the shares held by Mortimer Epstein. He also investigated the share? holdings of the Kann family and the Wolffsohn Trust. Greenberg told Eliezer Hoofien of the Anglo-Palestine Bank that if they could get hold of these shares, 'we shall be in a position to rescue the paper from its present undesirable direction and bring it back again to the support of Zionism'.30 The bank was unconvinced, and suggested instead that the Jewish Agency get hold of the shares and hold the balance between Kessler and Greenberg.31 Indeed, unknown to Greenberg, the Jewish Agency considered the Jewish Chronicle to be so influential that, acting in concert with the Zionist Federation in London, it attempted to buy a major stake in the company. Efforts to bring this plan to fruition persisted into 1947, but ran out of steam when difficulties appeared in the way of the share purchase. By then the Jewish Chronicle was securely under David Kessler's control and guidance.32 Following the upheaval in July 1946, John Shaftesley (1901-81), the assistant editor, was appointed to the editorial chair. Born in Lancashire, Shaftesley had gone from the staff of iht Manchester Guardian to the Jewish Chronicle in the 1930s. Along with Greenberg and A. B. Guthrie, the redoubtable Scot who had managed the paper's commercial affairs since 1907, he had helped to carry the paper 271</page><page sequence="14">David Cesarani through the difficult war years. As editor he presided over a trying period of reconstruction, for \ht Jewish Chronicle and Anglo-Jewry as a whole. However, he had a conservative oudook and was somewhat out of touch with the mood of the times. Shaftesley was intended as a stop-gap while the board of directors cast around for a more suitable incumbent. None was readily available so the board decided that it would bring in a non-journalist and groom him for the job. In 1955 when Guthrie retired, William Frankel, then a barrister, was appointed general manager. Three years later, Shaftesley was elevated to the board as an executive director and given responsibility for the subsidiary Jewish Gazette. Frankel became editor. In the three years that he was general manager Frankel learned the newspaper business. However, since he lacked journalistic experience, at the same time that he was made editor the board appointed Phillip Zee (1909-83) as a director to act as his mentor. Zee had been the editor of the Sunday Pictorial and later became a director of the Daily Mirror. He was brought into the Jewish Chronicle by a former colleague, Ellis Birk, who was appointed a director in 1956.33 Whereas Shaftesley had clung to an old-fashioned consensus agenda, his suc? cessor relished constructive controversy. He introduced into the paper the issues that were agitating wider society and the young voices which were challenging received wisdom. He was keenly aware that at a time when established values were being questioned, especially among the young, the atmosphere within Anglo-Jewry was stultifying. However, at the same time the Orthodox section of the community was becoming more assertive and interpreted the paper's calls for rethinking Judaism as attacks on their cherished beliefs. The Jewish Chronicle had already clashed with the Chief Rabbinate and the Orthodox communities in the 1950s. Chief Rabbi Brodie did not take kindly to criticism. In 1952, after an editorial note mildly disparaging his views on the correct pronunciation of Hebrew, he accused the paper of deliberately publishing comments that detracted from his authority.34 After an article in the paper called the ritual bath 'a barbaric hangover from ancient days', Rabbi Dr Solomon Schon? feld declared that it might be necessary to pronounce an "issur against the Jewish Chronicle, forbidding observant Jews to read it.35 The tempo of conflict quickened under the new editor. At the end of i960, Frankel was summoned before the Beth Din on account of an article, which they considered derogatory, concerning the views of Orthodox rabbis on mixed dancing.36 He agreed to appear out of courtesy, although he rejected the Beth Din's authority in the matter.37 Frankel was a friend of Dr Louis Jacobs who, to him, personified the modern rabbi. He was keen to see Jacobs appointed principal of Jews' College, where he could help shape a generation of Anglo-Jewish rabbis who would give leadership to young Jews. However, for several reasons - personal, political and, above all, theological - Jacobs was denied the post and Brodie appointed himself principal, pro tern. The Jewish Chronicle commented pointedly that: 'A religious revival will 272</page><page sequence="15">The importance of being editor: The Jewish Chronicle, 1841-1991 never be brought about by prohibitions and denunciations, by exclusive claims to authenticity, or by mutual recriminations between different sections of the com? munity.' This and subsequent broadsides did nothing to shift the opposition to the appointment of Louis Jacobs.38 Jacobs resigned from Jews' College on 14 December 1961. Frankel led with this news on 22 December, giving a detailed account of the internal power struggle. An editorial the following week made it clear what the Jewish Chronicle felt was at stake: 'It is whether the Orthodox Establishment in this country will successfully negotiate the transition to twentieth-century Western life while maintaining Juda? ism's special vigour, relevance, and communal unity. The alternative is to lapse into narrow, dogmatic rigidity which must inevitably bring about disunity and decline.'39 By nailing Louis Jacobs' flag to the masthead of the Jewish Chronicle the fortunes of both became inextricably linked. The paper was assailed by rabbis and laymen in the Orthodox community. In March 1962 the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations issued an official warning 'to the Jewish public to beware of the anti-Torah influences which the Jewish Chronicle is bound to have especially upon youth'.40 After Brodie confirmed the veto on Jacobs, the paper launched a stinging attack on the Chief Rabbi. The crisis turned into one in which his authority was at issue, and in reply the Chief Rabbi rounded on the paper.41 Relations between the Jewish Chronicle and the Orthodox communities deterio? rated. A memorandum was drawn up for the president of the United Synagogue and the chairman of the Chief Rabbinate Council listing 'the planned and per? sistent attacks which appear in the columns of the Jewish Chronicle against orthodoxy in general and the central religious authorities of the Community in particular'. 'The interpretation by the Jewish Chronicle of communal trends and events is tendentious and its sympathies are clearly with the Reform and the American Conservative movements.'42 In an effort at conciliation, Frankel and David Kessler met with Brodie in October 1963. Later, in a letter to the Chief Rabbi, Kessler summed up his thoughts on their discussion: 'I think we are agreed that it is time our relationship was put on a more constructive footing, and I shall indeed be pleased if we can find ways of narrowing the differences which have shown themselves recendy. It must be in the interests of Anglo-Jewry that the Jewish Chronicle and your office should co-operate wherever possible. No doubt we shall continue to find ourselves at variance from time to time, but I think we should be able to respect one anothers points of view even if we do not agree. Perhaps the essence of the matter is that there should be closer liaison between Hamilton Terrace [the Chief Rabbi's residence] and Furnival Street.'43 Brodie responded positively to this exchange: 'I think it helped to clear the air somewhat and create the desirability of further meetings with you and the Editor in the near future.'44 However, the concerted attempt on the part of the Jewish 273</page><page sequence="16">David Cesarani Chronicle to heal the breach with the Orthodox community and its leadership was frustrated by the eruption of the second 'Jacobs Affair' in December 1963 when Louis Jacobs was prevented from returning to his former position as minister of the New West End Synagogue.45 The Jewish Chronicle took up his case again and warned Brodie that by staking his audiority on barring Jacobs he would be to blame if his office lost respect.46 Brodie responded with a public statement rebuking the paper for its position with regard to the 'Jacobs Affair' and indicting its attitude towards Orthodoxy in general. 'The travesty of our traditional Judaism has been featured in our mono? polistic Jewish press for some time .... While we believe in freedom of the press, we should not allow this freedom to be abused and even turned into a tyranny as is attempted by the Jewish Chronicle which, in recent years, no doubt for reasons of its own, has not presented an objective picture of the Anglo-Jewish scene, nor has it reflected the tradition and sentiment of Anglo-Jewry.' Of course, the statement was carried in the Jewish Chronicle, but it derided the notion of a conspiracy. The paper asserted that it had been scrupulous in reporting every strand of opinion.47 The appointment of a new Chief Rabbi in 1966 occasioned fresh acrimony between the Jewish Chronicle and the assertive, vocal elements of Orthodoxy. But this was not because of the Jewish Chronicle. True, the paper criticized Chief Rr.bbi Jakobovits for his refusal to join with Reform and Liberal rabbis on public occa? sions, even on Israel Independence Day.48 Contrary to the notion that it had a vendetta against the Chief Rabbi, as suggested by Chaim Bermant in his recent biography of Lord Jakobovits, it was the Jewish Chronicle which held out the olive branch. On more than one occasion there were exchanges in person, or by letter, when relations between the two institutions were discussed. It is clear that on both sides there was a strong desire to end the widespread perception of an adversarial relationship.49 Nevertheless, the 'Jacobs Affair' and its aftermath alienated a section of the Jewish population and gave rise to a serious attempt to undermine the newspaper's independence. In 1962 Sir Isaac Wolfson, the chairman of Great Universal Stores and the president of the United Synagogue, expressed an interest in obtaining the paper, although he was discouraged by Lord Thomson, the press magnate.50 These threatening moves prompted David Kessler, the managing director and chairman of the board, to create the Jewish Chronicle Trust (an idea that had been mooted as long ago as 1936). Creating the Trust proved to be an immensely complex undertaking that required legal advice from the most esteemed authori? ties in the field, and was not completed until October 1969. It was followed in 1984-8 by the establishment of the Kessler Foundation and a further series of mechanisms to ensure the autonomy and future of the paper. The bitter controversies of the 1960s helped set the agenda for Geoffrey Paul who assumed the editorship after William Frankel's retirement in 1977. Paul set out to heal the wounds and reduce the polarization between religious factions. 274</page><page sequence="17">The importance of being editor: The Jewish Chronicle, 1841-1991 However, Anglo-Jewry was riven by a series of other disputes, over the Anti-Nazi League, the Lebanon War and its aftermath in 1982, and efforts to reform the funding of communal institutions. As always, the paper provided an open forum for airing these issues, while in its editorials it sought the middle-ground and tried to take the heat out of the arguments. It was a hard, often unrewarding task. Paul, who had been with the paper since 1958, decided to retire early, handing over in 1990 to Ned Temko who had been selected by the directors and approved by the Trust that now had ultimate control over the Jewish Chronicle. It remains to evaluate, briefly and inadequately, the impact of the editors and proprietors of the Jewish Chronicle on 150 years of Anglo-Jewish history. All have been utterly committed to Jewish continuity and have used the paper to foster every constructive expression of Judaism and the Jewish heritage. The Jewish Chronicle provided an essential medium through which a modern Jewish identity could be constructed.51 After emancipation, in the 1860s and 1870s, it had a key role in working out the identity of British Jews as citizens and integrating Jews into English culture without jeopardizing their Jewishness. This difficult task was continued, with added urgency, during the 1880s and 1890s under the impact of mass immigration. Its mere existence was a unifying factor. The Jewish Chronicle was the single institution that could be said to have been shared by the vast majority of British Jews, whatever their social status, geographical origin or reli? gious oudook. Purchasing and reading it was an act of affirming Jewishness that was uniquely modern. Under Vallentine, Mitchell, Bresslau and Benisch the paper was an important adjunct to the campaign for civic emancipation and a vehicle for promoting self improvement within the Jewish population. The Jewish press became a powerful engine for the creation of communal organizations and the reform of those already in existence. Sussex Hall, the Board of Guardians, the United Synagogue, Jews' College, the Anglo-Jewish Association, the Federation of Synagogues, the Mac cabaeans, the Jewish Historical Society of England and many other communal bodies were enthusiastically promoted by editors, often passing the baton from one to another. For decades, the Jewish Chronicle was virtually the only communal forum in which unfettered debate could take place concerning the operation of these institutions. Thanks to their independent position, editors did not have to adopt a slavish attitude towards office-holders. Benisch was able to criticize even the great Sir Moses Montefiore for his conduct of domestic affairs in the 1850s and his handling of matters connected with Palestine in the 1860s. The international dimension of the Jewish Chronicle was no less vital. It became part of the information network that was responsible for the evolution of a new international identity for the Jewish people. Editors and correspondents ensured that the paper was prominent in every international campaign, from the Mortara Affair to the rescue of Ethiopian Jews. Its single most decisive intervention in the 275</page><page sequence="18">David Cesarani international sphere followed its purchase by Greenberg and his friends in 1907. By placing its weight behind the Zionist movement, the paper's ability to influence opinion in the Jewish world was critical to the development of Zionism in the face of powerful communal opposition. Its capacity to mobilize Jewish people was essential to the success of the Zionists in 1917 and the defence of the Jewish National Home from the 1920s to the 1940s. Since 1945, the Jewish Chronicle has served the needs of an increasingly sub? urban and middle-class Jewish population. It has combined, in a unique fashion, a detailed attention to local issues with coverage of the Jewish world and Israel. Its editorial policy on subjects such as Jewish defence work, the Board of Deputies, the Chief Rabbinate and the United Synagogue has shown a remarkable continuity from the 1910s to the last quarter of the 20th century. The arguments over the response to Fascist and anti-Semitic agitation in the late-1940s, the 1960s and the mid-1970s virtually replicates the claims and counter-claims made during the 1930s. The friction between the paper and Chief Rabbis Brodie and Jakobovits, and the 'Jacobs affair', has a feel of deja vu in the light of the continuous debates with Chief Rabbis Nathan Marcus Adler and Hermann Adler over modernization of the forms of Jewish worship and the Morris Joseph episode in the 1890s. The very continuity of policy is a testimony to the tenacity with which its editors have held to the centreground in Anglo-Jewry. While it has consistendy supported the authority of communal institutions, each one has been subjected to critical scrutiny, often with damning results. Yet none have ignored the fact that the Jewish Chronicle is a medium through which Jews in Britain interact with, argue among and amuse each other. Over 150 years, its owners and editors have ensured that the paper has become established as part of the ritual and rhythm of Anglo-Jewish communal life. NOTES 1 Mark Raven, 'British Jewry's Family Newspaper', Commentary 1:3 (March 1951) 262-7. 2 For a comprehensive evaluation of the paper and its place in Anglo-Jewish history, see the author's Jewish Chronicle and Anglo-Jewry, 1841-iggi to be published by Cambridge University Press in 1993. 3 Lucy Brown, Victorian News and Newspapers (Oxford 1985). 4 Louis Billington, 'The Religious Periodical and Newspaper Press, 1770-1870', in Michael Harris and Alan Lee (eds) The Press in English Society from the Seventeenth to the Nineteenth Cen? tury (London 1986) 113-32. 5 Johanna Philippson, 'Ludwig Philippson und die Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums', in Hans Liebeschutz and Arnold Paucker (eds) Das Judentum in der Deutschen Umwelt, 1800?1850 (T?bingen 1977) and Phyllis Cohen Albert, 'Eth? nicity and Jewish Solidarity in Nineteenth Cen? tury France', in Jehuda Reinharz and Daniel Swersininski (eds) Mystics, Philosophers and Politi? cians: Essays in Honor of Alexander Altman (Bur ban, NC 1982). 6 See Alan J. Lee, The Origins of the Popular Press, 1855-1Q14 (London 1978). 7 Jewish Chronicle (henceforth JC), 7 January 1842, 48-9; Voice of Jacob, 4 August 1843, 21 ?~2 8 JC, 24 July 1846, 181. 9 JC, 13 November 1891, 35.1 am grateful to Charles Tucker, archivist of the United Syna? gogue, for information regarding Mitchell's burial. 276</page><page sequence="19">The importance of being editor: The Jewish Chronicle, 1841-1991 10 Obituary, JC, 20 May 1864, 5. 11 J. M. Shaftesley, 'Dr Abraham Benisch as Newspaper Editor', Trans JHSE XXI (1968) 214-31. 12 JC, 18 November 1870, 7. x3 JC-&gt; 3 November 1871, 8-9. 14 Obituary and reminiscences in Michael Henry (London 1875) 16-49. 15 Colin Holmes, Anti-semitism and British Society, i8yg-igjg (London 1979) 12-17. 16 Theodor Herzls Tageb?cher (Berlin 1922-3) 26 November 1895. Josef Fraenkel, &lt;rTht Jewish Chronicle and the Launching of Political Zion? ism', in Raphael Patai (ed.) Herzl Year Book II (New York 1959) 217-27. 17 Sokolow to Central Zionist Bureau, 4 February 1907, CZA, Ai 21/108. 18 Stephen Koss, The Rise and Fall of the Political Press in Britain I (London 1982). 19 Greenberg to Kann, 9 December 1906, CZA, A121/108. 20 Greenberg to Zangwill, 31 January 1919, CZA, Ai20/364. 21 Greenberg to Kann, 3 March 1919, CZA, A121/147. 22 JC, 10 March 1911, 18. 23 The burial saga is recorded in a Jewish Agency file: CZA, S25/779. 24 Ivan Greenberg to Jacobus Kann, 20 November 1931, CZA, Ai21/109; Kann to Greenberg, 23 November 1931, CZA, Ai 21/109; Greenberg to Kann, 25 November 1931, CZA, Ai21/109; Kann to Greenberg, 23 November 1931, CZA, Ai21/109. 25 Kessler to Kann, 24 October 1933 and 28 October 1933, Kessler Papers [KP]. 26 Kessler to Rich, 8 May 1936; Oppen heimer to Epstein, 4 December 1936; Epstein to Directors of the Jewish Chronicle, 10 December 1936, KP. 27 Jewish Chronicle Minute Book (henceforth JCMB), I, 24 May 1946. 28 JCMB, I, 26 June 1946. 29 JCMB, I, 2 July 1946. 30 Greenberg to P. Hoofien, 21 September 1946, Archives of the Anglo-Palestine Bank, CZA, L51/734. 31 Memorandum, n.d., probably November 1946, CZA, L51/734. 32 Greenberg to Hoofien, 18 October 1946, CZA, L51/734; Berl Locker to Hoofien, 23 October 1946, CZA, L51/734. Correspondence concerning share purchases, CZA, L51/734. A short time later, David Kessler was able to pur? chase the Wolffsohn and Kann shares for his family by direct negotiation. 33 JCMB, I, 17 November 1958. On Zee, see Maurice Edelman, The Mirror. A Political History (London 1966) 110-30. 34 JC, 12 September 1952, 5; 21 November 1952, 7, 12. See the prophetic article by Revd Weiwow on the polarization of Anglo-Jewry into antagonistic religious camps and the subsequent correspondence: JC, 15 February 1952, 21; 29 February 1952, 20; 7 March 1952, 20. 35 See AJR Information 10:6 (June 1955) 3. 36 Koppul Rosen to William Frankel, 21 December i960, Editor's Correspondence, File 1961-2: O-Z, Jewish Chronicle Archive (hence? forth JC Arch). 37 Frankel to Rosen, 27 December i960, Editor's Correspondence, File 1961-2: O-Z, JCArch. See also, AJR Information 16:3 (March 1961) 3 for a sympathetic account of the affair. 38 JC, 19 May 1961, 22; 21 July 1961, 18; 8 September 1961, 35; 15 September 1961,13, 24. 39 JC, 29 December 1961, 14. Louis Jacobs, Helping With Inquiries (London 1989) 118-9, 121-2, 124-34. For the Chief Rabbi's point of view, see Israel Brodie, The Strength of My Heart (London 1969) 343~55 40 JC, 10 March 1962, 11; 30 March 1962, 17. See also, 19 January 1962, 12. Norman Cohen, 'Trends in Anglo-Jewish Religious Life', in S. J. Gould and S. Esh (eds) Jewish Life in Modern Britain (London 1964) 47-8. 41 JC, 11 May 1962, 20; 18 May 1962, 8. 42 Memorandum, received 23 April 1963, David Kessler Correspondence File, 1963, A-Z, JCArch. 43 Kessler to Brodie, 8 October 1963, David Kessler Correspondence File, 1963, A-Z, JCArch. 44 Brodie to Kessler, 15 October 1963, David Kessler Correspondence File, 1963, A-Z, JCArch. 45 Jacobs, Helping With Inquiries (see n. 39) 159-86; Chaim Bermant, Lord Jakobovits (London 1991) 70-1. 46 JC, 13 March 1964, 7; 27 March 1964, 7; 1 May 1964, 7. 47 JC, 8 May 1964, 7, 14. 48 JC, 23 February 1968, 6; 19 May 1968, 6. See also, 24 July 1970, 6 and 23 October 1970; Bermant, Lord Jakobovits (see n. 45) 90-2. 49 Jakobovits to Kessler, 10 October 1968 and Kessler to Jakobovits, 18 October 1968, David Kessler, General Correspondence, 1966-68, A H, JCArch. 50 Interview with David Kessler, Stoke Ham? mond, 10 September 1990. 51 Jacob Katz, Out of the Ghetto. The Social 277</page><page sequence="20">David Cesarani Background of Jewish Emancipation ijjo-i8jo (New York 1978) 191-219; David Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry (Oxford 1987) 81 5; Phyllis Cohen Albert (see n. 5), 261, 267-9; Steven J. Zipperstein, The Jews of Odessa. A Cultural History, 17Q4-1881 (Stanford 1985) 74-83. 278</page></plain_text>