Natan Meir brings old Jewish Kiev alive again

By POLINA OLSEN

article created on: 2010-08-15T00:00:00

When imagining Jewish life in pre-war Eastern Europe, “Fiddler on the Roof” often comes to mind. Despite statistics that show by 1900 most Russian Jews lived in cities, the joys and horrors of the shtetl dominate collective memory.

Natan Meir’s new book “Kiev Jewish Metropolis” may change that perception. Meir paints a panoramic picture of life in this Ukrainian provincial city, a picture that includes many perspectives, including rich and poor, Jew and gentile, government and non-government.

“For me the most exciting parts of the book are the individual stories,” Meir told the Jewish Review. Now the Lorry I. Lokey Professor of Judaic Studies at Portland State University, his book is both an academic analysis of Jews in imperial Russia and a portrait of daily life. Here are some highlights from our recent interview at a coffee shop near PSU:

JR: How strong was the Jewish presence in Kiev between 1859 and 1914?

Meir: I wouldn’t say they dominated the city but they were important. Here’s the paradox: Some Jews said Jews coming to Kiev were in danger of losing their Jewishness. Anti-Semites said Kiev was losing its Russian and Christian character.

JR: How did Jews get permission to live in Kiev?

Meir: Authorities granted successful merchants, professionals and artisans rights to settle outside the Pale. They considered them productive. There was a general idea that Jews did not contribute, but in fact exploited the peasants. Jews worked as middlemen between the peasants and nobility, and they sold alcohol.

There were so many illegal Jews in Kiev. You read reports of people rounded up in the middle of the night. They led them out of the city in shackles. This was among the most horrific aspects of Jewish life in Kiev. But, it shows what a magnet Kiev was for Jews. They risked that treatment in order to find a livelihood.

JR: Tsarist-era restriction often forced Jews to hide religious activities. How did that impact your study?

Meir: It was both challenging and frustrating. Secret institutions frequently left no trace behind. And there is no archive labeled Kiev Jewish Community Records. I searched for pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. In some cases, police records came in handy. Kiev Jews hated the secret police but historians love them.

JR: You wrote about the 1891 and 1905 pogroms and the well-known case of blood libel called the Beilis Affair. Can you comment?

Meir: I’m most interested in the way the Jewish community works, but you can’t understand the community without understanding how official and popular anti-Semitism shaped it. My graduate training de-emphasized anti-Semitism. The great Jewish historian Salo Baron initiated the study of Jewish history at Columbia University. He steered people away from what he called the Lachrymose View of Jewish History. That’s not to say it didn’t happen, but a lot in Jewish history doesn’t involve persecution. I entered into the Kiev project wanting to focus on achievements and dynamism. I found that, but realized I had to look at the two devastating pogroms and the strong anti-Semitism.

JR: You also concentrated on Jewish philanthropic organizations and emphasized the role women played. Why were these institutions important?

Meir: My colleague, Scott Ury, talks about Warsaw cafes and newspapers in his dissertation, which will soon be a book. Kiev could have had the same kind of Jewish space but because of the restrictions, they moved in a different direction. Philanthropy largely shaped that direction. Expressing your Jewishness politically or culturally was difficult or illegal. Communal hospitals, schools, day care centers and other philanthropies were available avenues.

JR: You write about the class divisions among Jews in Kiev. Why did the Russian government encourage wealthy acculturated Jews to control the community?

Meir: That was not unique to the Jewish situation. The book “For Prophet and Tsar: Islam and Empire in Russia and Central Asia,” by Robert Crews shows similar trends. The government hoped to ally itself with the elite and, by doing so, get control of the group. It didn’t work well. Nationalism meant that the new educated elites decided that the old elite was not fit to rule. They had tainted themselves by compromising with the government or were out of touch with the masses.

JR: What was the attitude of most Jews to the Jewish elite?

Meir: There was a certain idolizing. The poor had to be grateful because the rich financed so many community functions. On the other hand, nationalist leaders challenged the old Jewish leadership.

JR: What would you like readers to take away from your book?

Meir: I would like readers to understand how similar the challenges of modern Jewish existence and identity are with those of 19th century Kiev. Even today, we talk about leadership, religious observance and collective identity. Of course, there are major differences. Their challenges went to the heart of their existence; do we stay in Russia or do we leave? Our challenges are more nuanced.