Download or view the original PDF version of this file
This article appeared in the original Brockhaus-Efron Jewish Encyclopedia 1908-1913. A more
appropriate title might be: “The Creation of the Pale of Settlement”, for Alexander was the first
emperor to consider comprehensive legislation on Jewish life in Russia. Here not only is the history
surrounding the legislation of the famous 1804 Statute, but also the account of widespread eviction
from villages that was so damning for the Jews during the late 18
th
and all of the 19
th
century. Also
included is a brief history of restrictive residential laws enacted in the Kingdom of Poland, separate
from the Pale. The original text was subjected to Google translate and edited for clarity.
Original Title: Александр II — русский император (род. в 1777 г., умер 9 ноября 1825 г.).
Aleksandr I — russkiy imperator (rod. v 1777 g., umer 9 noyabrya 1825 g.).
I I I I I I IAlexander II - Russian emperor (born in 1777, died on November 9, 1825).
I. IFrom I1801 Ito I1812 - Having ascended the throne after the violent death of his father Emperor Paul
(March 11, 1801), Alexander I fervently devoted himself to internal transformational activities. In a
series of state tasks, the consideration of the Jewish question was also scheduled, which was in a
chaotic state in the previous era of the partition of Poland-Lithuania and the entry of large Jewish
masses into Russian citizenship. The idea of revising the laws on Jews belonged to the preceding reign:
for this purpose, relevant material was collected for four years in Department III of the Senate, the
highest state institution. But with the advent of the new reign, the development of Jewish reform was
put in a new external environment, which should have been reflected in its internal content. By a decree
of the Senate on November 9, 1802, the resolution of questions of Jewish life was entrusted to a special
Jewish committee of five members, including Count Viktor Kochubey and Prince Adam of
Chartorisky, liberal servants and the closest friends of the sovereign. A representative of the old
regime, the Minister of Justice and poet Derzhavin, who was considered a specialist on the Jewish
question because of his “Opinion” about Jews and the mission he undertook to Belarus under Paul I,
also sat on the Committee. He soon retired however and his presence on the Committee was not
significant. At first, the Committee found a firm intention to carry out the reform in the spirit of
progress and state justice. The Jews themselves, in the person of several deputies elected by Jewish
societies, were involved in the discussion of the reform and invited, with the permission of the
sovereign, as members of the Committee on their personal volition. Noted in the journal dated
September 20, 1803, the Committee put forward the intention of its activity “As far as possible
prohibitions, as much as possible freedoms”, since “everywhere where the governments thought to
establish order, everywhere there were only ghosts of success”. But then this slogan was cast into
oblivion. Already in the report submitted to the sovereign in October 1804, together with the draft of
the reform, was stated the need to take "real" measures to transform the life of the Jews; in the draft
itself, the oscillation between transformative and repressive policies was clearly indicated. When the
Senate under Paul I took up the Jewish question, he aimed to improve the situation of only some
peasants, whose disastrous condition was caused, according to the current presentation (supported by
the above-mentioned report of Derzhavin) not by serfdom, but by the residence of Jews in villages and
hamlets, where they were engaged in distillation, leasing, and so on. The Committee approached
reform more broadly than the Senate: it wanted to improve the plight of the Jews themselves. To this
end they intended to direct the Jews’ activities to productive work, to join common civil life and
general education, "to attract them to all the benefits and respect that other states enjoy under the
general patronage of laws, tolerance and improvement." However, in the envisioned transformational
activity the predominant importance was still wedded to the desire to neutralize the Jew, to protect the
peasants from his economic domination, and generally to protect the interests of the Christian
population. When the bill drafted by the Committee was published on December 9, 1804, in the form of
“Provisions for Jews” (First. Coll. Law., No. 21547), the nominal decree of the Senate accompanying
the new law said that the Regulation corresponded to the true good of the Jews. But at the same time it
was noted that the new rules were based "on the benefits of indigenous inhabitants" - and since the
reform’s text states: Nominal decree- ..."according to complaints repeatedly to Us and to the Governing
Senate, which stated various abuses and disorders to the detriment of agriculture and the townsfolk
industry in those provinces where Jews live", ... then the needs of the Jews were forgotten in concern
for the interests of Christians. The committee was progressive and fair when it thought about improving
the life of the Jews as an organic part of the empire’s population, but in fact the slightest interest of one
or another group of Christian society prompted it to sacrifice the natural rights of Jews without any
hesitation. At the same time, the Committee was sternly persistent in demanding from the Jews what it
considered necessary for the purpose of reform, however the new law retained for Jews their freedom
in matters of faith and communal organization; the right of the kagals and rabbis to resort to public
punishment and excommunication was only abolished as a restriction because of the religious struggle
between Hasidim and misnagdim. As a result of this religious split, every group was allowed to have its
own synagogue and rabbis. The 1804 provision allowed Jews to study at all elementary schools,
gymnasiums and universities “without any difference from other children” and a warning was given
that if Jews did not exercise this right, special Jewish schools teaching Russian, German or Polish
would be established on their account. The new law superseded the existing prohibition to go beyond
the Pale of Settlement, allowing manufacturers, artisans and merchants to temporarily settle with their
families in internal gubernias and capitals. Jews were allowed acquire land, but only in unpopulated
areas, that is, without serfs. They were afforded the right to use the services of hired Christian workers,
which until that time was forbidden. At the same time, by providing state-owned land for Jewish
agriculture and establishing some privileges in relation to the payment of taxes by farmers, the new law
laid the foundation for Jewish agricultural colonies in southern Russia. The provision of 1804 freed the
Jews in the landowner properties from the judicial power of the landowner, but at the same time
restrained their freedom of movement, demanding that when leaving landowner properties, the Jews
should present evidence that they have fulfilled their obligations towards him. The question of the
participation of Jews in public self-government remained unresolved in the new law. When in 1783 the
Jews were equalized with the Christians in terms of participation in city self-government, the internal
Jewish organization concentrated in the Kagal was correspondingly weakened. However, subsequently
municipal equality was violated and in Lithuania by virtue of the old Polish privileges, the Jews were
completely removed from public self-government. Meanwhile, the Committee, which worked out the
Provision of 1804, set itself the task on the one hand of “bringing within proper limits their particular
internal (ie. Jews) governance and uniting their benefits under one administration common to all
subjects”, which limited the activities of the Kagal by giving it the function of only collecting taxes. On
the other hand, it did not dare to restore the former equality of Jews with Christians in the general
estate-city self-government, so as not to diminish the significance of the Christian population. At the
same time, the Committee did not consider it possible to confirm these restrictions as contradicting its
transformative tasks, and therefore kept silent about this question, leaving everything as before. There
was even some deterioration: for the cultural advancement, it was considered necessary for Jews to
master one of the languages - Russian, Polish or German, and the Committee decided that only those
Jews who could write in one of these languages should occupy the city posts, even though these posts
were fulfilled by illiterate Christians. The former position was left by the Committee, but on the latter
issue of taxes a change was intended. Jews paid double in 1794, compared to Christians as if to raise
the output of the Jewish population, but they promised to abolish the double tax “when all Jews in
agriculture, manufactures and merchants will have a constant direction and diligence”. The most
important of the Committee’s tasks was to resolve the issue for which the Committee itself was mainly
established, namely the question of the residence of Jews in villages and countryside, where they were
engaged in trade, maintenance of inns, and especially shinkarstvo
1
and the rent of various articles of
landlord farms. Repeated attempts under Catherine II to oust the Jews from the counties in order to
raise the well-being of the peasants had no success, since the stay of the Jews in villages and hamlets
was caused by centuries-old socio-economic conditions. The diverse material at the disposal of the
Committee testified that if some of the activities of the Jews were harmful to the well-being of the
peasant population, this did not result from any specific qualities inherent in their industrial activities,
since the drunkenness and poverty of the peasants were an obvious consequence of the primitive serf
economy. From this material it was also seen that the Jews were as much a victim of the economic
situation of the region as the peasantry: they dragged out a beggarly life, since almost all the income
from the drunkenness of the peasants went into the hands of the landlords and into the treasury. The
Committee could not fundamentally change the existing state-economic system based on serfdom. It
was far from thinking about limiting the power of the landowners and the violation of their material
interests. Consequently repressive measures were directed only against the Jews. According to Article
34 of the 1804 Provision, Jews were forbidden to rent various articles of landlord farms, or to have
taverns and inns in villages and on large roads. For the same, so that this law would not remain like the
previous similar orders, a dead letter, the same 34th article required that for 2–3 years the entire Jewish
rural population, who numbered up to sixty thousand families, move to cities and towns or land which
the government annexed in the southern expanse of New Russia. This law was a disaster for the Jewish
population ... The eviction of Jews from the counties began, not without the help of military
force. Meanwhile, in poor cities and towns there was no shelter, no basis for the newcomers. The
government turned out to be completely unprepared to resettle Jews in Novorossia for any significant
number who asked to go there. Deprived of shelter and food, the Jews wandered from place to place.
There were diseases and the death rate increased. In 1807 the sovereign sent Senator Alekseyev to the
provinces to clarify the question whether it was possible to carry out the measure of eviction. At the
1The illicit distillation and sale of alcohol
same time, deputies from Jewish societies were convened in these provinces so that they presented to
the government their opinion “on the methods that they themselves recognized as more convenient for
the successful implementation of the measures enumerated in the Provision, and on the means that can
be accepted without abolishing this Regulation, to the best of their advice for the future”. In the
meantime, the calamity from the ongoing evictions took on increasing proportions. In the decree of
December 29, 1808 the Sovereign ordered the temporary suspension the 34th article, which forbade the
maintenance of leases and winemaking and allowed the Jews to remain in the field “until further
instructions.” A On January 5, 1809 a new Jewish Committee was established under the chairmanship
of Senator Popov with the participation of Senator Alekseyev, who was tasked with resolving the issue
of eviction and considering other articles of the 1804 Statute, about which complaints from Jewish
deputies were received. Having thoroughly studied the material collected over 25 years, the Committee
came to the conclusion that the Jews were not only not a harmful element in counties, but on the
contrary, represent a positive factor in the sense of the economic development of the region and seeing
from the reports of the governors that the Jewish population is in dire poverty he acknowledged the
need to "decisively" stop the attempted eviction, retaining the right of Jews to rent and trade in
vodka. This committee report did not receive legislative sanctions, but since the decree of 1808 on the
temporary suspension of evictions was not canceled, the Jews remained in the counties in their former
residence. By this time, the government on the other hand, for lack of funds, was forced to completely
stop resettlement to Novorossia (the Committee of Ministers wanted Jews who were incapable of
farming to be evicted from Novorossia to the Pale of Settlement, but the sovereign was
opposed). However, at that time another kind of exile began: in order to eliminate the Jews from the
smuggling industry, the highest command was issued to transfer all Jews from landlord settlements
located near the western border to those townships to which they are attributed (First. Coll. Zak., №
30402). This was the beginning of the 50-mile border strip in which it was forbidden for Jews to
live. Among other measures taken by the Committee in 1809, it should be noted that it rejected the
request of the Jewish deputies that children should attend special Jewish schools before entering
general educational institutions, as well as the request that the requirement of literacy in public office
positions be delayed by 10 years. But the Committee agreed to save the Jews (from the landlord’s land)
from any dependence on the landowner and to abolish the double tax (by this time however, it had
already been canceled). The committee also spoke in favor of giving the rabbis the right to subject the
violator of Jewish law to various punishments, while retaining the prohibition to impose
excommunication (No. 30402).
II. IFrom I1813 Ito I1816 - After the Patriotic War of 1812, government activity on the Jewish question
temporarily weakened. During this period there was only one new law on the admission of Jews to the
testimony on the affairs of Christians in the provinces affiliated from Poland (PS Z., No. 25649). At the
same time the sovereign's personal favorable attitude towards Jews was apparently affected by the fact
that the Jewish population showed devotion to the fatherland during the war, and individual Jews
provided special services to the government. The well-known role was undoubtedly played in this case
by the Jewish deputies who were at the Main Headquarters in 1812 for economic assignments. The
sovereign was satisfied with their activities and on June 29, 1814 while in Bruchsal, Alexander ordered
to declare his favor "to all the Jewish kagals for their truly zealous service who were under the Main
Headquarters of deputies ”. At the same time, the sovereign commanded “that the same deputation or
similar should go to St. Petersburg, so that there, in the name of the Jews living in the empire they
should wait to receive the expression of the Highest will and determination regarding their overall
wishes and requests for improving their situation” ("Essays of the Riga Jews", "Ex.", 1885, Prince
VII). These desires, expressed in a note by Deputy Zundel Zonnenberg and submitted to the sovereign
in 1813, boiled down to the fact that Jews were allowed to trade, buy out and ferment wine all over
Russia; that in the bodies of public self-government Jews sit in equal numbers with Christians; that the
court and the investigation of criminal cases be carried out in the presence of Jewish members of the
magistrate; that the right to punish violators of religious decrees be returned to the rabbis and that
landowners limited their income from Jews to the size established in the old time (Handwriting
Material). However, none of these requests were made.
III. IFrom I1817 Ito I1825 I- At the end of 1817, the government ordered the election of new deputies, and
at the same time this institution was given a more formal character: deputies were subject to the
approval of the sovereign on the proposal of the Minister of Spiritual Affairs and Public
Education. They were specifically indicated among the persons and institutions with whom the ministry
was supposed to communicate (P. S. Z., No. 27106). Elected representatives from 10 provinces of
residency gathered among 18 people in Vilna and elected on August 19, 1818 three deputies: Zundel
Sonnenberg (former deputy), Beynish Lapkovsky and Michael Eisenstadt. The sovereign approved
them and the Minister of Spiritual Affairs in a letter addressed to Sonnenberg on January 30, 1819, and
invited him to hurry along with his comrades to visit St. Petersburg. However, it was not clear that the
deputies set about their duties with energy and in general their activity turned out to be almost
completely ineffectual. This should be mainly attributed to the fact that at that time the government
radically changed its attitude towards Jews. The global coups of 1812-1814, in the center of which
stood Russia, strengthened the religious and mystical mood in Alexander I. In this regard, the religious
moment which had not played any role by itself until that time, acquired a certain significance in the
relations of the government towards the Jewish population. In January 1817, the most important Jewish
affairs were concentrated in the hands of the sovereign's personal friend, the commander in chief of the
spiritual affairs of foreign confessions, Prince A. N. Golitsyn, who was at the same time the Chief
Prosecutor of the Holy Synod and who soon also accepted the post of Minister of Public
Education. The first step of Golitsyn was the publication of the act testifying that, like the sovereign, he
was alien to crude prejudices against the Jews: in view of the case of the disappearance of a Christian
girl that arose in 1816 in Grodno, according to which Jews were brought and accused by the power of
popular superstition, on March 6, 1817, Prince Golitsyn announced in the highest order that Jews not
be brought to justice on charges of killing Christian children “without any evidence, according to a
single accusation, and that they allegedly needed Christian blood”. If murder had happened and
“suspicion fell on Jews without prejudice however, that they did this in order to receive Christian
blood, it would have been lawfully carried out on the basis of evidence relating to the incident itself on
a par with people of other faiths. “ But Golitsyn, following the example of the sovereign, was a pietist
and mystic and the result of this mood was the establishment in 1817 (P. S. Zak., No. 26752) of the
"Society of Israelite Christians" i.e. Jews who turned to Christianity. The sovereign took the Society
under his patronage and the highest authority for its affairs was laid on Golitsyn. Officially, this Society
was established in order to provide support to baptized Jews or those who were about to be baptized,
who, severing their connection with Jewry, did not find help in Christian society. But the material
benefits and extraordinary privileges granted to Israelite Christians, such as, for example, freeing their
offspring from military service, indicated that the government hoped to bring about widespread
proselytism among Jews, hoping perhaps, to alleviate their impacted legal and economic situation. At
the same time, this meant not only the interests of the Orthodox Church, but of the Christian church in
general. Israelite Christians could accept any of the Christian religions, but in each particular locality
they had to be a separate society. This missionary tendency in favor of Christianity in general was
shown by the sovereign even when, during the Aachen congress (1818), the Englishman Ludwig Wei
addressed him for assistance on the equalization of the rights of Jews throughout Europe. Believing in
the basis of the prophecies of the Old Testament and the Apocalypse, that rising from humiliation and
regaining independence in the old homeland, the Jews would accept the teachings of Christ. Wei set
himself the goal of promoting the idea of equal rights for the Jews with the Bible (New Testament) in
their hands. Taking advantage of the convention in Aachen, Wei was introduced to Αlexander whenlexander when
writing a memorandum, entitled "A Leurs Majestés Impériales et Rojales, réunies au Congrès d'Aix-la
Chapelle, ce mémoire sur l'état des Israelites est dédié ... par un Ministre du saint-Evangile, le 3
Novembre MDCCCXVIII". The sovereign drew attention to the proposal of Wei. He demanded that
the memorandum be considered by the gathering diplomats, but it did not have any practical
consequences (several copies of the memorandum, which has become a bibliographic rarity, are stored
in the State Archives in St. Petersburg; see Golitsyn, “The History of the Russian Legislation on Heb.”,
p. 992). - “The Society of Israelite Christians” did not have any success: not a single Jew joined
it. English missionaries whom the government allowed to go to the provinces of the Pale to convert
Jews to Christianity also did not achieve their goal. Perhaps due to this negative result of the
missionary attempt, legislative activity against Jews, which was interrupted after the Patriotic War, was
soon resumed and further legislation along with the former concern about protecting Christians from
the economic domination of Jews revealed a new motive - fear of the integrity of Christian religious
beliefs. In 1818, it was forbidden to submit Christian debtors to Jews to collect outstanding debts (P. S.
Zak., No. 27352). In 1819 there was a decree on the termination of “the work and services sent by
peasants and yard people to the Jews” (P. S. Zak., no. 27440). In 1820 on the recommendation of
Golitsyn who declared that the Jews “consider it their duty to convert everyone into their faith” and that
they have already spread their teachings in the Voronezh province, this was followed by the highest
approved position of the Committee of Ministers on the “Jewish incontinence in the domestic service
of Christians” (P. S. Zak., No. 28249). Following this, the persecutions against Jews living in villages,
interrupted in 1807, were resumed. In 1821, the sovereign approved the position of the Committee of
Ministers on the eviction of Jews from the state-owned villages of the Chernigov gubernia, motivated
by the fact that they were holding the state peasants and Cossacks as enslavers (PS Zak., No. 28821). In
1822 this measure was extended to the Poltava province (P. S. Zak., No. 29036). The following year a
sharper measure was adopted. As a result of the assertion of Senator Baranov, who had audited the
Belarusian provinces and found that the source of the plight of the peasants was the presence of Jews in
the counties, the highest decrees of April 11, 1823 followed. In the name of the Mogilev and Vitebsk
governors the Jews of these provinces were forced to move by January 1, 1825 to the cities and
towns. Following this, on the proposal of the Committee of Ministers the Jewish Committee was
formed which had to decide “on what basis it would be more convenient and more useful to establish
the stay of Jews in the state: what responsibilities should they bear in relation to the government” (P. S.
Zak., No. 29443). However, by the time of Alexander’s death, this new Committee had barely begun
work and repression intensified. In 1824, the highest approved position of the Committee of Ministers
prohibited the permanent residence of foreign Jews in Russia. They were allowed only temporary stays
(PS, No. 30004). In the same year during a trip along the Ural Range a considerable number of Jews
were noticed, who in mountain factories, “secretly bought precious metals, and thus corrupted local
residents to harm the treasury and private breeders”. As a result the sovereign by decree of December
19, 1824 addressed the Minister of Finance, ordering that Jews “not to be tolerated at state-owned or at
private factories in the mining department neither in transit nor in Yekaterinburg ”. The following year,
in the highest approved position of the Committee of Ministers to prohibit Jews from residing in the
50-verst border zone, with the exception of those who own real estate, the sovereign added to this
decree that only Christians could transfer their real estate in the 50-verst strip and not to the Jews (P. S.
Zak., № 30402). At the same time, the Pale of Settlement, expanded in the 1804 Regulation to include
the Astrakhan province and the Caucasus region. It was then narrowed in 1825 due to the prohibition of
the Jews from settling in these places (P. S. Z., №30404). In 1825, it was ordered to evict all Jews,
without exception, from the counties where the work of subbotniks
2
was discovered, as well as from
neighboring counties (PS Z., No. 30436). In the same year, the sovereign approved the opinion of the
State Council on the prohibition of Jews to trade outside the Pale of Settlement, since “one can expect
strikes from them both with foreign trading houses and with merchants of Great Russian provinces,
through which trade will surely pass with time, and the Jews themselves as clerks will take advantage
of the freedom to have a long-term stay within the state ”(P. S. Zak., № 30561).
IV. IIn Ithe IKingdom Iof IPoland. - In 1815, a large part of the Duchy of Warsaw was annexed to
Russia, under the name of the Kingdom of Poland (Congress Poland), in which a sizable Jewish
population lived. The administration of the new province was concentrated in Warsaw, independent of
the imperial government institutions. In resolving issues of Jewish life in the Kingdom the Warsaw
government in particular, did not consider the conditions in which other Jews were living in Russia.
Not only did it not try to introduce any relief, but on the contrary embarked on the path of new
repression. In the name of the sovereign, the State Council in Warsaw on February 5, 1816 decided: to
enforce the decree of the king of Saxony dated October 30, 1812, according to which from July 1,
1816, the eviction of Jews from villages was to begin. The deputies of the Jewish people already had
time to address the sovereign about the situation of the Jews in the Kingdom when he was in Paris and
in Berlin. The sovereign instructed the main delegate to the Council of Administration of the
Kingdom, Novosiltsev, to collect the necessary information on this issue. “The choice of means, in
order not only to secure and improve the lot of this tribe for the future, but also to make it more useful
2Jewish proselytizer originally of Christian faith. Not unlike today’s Messianic Jews, or “Jews for Jesus”.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subbotniks
for the region than it used to be, the Emperor and the King gave himself the pleasure of issuing them
(the orders) himself” (Handwritten Mater.). Novosiltsev hastened (February 6, 1816) to notify the
governor of the Kingdom, Zionchek, anticipating that the execution of the new decisions of the
Warsaw government in relation to the Jews should be suspended and that henceforth without the
highest permission, no orders of the Warsaw government could be put into effect. At the same time,
Novosiltsev notified the Board of Management about this, explaining that he had already begun to draw
up a draft of “Jewish reform”. Nevertheless, the Council decided to ask the sovereign to approve the
decision of the Council on the prohibition of Jews to maintain drinking houses, but the sovereign did
not approve this decision, as a result of which the decree of the governor of May 25, 1816, the
execution of the decree of October 30, 1812 was delayed. The extensive reform proposal developed by
Novosiltsev provided Jews in the Kingdom of Poland with general civil rights and retained their
internal self-government. The proposal was delivered to the Warsaw government, which in the person
of the State Council (in April 1817) and other institutions, as well as individual administrators (by the
way, Ad. Chartory), strongly opposed the reform proposed by Novosiltsev and presented counter-
proposals based on the restriction of Jewish civil rights and the abolition of their internal self-
government. None of the proposals received legislative approval. But the victory was for opponents of
Novosiltsev. When in July 1817, the governor submitted to the sovereign a draft decree confirming the
power of the Saxon king’s decree prohibiting Jews from acquiring immovable property, in which the
decree was not enforced by local institutions, the Minister of State told the governor that the sovereign
did not find it necessary to issue a new decree. Since all the old decrees had not been canceled and
retained their strength, the governor was yet able to issue orders depending on the circumstances. As a
result, the old restrictive laws were gradually reinstated, hampering mainly freedom of
movement. Ancient privileges were confirmed, giving many cities the right to not allow Jews to settle
in them (non-tolerandis Judaeis), and in 1822 at the request of individual urban societies, an order was
issued to remove those Jews who settled in some of these cities. The ban on Jews living on famous
streets that was in force in many cities remained so. In Warsaw, there were nine of these forbidden
streets. By the highest decree of July 19, 1821 their number had been increased and the deadline for
eviction from them was set for October 1824. At the end of 1823 the Jews appealed to the sovereign
with a request to postpone the eviction, but the sovereign did not satisfy the petition. By a decree of
April 25, 1822 the rules on the number of Jewish families that could live in each house in Warsaw, as
well as the lack of protections when renting apartments, were extended to other cities. The police were
instructed to carry out inspections of Jewish houses at least twice a year. By the same decree, the
governor was allowed to determine in which cities the Jews should live only in special parts. By a
decree of the Board of Management of January 31, 1823 with some exceptions, Jews were prohibited
from living in a 21-mile belt along the border of Austria and Prussia. In 1819 MP Sonnenberg appealed
to the Russian government with a petition for the release of Jews from Russia, as Russian citizens, from
paying a special border collection “Geleitzoll” (Geleitzoll) established in the Kingdom of Poland for
foreign Jews, but the governor opposed the petition. In 1821 the kagals were disbanded and the
following year, funeral fraternities (chevra kadisha) and charitable Jewish societies were also
abolished.
Shortly before his death, Alexander experienced a sharp change in his attitude toward the myth of the
ritual crimes of the Jews. In 1823 a case was brought in Velizh (Vitebsk province) charging Jews for
killing a Christian child (see Velizh case). The judicial authorities found no evidence against the Jews,
and the proceedings were discontinued. Nevertheless, when in 1825 one of the participants in the
prosecution appealed to the sovereign during his journey through Velizh with a complaint about the
impunity of the alleged killers, Αlexander whenlexander, contrary to his own command of 1817, ordered the case to
be thoroughly investigated. As a result, the prosecution process of Jews in ritual crime was resumed
(among the papers remaining in the sovereign's office after his death was a note from the Shavel,
Kovno province medical doctor Bernard refuting the accusation of Jews in ritual crimes). Despite the
instability of his policies, Alexander I left a good memory in the Jewish population. Legendary tales of
him are preserved in the masses of the people, depicting his simple manner and a kind heart. It may be
considered that in Western Europe the Jews also imagined that the reign of Alexander was very
favorable for the Jews. It is curious that the Berlin medalist Abrahamson minted a medal in honor of
the Jewish-granted emancipation, given to Alexander I with the inscription “Liberator Alexandre” (see
Abrahamson Abraham’s article; - Wed: Levanda, "Chronological. collection of laws about the Jews ",
St. Petersburg., 1874; Nikitin, “Jewish Farmers”, St. Petersburg, 1887; Varadinov, “The History of the
Ministry of the Interior”, parts I and II, St. Petersburg., 1858, 1859, 1862; Orshansky, "Russian
legislation on Jews", St. Petersburg., 1877; Peskovsky, “Fatal Misunderstanding”, St. Petersburg,
1891; Gradovsky, "The Trade and Other Rights of the Jews", St. Petersburg, 1886; Hesse, "Jews in
Russia", St. Petersburg., 1906; him, “On the life of Jews in Russia,” Note to the State Duma, St.
Petersburg, 1906 (also Count I. Tolstoy and Y. Gessen, Facts and Thoughts, St. Petersburg, 1907); him,
"From the history of ritual processes, Velizh drama", St. Petersburg., 1905; Prince Golitsyn, "The
History of Russian Legislation on Jews" (not marketed), St. Petersburg, 1886; Bershadsky, "The
Statute of the Jews of 1804", "Sunrise", book. I, III, IV and VI; Shugurov, "The History of the Jews in
Russia", "Russian Archive", 1894, Vol. 1 — V; Pen, "The Deputation of the Jewish People", "Sunrise",
1905, Vol. I, II, III; Linovsky, "Jewish stories about Alexander I in the Russian Jew", 1883; other
sources - see.
Yuli Isidorovich Hesse n
Link to original article: https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/ЕЭБЕ/Александр_II