Jewish Philanthropy and Enlightenment in Late-Tsarist Russia

6. Generational Change and New Agendas

6 Generational Change and New Agendas A lthough the OPE had not achieved much in its first two decades of existence, the society was not prepared to admit defeat. On December 29, 1888, St. Petersburg’s OPE members gathered to recall the achievements of the first quarter century.1 From 175 members in 1864, the OPE now had a membership of 740, which proved that the “aims and strivings of our society attract more and more sympathy among educated Jews.”2 Spending too was up. Over the course of twenty-five years the OPE had spent 409,000 rubles, an average of 16,000 rubles a year, not including the contributions of the Odessa branch. But, it was noted, over half of the total money had been used in the last nine years (an average of 24,000 rubles a year). This expansion was possible thanks to a recent increase in donations.3 Other cities had also been active. During the years 1879– 80 and 1884–87, Odessa spent 46,000 rubles, and between 1880–85, Moscow raised 19,000 rubles annually. Announcing the obvious, Horace Gintsburg concluded that “opening branches of the society in various cities would strongly promote successful activity.”4 Trying to appear satisfied, Gintsburg inevitably expressed the disappointment that was widely shared. “Of course the success of the society leaves a lot to be desired and cannot fully satisfy those who want to see our people educated and happy. Therefore let us hope that our present modest celebration will serve to elicit interest in the society and its aims, excite all the best people of our tribe, and let us hope that our society will develop 80 more and more for the sake of enlightenment.”5 In contrast to Gintsburg’s optimism, Simon Dubnov was pessimistic: “Who thinks today about this institution, [recalling] that it actually still exists, who is interested in its activities, who expects its initiative or help in any major social project of any kind? The Society for Enlightenment, which not long ago stood in the center of Jewish intellectual life, by the force of events has been pushed into a far corner and itself seems to hurry there, ‘to find peace,’ like an aged invalid who has outlived his life. One can imagine that it no longer lives, but nevertheless does not die.”6 During the twenty-fifth anniversary celebrations, Leon Rosenthal issued the first of two commemorative volumes of materials about the OPE translated from Russian into Hebrew. Although the materials were a welcome contribution to the largely absent historiography on Russian Jewry, there was a danger that the volumes gave the OPE a retrospective image. Alexander Orbach maintains that “the OPE was portraying itself as a kind of object of historical study. And this was perhaps right. Its work had been important and useful in its own time. But by the end of the 1880s, the OPE, like the Shtadlan institution, was worn out.”7 Although this historian expresses a conventional hostility to the notables (one of the legacies of the political left), the OPE was far from dead. But the ideas on which the OPE had based itself originally had reached a dead end. In addition, the financial situation was not as rosy as Gintsburg had implied. In 1886, Samuel Poliakov had to donate 2,000 rubles to the Odessa branch to ward off imminent bankruptcy. In reviewing the society’s accomplishments over twenty-five years, Simon Dubnov made a distinction between the OPE of the past and of the future. He sharply criticized the original OPE for having a survival instinct that was so great that it took precedence over everything else, including the striving for accomplishment.8 Indecisiveness, cowardliness, and lack of initiative “could not inspire proper respect for the institution either from Jews or Christians.”9 Dubnov found the fault lay not just with the leaders, who were devoid of ideas, but also with its original purpose. “The Society was entirely a product of the time when it was established. The task of promoting secular education among Jews with the goal of integrating them with the indigenous population was essential. [. . .] The Russian school had appeared as the main way to achieve this end.”10 Jews did acquire knowledge and raised their educational level. However, when their legal standing did not improve, one should have ceased encouraging integration. Generational Change and New Agendas 81 Without...