In this delightful book, Puck (yes, that Puck) introduces a couple of
English children to people from the past history of their neighborhood.
They meet a Norman knight who came over with William the Conqueror and
hear how he received a Saxon barony as his fief–and how he managed to
cow and then win the hearts of his Saxon subjects. They meet a Roman
soldier who was born near their home and later went on to command the
Roman forces on Hadrian’s Wall. They meet a Renaissance stonecutter
who built the neighborhood church. And through it all they begin to
get a sense for the sweep of English history.

There’s a problematic segment at the very end, when Puck introduces them
to a Spanish Jew named Kadmiel, the son of a banker. Kadmiel tells them
how men, bankers and messengers of other bankers, would come to his home
when he was a child, and discuss with his father where they should lend
their money to best serve their people–in short, to which rulers
should they give money, and from which should they withhold it. So
immediately we’ve got the notion of the Jews as behind-the-scenes
string pullers, one of your basic anti-Semitic stereotypes.

What troubles me is, I’m not sure that Kipling’s depiction isn’t a
fair one. It’s certainly true that at the stated time (the reign
of King John of England and Magna Carta) most of the bankers in
Europe would have been Jews. Christians were not allowed to lend
money at interest, and Jews were allowed to do little else. Kadmiel’s
father is clearly supposed to be one of the pre-eminent bankers in
Europe. And I rather suspect that the more powerful Jewish bankers tried
to use whatever influence they had to benefit themselves and their
fellow Jews–and quite possibly they thought they had more influence
than they really did. And if Kadmiel himself is a rather sour, bitter old
stick, who’s to say he hasn’t earned the right to be?

Certainly Kipling isn’t trying to whitewash anti-Semitism–the children
remember from their own schooling that when Jewish bankers refused to
loan money to King John, he’d have their teeth pulled out. And, by
Kipling’s story, Kadmiel is rather a hero–he claims to be responsible
for ensuring that King John could borrow no more money, and having no
money was forced to submit to the barons and sign Magna Carta at
Runnymede.

Now, the tale of how Kadmiel does this involves a horde of gold brought
to England by the Norman knight after an African adventure, and it’s
unlikely in the extreme. It’s a good tale, but it never would have
happened that way. So, even if the portrayal of Kadmiel and his father
is a fair one, was Kipling being anti-Semitic by bringing Kadmiel into
the book in this context? I think not, after due reflection…but your
mileage may vary.