Daniel Mendoza and Perceptions of Jews in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century England.

 

Daniel Mendoza: The Prize Ring and Perceptions of the Jews in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century England.

By Ray Esten 

This article endeavours to show ways in which Jews in late eighteenth and early nineteenth century England transcended oppressive structures through challenging myths of inferiority.

Reading in the early eighteenth-century one might come upon the name Jew beside words and phrases like vicious, corrupt, physically weak or easily victimized. Beside such common tropes, however, existed a more benevolent attitude, like that of Sir Walter Scott who sympathetically depicted the Jews as a people who had nobly endured terrible persecution. Yet, there was another category made manifest through the Jewish boxer Daniel Mendoza, 1764-1836.

In the eighteenth century, prize fights were attended by the social hierarchy, including King George III. They celebrated pugilism as a form of 'democratic courage.' This meant that the plain John Bull—or the working-class Englishman—could look upon the champions of the noble art as heroes to be regarded with awe and admiration.

The prize fighter symbolised  Englishness, especially during the French Revolution and threats of war with France. In this context, the Prize Ring (a place that encompassed varied sets of groups and individuals) was but a manifestation of a coming together or a commonality of diverse people during a time of unpredictability. A situation that may have aided Mendoza’s rise up the societal ladder.

Whatever the case, Mendoza began challenging stereotypes of Jewishness or what it meant to be a Jew ? when he entered into the Prize Ring in the 1780s. His early successes, often over larger men, presented him as a man superior to his gentile neighbours. And while, his first fight with Richard Humphries (marketed on racial hostilities) reinforced his position as ‘the Jew’ or other. His subsequent wins over his old mentor highlighted Mendoza as a particularly skilled pugilist.

His prowess in the ring attracted high-ranking individuals, including the Welsh 'baroner' Sir Thomas Apprice. Mendoza was a constant companion at his villa in Epping Forest. This relationship not only helped redefine Mendoza’s social mobility but also influenced wider society’s perceptions of Jews. It was perhaps symbolic in its achievement—something the lofty language of social reform had often failed to accomplish. What is evident is that the noted ‘fighting Jew’ would be grudgingly acknowledged and then celebrated.

England and the Sephardic Jews

The word Sephardic refers to the Jews of the Iberian Peninsula (modern day Spain and Portugal). The Spanish Inquisition established by the Catholic Monarchy in the fifteenth Century served as a tribunal to identify heretics. Johnathan Ray estimates that in 1492 it expelled some 80,000 Jews which resulted in the end of open Jewish life in that country. The Portuguese Inquisition which followed in 1536 was equally as brutal in that recalcitrant Judaizer, and other offenders were to be, for example, burnt alive. Some of those who escaped settled in European countries, who had previously excluded them. The Sephardic community who spawned Daniel Mendoza gravitated to England They appear to have found London as satisfactory, as they would Antwerp or Rotterdam.

All Jews had been expelled from England in 1290 and returned during the rule of Oliver Cromwell (c. 1655). While there continued to be anti-Jewish sentiments in England, however, it had not adopted the Ghetto system which existed in Rome for three centuries, with its gates opened at dawn and shut at dusk. This may suggest a closer working relationship between Jews and Christians. In consequence, it could be expected that they might attend or practice the same sports. In London they encountered sports like cockfighting and bull-baiting.

Rowdy affairs which supplemented drinking and gambling. This reflected a loosening of morals during the Restoration of the Stuart Monarchy 1660-1685. While there is scant reference to boxing at this time. The prize fighter was soon to become a feature of cities and towns. This practice as its most basic concerned two individuals fighting with bare-knuckles, until one went down and could not rise again.

It does not appear that the Sephardic community, affluent and associated with commerce and banking, gravitated towards it. Their reasons are manifold, and gambling, for instance, a central feature of rowdy sports, went against Jewish teaching.

The Christian Pugilist

The first champion of the Prize Ring James Figg (1700-1734) received the sponsorship of wealthy backers who ensured that he had his own indoor boxing arena. And Jack Broughton (1704-1789) a protégé of Figg and later champion was endorsed by the Duke of Cumberland. Both Figg (of Oxfordshire) and Broughton (of London?) may have reached local or regional celebrity before they became national ones. For, national identity had not really taken root until the late nineteenth century, for local, and regional identities served to complicate and compromise. However, the fact that Figg was acclaimed Champion of England and Broughton was financed by Cumberland does suggest a strong sense of identity.

Whatever the case, this identity was fundamentally Christian, and both Figg and Broughton were, if practicing or not, Church of England members. The England in which they operated could be characterised as a confessional state, one which officially recognised and practiced a certain religion, at least at the highest level in society. However, as is evident, it was not a society wholly dependent on popular morality, piety, or denominational uniformity (be they Dissenters or Anglicans). Though, what they did share was Protestantism. In the Prize Ring, it reflected a form of bravery that was considered Protestant too.

The Jew as ‘other’

Despite this, we do find Jewish pugilists in the eighteenth century, for instance, a severe prize fight was undertaken by the noted fighting Jew and the little fighting shoemaker at Stepney Fields in 1771. Nevertheless, the ‘noted ‘fighting Jew’ was not yet a component of English identity. In comparison to their Christian neighbours, Jews were perceived to be physically weak and easily victimized. They could also be unscrupulous in business and criminal in character, or so it was claimed.  Such simplism was expressed by one critic writing in the Public Adviser in 1772. This author stated that the Jews should be the objects of revenue. Whilst he does not state outright that their heavy taxation would have the effect of forcing them from the Kingdom. He does see them as undesirables. For ‘they pursue their interests without restraint or administration.’

Without reserve he adds that ‘’every individual of the whole body of the Jews, if born in England or not are not only aliens, but they are at this day by virtue of the act of parliament what never has been appealed, under the Anathema and predicaments of exiles and outlaws and therefore this being true, their residence in this country is utterly illegal.’

Besides questioning the status of Jews as citizens, the writer recites common tropes, counting usuary (money lending), the clipping of coin and the Jew as an expert forger. That they had ‘made England ‘the land of milk and money’ and have ‘never sweat at a mechanical art or striking a single stroke of trade’ Whilst claiming, at the same time, that such exiles and outlaws gather around the Royal Exchange in such numbers ‘that you would think they carry the commerce of the nation.’

On such account, observers may have found it unlikely that Jews possessed the physicality or mental resolve needed for prize fighting or what the Fancy (followers of pugilism) called ‘bottom’ which was a combination of wind (physical training and diet) and more importantly spirit (courage) the first equipment of a pugilist. That, ‘without this substantial thing, both art and strength will avail a man but little.’ It could be that the Prize Ring remained, ‘’ not only an English sport ‘it was the English sport,’ a stern, stark, fierce contest between two brawny specimens of English Protestant manhood. 'Hence, pugilist glory revolved around a particular form of English courage, which manifested especially when the war with France loomed (1778-1783).

The making of a Jewish Prize Fighter

Clive Emsley has argued that capitalisation of industry and industrialisation was perhaps the most significant aspect of British society from 1780-1830, however, in the conscience of the people it was war. This particularly loomed large between 1793 and 1815. This could be argued to have helped sustain a Protestant identity, in opposition to Catholic Continental Europe. Then again, this danger could equally have fostered a commonality amongst a diverse population. When, prize fighting, which reached its zenith in the 1780s, was at its most diverse.

It was dominated by a whole host of identities, often competing, counting religious identities of course Protestants, but also Jews, Catholics, mostly Irish, alongside Gypsies and those of African descent. While the aristocracy, who had abandoned prize fighting on Broughton’s defeat in 1750, once again showed interest. Most considerably, the Prince of Wales and other wealthy backers helped ease the position of the Jews in England by offering royal patronage. While also marking out Daniel Mendoza, a Sephardic Jew as a particular specimen of pugilistic courage.

 Who was Mendoza, ‘the Jew'

Daniel Mendoza (1764-1836) was born in London to second-generation Spanish and Portuguese parents. Just fourteen years after the Jew Bill introduced by Pelham as reform measure which would soften the civil disabilities of the Jewish community in Britain was met with intolerance and high church hostility and was as a result repealed. The Sephardic community which he belonged to had been traditionally quite wealthy. The Mendoza family may have been marginally middle class. Mendoza received a Hebrew education, though not beyond his bar mitzvah. His views on religion would be harder to distinguish. Though a story published in Famous Fights cites his visit to Jesus College, Cambridge, where he paused at a map of Egypt and the Holy lands and in what has been described as ‘very choice English’, he gave his opinion on Moses (not complimentary) as well as miracles and the passing of the Red Sea. The vigour of his language and lack of reverence was recorded. Even so, what it is to be Jewish or a Jew is infinite and what is being illustrated in this context is identity rather than dissent or devotion. Mendoza was a Jew as he was born into that community.

Fighting back

Yet, in contrast to the earlier position of Jews and as the child of immigrant parents he would have gained the right to own property freely. Though he was still excluded from, if he so wished, holding public office. The various jobs he obtained, however, before seeking significant prize money, did relate to the poorer classes, the best perhaps a tea dealer. Which may challenge his middle-class status or signal a fall in status.

In the account of his early life published in 1816 The Memoirs of the Life of Daniel Mendoza he depicts incidents and insults which caused him to raise his fists. His first fight at the age of sixteen ensued in a dispute with a tea porter. It was more of a street fight than an organised prize fight. Mendoza entered the Prize Ring in September of 1787. At this time, ‘the Jew’ was affixed to the end of a name so as to set it apart from Christian opponents (afterwards adopted by Mendoza). In comparison to his adversary Harry ‘the Coal Heaver’ a heavyset man Mendoza appeared small. Yet he won the contest convincingly, even if he did not fit the profile of a heavyweight, with a weight of around 73 kg with a height of 5 feet 7 inches.

The ‘Star of Israel’ In the field and in the Synagogue

In 1788 he was back in the ring when he fought Martin ‘the Bath Butcher’ (opponents' colourful names reflect their employment and social status). Mendoza, better described as a middleweight, defeated the large ‘Bath Butcher’ most decisively. In attendance was the Prince of Wales and others of distinction. Subsequently, it was stated that Christians as well as Israelites gave Mendoza the applause he well deserved. Mr. Deard, a judge in these matters, exclaimed Mendoza to be, ’a Jewl of a fellow.' This was an early indication that as a Jew he could earn respect first within the ring.

Yet, there are still obstacles to his acceptance which are exposed by the criticism of his mode of fighting, which was described by one critic as’ dexterity without grace’ although he utilised, for example, the jab, fine footwork, and a crouched defence deemed which was described as ‘low and cunning’ In other words it was not a stand-up English fight associated with Christian bravery. Whereas, Mendoza’s style was possibly considered to be deceitful.

Nonetheless, afterwards he was accompanied triumphantly by thousands of Israelites with lighted torches and marital music. That Tuesday recorded in The Freeman’s Journal or The North American Intelligencer the whole synagogue sung Io triumphe to honour the Jew beating the Christian. Undoubtedly the deed was of such importance that it found expression in the synagogue While Mendoza was yet to obtain a championship he proclaimed to be one. However, at the time the term champion meant any fighting man who championed a cause which according to Christopher Johnson recalled the world of romance and chivalry. Possibly Mendoza could be championing another cause, Jewish equality.

Fighting for the Jews

In 1788, 1789 and 1790 Mendoza engaged in highly publicised contests with Richard Humphries. The fights tapped into late eighteenth-century fears of a burgeoning Jewish population. In fact, their first contest was also the first in which the fighters’ careers were marketed on racial hostilities. Mendoza lost this affair after he fell on the rain-soaked stage badly spraining his ankle and then reluctantly acknowledged the superiority of his opponent. It was necessary to release black pigeons to bear the gloomy news intelligence to the twelve Tribes of Moses. In the Derby Mercury’s assessment due credit was to be given to the Jew for his skill, and to the Christian for his courage. Humphries complimented Mendoza on his pluck but afterwards wrote to his patron, ‘I have done the Jew, and am in good health.’

Crabb: Other Fighting Jews

That June, The Times noted that the hunger for prize fighting had subsided. That Mendoza was to return to his butcher’s knife and Humphries to his occupation of a bailiff’s follower. As this brutal act could not exist long in civilised society. However, this concern was not expressed in every publication. A few days later the Belfast Newsletter heaped praise not on Mendoza, but Elisha Crabb ‘the Jew’ who faced the pupil of that famous English battler Ward. Crabb was seconded by the Irish champion Ryan, and it was said to be one of the best battles ’that we ever witnessed’ and Crabb ‘a creature of astonishing harness and can stand as much beating as any man in England.’ The Belfast publication (with a large Protestant readership) had given ‘the fighting Jew’ a certain respect. 

By this time, it must be noted that Mendoza was a popular trainer of the amateurs and it was reported, for example, that Jack Broughton, who introduced rules to the sport, planned to visit the Jew Academy (Mendoza’s Boxing Club). For the occasion Mendoza purchased a highchair which would serve as a throne for the father of boxing. It appears that his Jewishness was in good standing, however, when he travelled in Belfast just after, Mendoza let it be known that he would not distinguish himself in that city. He would be chiefly associating himself with people of the Jewish persuasion. That he would not fight unless receiving great provocation. By this time, however, it had attracted interest that he should meet Humphries once more. Which the Belfast Newsletter printed; it was ‘all my eye’ (complete nonsense). For they might not find any dupes to back a future contest or that it had already been decided for Humphries.

More crucially, perhaps, it made comparisons between Jews and Christians by relating John Milton’s epic poem Paradise Lost and the related work of John Dryden, The Sate of Innocence and the Fall of man. Contemplating how Milton made Adam his hero and Dryden had made the devil his. Both have a place in society. Perhaps it was that the Jew and the Gentile would now be reconciled, the wreath a symbol of a lost pure love or as it was more elegantly put at the time ‘as Dryden gave the palm to the devil perhaps the world may now give the wreath to the Jews.’

Mendoza, boxing celebrity

‘What a damnable shame to spoil’d by a curst little Jew from Duke’s Place’

Mendoza and Humphries fought during the French Revolution (1789-1794). Their last two fights dated 1789 and in 1790, decided decisively that Mendoza was the better man. The revolution in France had brought a change of status to Jews (1791), however, in England it only brought into question their loyalty. However, Mendoza enjoyed greater social mobility and, for example, he was a constant companion and an open guest at the villa of Welsh baronet Sir Thomas Apprice, an avid boxer.

Looking back to 1788, for instance, Mendoza’s skills in the ring were described discouragingly by the Edinburgh Magazine as ‘dexterity without grace 'which reflected assumptions of the cunning and devious Jew. Yet, by the following year he had released the very same skills in print, The Art of Manual Defence; or System of Boxing (1789). A publication that was well received and done much to enhance his celebrity, which also manifested as memorabilia. Yet, it was a precarious fame, for if boxing lost favour so would Mendoza. While always in defence of the Noble Art, understood only too well its dubious legality (and knowing that it had several moral enemies) conceded in the preface to the book The Modern Art of Boxing, as practiced by Mendoza, Humphries, Ryan, Ward, Watson, Johnson, and other eminent pugilists that it bordered on brutality and blackguardism.

A hero of the Britons perhaps?

Yet, blood sports still held a certain reverence, for it kept men fighting fit and ready for war. A commentator writing in the Morning Post in 1801, anticipating the decline of boxing and bull baiting as ‘components of British bravery’ quoted the misfortunes of 1783 (the end of the American Revolution and the formal recognition of the United States). Moreover, the writer points to Johnson, Humphries and Mendoza (without attaching ‘the Jew’ to the end of the latter’s name) as those who ‘elevated Great Britain, once more a commanding and sovereign power.’ Stating that neither Shakespeare or Congreve could perform without a sparring scene at the Theatre. That, the ‘glory of our nation may again revive, and Jacobitism, Republicanism, French principles sedition, anarchy, and everything else we have been fighting against will receive an irrecoverable and final knockdown blow’ This belief reflected a sense of nationhood which was sustained through rowdy sports, and was elevated by the great champions Mendoza.

The fighting Jew as standard

               Dutch Sam

During the 1800s, and with the rise of Jewish battlers like Dutch Sam (active between 1775-1816) who received regular backing amongst Jews and Christians alike. The social reformer Francis Place could frankly state that Mendoza had spread amongst the Jews the art of boxing and they had become generally expert at it. The impression of the Jew as a boxer became ingrained in society that, for example, a play featured at Covent Garden in 1802 with a focus on Jewish love, and featuring the actor (John) Fawcett, incorporated a pugilistic scene. For in the third verse, Miss Moses, receives boxing lessons from her brother. When the play was first promoted, this scene brought a strong hiss from the pit and gallery. The hissing by some in attendance could have been by angry Jews or Christians that they took issue with Jewish boxing or that a Jew female could box. Nonetheless, it makes some reference to the ‘noted fighting Jew’ and the Morning Post noted that it was justice to the Jews who did not take part in the hissing but warmly applauded Fawcett and laughed with the Jewish love story.

Prize Fighting v. religious devotion

This is not to argue that rowdy sports were wholly embraced by Jews or for that matter Christians. A Christian sermon preached at Berks in 1802, for example, called into question, bull baiting, mercenary pugilism which had done little to service the soldiers or citizens. Equally, in 1805 two Jews who attended a prize fight were summoned to the synagogue by the high priest, in violation of the sabbath. They had to obey a penance and should do their utmost to ‘suppress practices so contrary to religion, morality, and the existing laws.' Yet, more broadly Mendoza could be held up as a figure of British masculinity. Notably during 1803-1805 when the country was under serious threat from France. The Spirit of boxing being frequently quoted in this period, as a mark of unity in a time of war.

Changing attitudes: The Mendoza Legacy

In conclusion:

It is hard to state categorically what influence Mendoza had on the equality of Jews. For, it cannot be claimed definitively that Jews received admiration by Christians thereafter. Jewish Emancipation being a long and arduous process. Yet, the symbolic ‘noted fighting Jew’ cannot be ignored. Markedly, as the Prize Ring at times seemed as a vehicle which transcended antisemitism. For this, we can point to Mendoza’s first engagement with Humphries which was marketed on racial hostilities. The next two had certainly altered perceptions. It could be that it reflected a new period of Jewish self-assertion. While it also may be suggested that a diverse populace of Christians Jews and others. These ‘John Bulls’, shared a single identity or at least experienced a commonality. That was tied culturally, to the true specimen of courage. The prize fighter.