American Jewish Year Book 2015: The

Annual Record of the North American

Jewish Communities 1st Edition Arnold
Dashefsky
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/american-jewish-year-book-2015-the-annual-record-o
f-the-north-american-jewish-communities-1st-edition-arnold-dashefsky/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

American Jewish Year Book 2018: The Annual Record of

the North American Jewish Communities Since 1899 Arnold
Dashefsky

https://textbookfull.com/product/american-jewish-year-
book-2018-the-annual-record-of-the-north-american-jewish-
communities-since-1899-arnold-dashefsky/

American Jewish Year Book 2019 The Annual Record of the

North American Jewish Communities Since 1899 Arnold
Dashefsky

https://textbookfull.com/product/american-jewish-year-
book-2019-the-annual-record-of-the-north-american-jewish-
communities-since-1899-arnold-dashefsky/

The Radical American Judaism of Mordecai M Kaplan The

Modern Jewish Experience Scult

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-radical-american-judaism-of-
mordecai-m-kaplan-the-modern-jewish-experience-scult/

Re-Constructing the Man of Steel: Superman 1938–1941,

Jewish American History, and the Invention of the
Jewish–Comics Connection 1st Edition Martin Lund
(Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/re-constructing-the-man-of-
steel-superman-1938-1941-jewish-american-history-and-the-
invention-of-the-jewish-comics-connection-1st-edition-martin-
The Jewish American Paradox The Chosen People and
Modern Choices Robert Mnookin

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-jewish-american-paradox-the-
chosen-people-and-modern-choices-robert-mnookin/

Jewish American Identity and Erasure in Pop Art 1st

Edition Mednicov

https://textbookfull.com/product/jewish-american-identity-and-
erasure-in-pop-art-1st-edition-mednicov/

Photography Migration and Identity A German Jewish

American Story Maiken Umbach

https://textbookfull.com/product/photography-migration-and-
identity-a-german-jewish-american-story-maiken-umbach/

The Oxford Book of Jewish Stories 98th Edition Ilan

Stavans Ed

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-book-of-jewish-
stories-98th-edition-ilan-stavans-ed/

Jewish Sports Legends The International Jewish Sports

Hall of Fame 5th Edition Joseph Siegman

https://textbookfull.com/product/jewish-sports-legends-the-
international-jewish-sports-hall-of-fame-5th-edition-joseph-
siegman/
American Jewish Year Book 115

Arnold Dashefsky
Ira Sheskin Editors

American
Jewish Year
Book 2015
The Annual Record of the North
American Jewish Communities
American Jewish Year Book

Volume 115

Series Editors
Arnold Dashefsky, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
Ira M. Sheskin, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA
Produced under the Academic Auspices of:
The Center for Judaic Studies and Contemporary Jewish Life,
University of Connecticut
and
The Jewish Demography Project at The Sue and Leonard Miller
Center for Contemporary Judaic Studies, University of Miami
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11193
Arnold Dashefsky • Ira Sheskin
Editors

American Jewish Year Book

2015
The Annual Record of the North American
Jewish Communities
Editors
Arnold Dashefsky Ira Sheskin
University of Connecticut University of Miami
Storrs, CT, USA Coral Gables, FL, USA

ISSN 2213-9575 ISSN 2213-9583 (electronic)

American Jewish Year Book
ISBN 978-3-319-24503-4 ISBN 978-3-319-24505-8 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-24505-8

Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.

springer.com)
The Publication of This Volume Was Made
Possible by the Generous Support of

The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Connecticut (Dean
Jeremy Teitelbaum)
Center for Judaic Studies and Contemporary Jewish Life at the University of
Connecticut (Jeffrey Shoulson, Director)
The Sue and Leonard Miller Center for Contemporary Judaic Studies (Haim
Shaked, Director) and its Jewish Demography Project (Ira Sheskin, Director);
and The George Feldenkreis Program in Judaic Studies (Haim Shaked, Director)
College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Miami (Dean Leonidas Bachas
and Senior Associate Dean Angel Kaifer)
Mandell L. “Bill” Berman and the Mandell and Madeleine Berman Foundation
The Department of Geography at the University of Miami (Ira Sheskin, Chair)
We Acknowledge the Cooperation of:
Berman Jewish DataBank, a project of The Jewish Federations of North America
(Mandell L. Berman, Founding Chair; Laurence Kotler-Berkowitz, Director).
The Association for the Social Scientific Study of Jewry (Steven M. Cohen,
President)
We Acknowledge the Contributions of the Men and Women Who Edited the
American Jewish Year Book from 1899 to 2008
Cyrus Adler, Maurice Basseches, Herman Bernstein, Morris Fine, Herbert
Friedenwald, H. G. Friedman, Lawrence Grossman, Milton Himmelfarb, Joseph
Jacobs, Martha Jelenko, Julius B. Maller, Samson D. Oppenheim, Harry
Schneiderman, Ruth R. Seldin, David Singer, Jacob Sloan, Maurice Spector,
Henrietta Szold

v
vi The Publication of This Volume Was Made Possible by the Generous Support of

Academic Advisory Committee

Sidney and Alice Goldstein, Honorary Chairs
Carmel Chiswick, Research Professor of Economics at George Washington
University and Professor Emerita of Economics at the University of Illinois at
Chicago.
Steven M. Cohen, Research Professor of Jewish Social Policy at Hebrew Union
College-Jewish Institute of Religion in New York and Director of the Berman
Jewish Policy Archive. Recipient of the 2010 Marshall Sklare Award. President
of the Association for the Social Scientific Study of Jewry (ASSJ).
Miriam Sanua Dalin, Professor of History at Florida Atlantic University.
Sylvia Barack Fishman, Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Department, Joseph and
Esther Foster Professor of Contemporary Jewish Life, and Co-director of the
Hadassah-Brandeis Institute at Brandeis University. Recipient of the 2014
Marshall Sklare Award.
Calvin Goldscheider, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Ungerleider Professor
Emeritus of Judaic Studies, and Faculty Associate of the Population Studies and
Training Center at Brown University. Recipient of the 2001 Marshall Sklare
Award.
Alice Goldstein, Research Associate Emerita, Population Studies and Training
Center, Brown University.
Sidney Goldstein, G. H. Crooker University Professor Emeritus of Sociology,
Brown University. Recipient of the 1992 Marshall Sklare Award.
Harriet Hartman, Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at Rowan University
and Editor-in-Chief of Contemporary Jewry.
Samuel Heilman, Distinguished Professor of Sociology, Harold Proshansky Chair
in Jewish Studies at the Graduate Center, and Distinguished Professor of
Sociology at Queens College of the City University of New York. Recipient of
the 2003 Marshall Sklare Award. Former Editor of Contemporary Jewry.
Debra Kaufman, Professor Emerita of Sociology and Matthews Distinguished
University Professor at Northeastern University.
Shaul Kelner, Associate Professor of Sociology and Jewish Studies and former
Director of the Program in Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt University.
Barry Kosmin, Research Professor of Public Policy & Law and Director of the
Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture at Trinity College,
Hartford, Connecticut. Senior Associate, Oxford Centre for Hebrew & Jewish
Studies, University of Oxford, England.
Laurence Kotler-Berkowitz, Senior Director of Research and Analysis and
Director of the Berman Jewish DataBank at The Jewish Federations of North
America.
Deborah Dash Moore, Professor of History and former Director of the Frankel
Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Michigan. Recipient of the 2006
Marshall Sklare Award.
The Publication of This Volume Was Made Possible by the Generous Support of vii

Pamela S. Nadell, Professor and Chair of the Department of History, the Patrick
Clendenen Chair in Women’s and Gender History, and Director of the Jewish
Studies Program at American University.
Bruce Phillips, Professor of Jewish Communal Service at Hebrew Union College-
Jewish Institute of Religion in Los Angeles.
Riv-Ellen Prell, Professor of American Studies and Director of the Center for
Jewish Studies at the University of Minnesota. Chair of the Academic Council of
the American Jewish Historical Society. Recipient of the 2011 Marshall Sklare
Award.
Jonathan D. Sarna, Joseph H. & Belle R. Braun Professor of American Jewish
History at Brandeis University and Chief Historian of the National Museum of
American Jewish History. Recipient of the 2002 Marshall Sklare Award.
President of the Association for Jewish Studies (AJS).
Leonard Saxe, Klutznick Professor of Contemporary Jewish Studies at Brandeis
University and Director of the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies/
Steinhardt Social Research Institute at Brandeis. Recipient of the 2012 Marshall
Sklare Award.
Morton Weinfeld, Professor of Sociology and Chair in Canadian Ethnic Studies at
McGill University. Recipient of the 2013 Marshall Sklare Award.
Preface

In the editorial preface to Volume 113 of the Year Book, we cited the work of
Jonathan Sarna and Jonathan Golden (2000) who wrote the following in their out-
standing review of a century of the American Jewish Year Book (1899–1999):
Whatever its imperfections, though, the Year Book has consistently served as an invaluable
guide to Jewish life, and especially American Jewish life, in the 20th century. Its wide-
ranging coverage, its emphases, its reliability, and its dependable quality make the Year
Book an unparalleled resource for those who seek to study the history of American Jewry
and for those who seek to shape its future.

Now, as of June 2015, we have quantitative evidence of this assertion: According

to Google, more than 115,000 citations of the Year Book (including 6700 in scien-
tific publications) have been documented since 1970 across its 114 volumes to
date!1 Furthermore, our publisher, Springer, reports that more than 2800 chapter
downloads from the Springer website of the first volume (2012) and over 2600
chapter downloads of the second volume (2013), edited under our joint auspices,
have accrued over the approximately 30 months and 18 months since the publica-
tion of each volume.
The dependable quality noted above by Sarna and Golden can be seen in the
chapters assembled for the current volume. In Part I, Steven J. Gold (Michigan State
University) has authored a thorough review, utilizing the available quantitative and
qualitative data, on recent Jewish migrants to the USA, including Russian, Israeli,
Cuban, and Latin American Jews, as well as brief accounts (given the lack of data)

1
Wikipedia provides the following review of the publication history of the Year Book: “The
American Jewish Year Book (AJYB) has been published since 1899. Publication was initiated by
the Jewish Publication Society (JPS). In 1908, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) assumed
responsibility for compilation and editing while JPS remained the publisher. From 1950 through
1993 the two organizations were co-publishers, and from 1994 to 2008 AJC became the sole pub-
lisher. From 2012 to present, Springer has published the Year Book as an academic publication.
The book is published in cooperation with the Berman Jewish DataBank and the Association for
the Social Scientific Study of Jewry.”

ix
x Preface

on Syrian, Iranian, South African, and Ethiopian Jews. Annette Koren, Leonard
Saxe, and Eric Fleisch (Brandeis University) have produced a timely review of the
contemporary campus experience of American Jewish college students, covering
the topics of Israel, anti-Semitism, religious and spiritual life, academic and intel-
lectual life, social and cultural life, as well as community service.
In addition, the usual regular features appear in the current volume with some
changes. This year, Mark Silk (Trinity College) joins Ethan Felson (JCPA) to pro-
vide an excellent review of national affairs as they affected American Jewry over the
past year, while Lawrence Grossman (AJC) has provided the same masterful cover-
age of Jewish communal affairs. The population chapters on US Jews by Ira
M. Sheskin (University of Miami) and Arnold Dashefsky (University of Connecticut),
as well as Sergio DellaPergola (Hebrew University) on world Jewry, provide com-
prehensive, updated statistics on demographic changes. These two chapters are
complemented by what we hope will be a regular feature on the Canadian Jewish
population by Charles Shahar (The Jewish Community Foundation of Montreal).
Following the reorganization last year, Part II consists of four chapters covering
Jewish institutions, the Jewish press, academic resources, and transitions, which
reports on major events, honorees, and obituaries. The provision of a variety of
Jewish lists harkens back to the earliest volume of the Year Book.
Each year the lists in Part II are checked to make certain that all contact informa-
tion is current. In addition, this year we added more than 25 Jewish organizations
and Jewish publications to these lists that were either new or ones of which we were
unaware in the past. A new list of Israeli consulates in the USA appears this year as
well.
While much of the information in Part II is available on the Internet (indeed we
obtain most of it from the Internet), we believe that collating this information in one
volume helps to present a full picture of the state of North American Jewry today.
Part of this picture is its demographics; part is the extensive infrastructure of the
Jewish community (the organizations and the publications), and part is the enor-
mous contributions made by the less than 2 % of the population that is Jewish to the
culture and society of the USA and Canada.
In addition, while, for example, a list of Jewish Federations will probably always
appear on the Internet, a list current as of 2015 will not be there forever. A historian
in the year 2525, wishing to examine the history of American Jewry, will have that
history preserved in one volume. Indeed, preserving that history is part of the raison
d’etre of the Year Book.
We hope that the initiatives that we have undertaken over the past 4 years of our
editorship since 2012 will uphold the traditional quality of the Year Book, whose
existence spans three different centuries.
Preface xi

Hopefully as well, reviewers in 2099 will be as praiseworthy as Sarna and Golden

were in 1999!

Storrs, CT, USA Arnold Dashefsky

Coral Gables, FL, USA Ira Sheskin

Reference

Sarna, J.D., and J.J. Golden. 2000. The twentieth century through American Jewish eyes: A history
of the American Jewish Year Book, 1899–1999. American Jewish Year Book 100: 3–102.
Acknowledgments

Since we began our term in 2012, our efforts as editors were motivated by the need
to restore the American Jewish Year Book, which had ceased publication in 2008.
As social scientists, we had turned many times to consult previous issues for rele-
vant population statistics, timely review articles, and useful organizational lists. For
example, we noted that the population of our home states has grown dramatically
since the first Year Book appeared in 1899: Connecticut has increased from 3000 to
about 118,000 in 2015, and Florida has mushroomed from 2500 to more than
650,000 today. Having access to such information is valuable for scholars and prac-
titioners now, but we are mindful that these volumes which we assemble will prove
invaluable resources for documenting North American Jewish life for future genera-
tions—or centuries!
Thus, we are grateful to our publisher Springer for their support over the past
3 years of our editorship (2012–2014) and for renewing our contract for three more
years (2015–2017). Therefore, we wish first to express our thanks to our editors
Cristina Alves dos Santos, Anita van der Linden-Rachmat, Elvire Verbraak, Deepthi
Vasudevan, S. Madhuriba, and their associates at Springer who have shared our
enthusiasm for the publication of the Year Book once again.
We would also like to express our sincere appreciation to Larry Grossman, the
former editor of the American Jewish Year Book, for his encouragement and support
of our initiative and for the continuation of his review of communal affairs in the
American Jewish community. Our gratitude is extended to the other authors, includ-
ing Ethan Felson and Mark Silk for their chapter on US national affairs as well as
Sergio DellaPergola on world Jewish population. Special thanks are extended to
Steven Gold for his chapter on recent Jewish migrants to the USA and to Annette
Koren, Len Saxe, and Eric Fleisch for their chapter on US Jewish campus life. In
addition, we are also very appreciative of the contribution of Charles Shahar for his
new chapter on the Jewish population of Canada. We expect this chapter to continue
in the future so as to more accurately represent our efforts to provide “the annual
record of the North American Jewish communities.” We would also like to express
our appreciation to the several reviewers who provided helpful advice on the

xiii
xiv Acknowledgments

chapters in Part I, including Mitchell Bard, Joshua Comenetz, J. J. Goldberg,

Uzi Rebhun, Chaim Waxman, and Morton Weinfeld.
For Part II, we wish to thank Ami Eden and the JTA staff (www.jta.org) for their
assistance with the obituaries and events sections. No edited work with the variety
of features contained herein can be completed successfully without the help of our
outstanding support staff. We offer our heartfelt thanks to Rae Asselin, program
assistant, and Pamela J. Weathers, editorial assistant, both at the University of
Connecticut’s Center for Judaic Studies and Contemporary Jewish Life, for their
excellent assistance. Rae maintained the flow of correspondence and communica-
tion with authors and reviewers, and Pam provided research and editorial support.
We also want to acknowledge the generous support that we have received from
Jeremy Teitelbaum, dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and Jeffrey
Shoulson, director of the Center for Judaic Studies and Contemporary Jewish Life,
both at the University of Connecticut, to facilitate the editorial work involved in
producing this volume. Finally, we express our appreciation to Bill Berman, the
founding philanthropist of the Berman Jewish DataBank and the Berman Jewish
Policy Archive, for his generous financial support of the Year Book.
At the University of Miami, acknowledgments are due to Sarah Markowitz,
Roberta Pakowitz, and Karen Tina Sheskin for their assistance with the production
of the lists and other material in Part II of this volume. Chris Hanson and the
University of Miami Department of Geography and Regional Studies Geographic
Information Systems Laboratory assisted with the production of the maps. Robert
Edwards of the Sue and Leonard Miller Center for Contemporary Judaic Studies
and Xiaxia Yang of the Department of Geography assisted with the verification of
much of the material in Part II. We wish to acknowledge the generous support we
have received from Deans Leonidas Bachas and Angel Kaifer of the University of
Miami College of Arts and Sciences and from Haim Shaked, director of the Sue and
Leonard Miller Center for Contemporary Judaic Studies.
Contents

Part I Review Articles

1 Patterns of Adaptation Among Contemporary
Jewish Immigrants to the US ................................................................. 3
Steven J. Gold
2 Jewish Life on Campus: From Backwater to Battleground................ 45
Annette Koren, Leonard Saxe, and Eric Fleisch
3 National Affairs ....................................................................................... 89
Ethan Felson and Mark Silk
4 Jewish Communal Affairs: April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015 .............. 107
Lawrence Grossman
5 Jewish Population in the United States, 2015 ....................................... 163
Ira Sheskin and Arnold Dashefsky
6 Jewish Population of Canada, 2015 ....................................................... 261
Charles Shahar
7 World Jewish Population, 2015.............................................................. 273
Sergio DellaPergola

Part II Jewish Lists

8 Jewish Institutions .................................................................................. 367
Ira Sheskin and Arnold Dashefsky
9 Jewish Press ............................................................................................. 725
Ira Sheskin and Arnold Dashefsky

xv
xvi Contents

10 Academic Resources ............................................................................... 751

Arnold Dashefsky, Ira Sheskin, and Pamela J. Weathers
11 Transitions: Major Events, Honorees, and Obituaries ........................ 835
Ira Sheskin, Arnold Dashefsky, and Pamela J. Weathers
Contributors

Arnold Dashefsky Department of Sociology and Center for Judaic Studies and
Contemporary Jewish Life, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
Sergio DellaPergola The Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry,
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
Ethan Felson Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), New York, NY, USA
Eric Fleisch Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA
Steven J. Gold Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI, USA
Lawrence Grossman American Jewish Committee, New York, NY, USA
Annette Koren Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University,
Waltham, MA, USA
Leonard Saxe Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies/Steinhardt Social
Research Institute, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, USA
Charles Shahar The Jewish Community Foundation of Montreal, Montreal,
Canada
Ira Sheskin Department of Geography and Jewish Demography Project, Sue and
Leonard Miller Center for Contemporary Judaic Studies, University of Miami,
Coral Gables, FL, USA
Mark Silk Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life, Trinity College,
Hartford, CT, USA
Pamela J. Weathers Center for Judaic Studies and Contemporary Jewish Life,
University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

xvii
 Part I
Review Articles
Chapter 1
Patterns of Adaptation Among Contemporary
Jewish Immigrants to the US

Steven J. Gold

The current era of international migration is marked not just by unprecedented num-
bers of migrants, but also by an especially varied range of origins and characteris-
tics. Globally, a wide variety of social, political, economic and environmental events
have prompted human beings to cross international borders in search of survival,
physical security, economic opportunity, and broader horizons. These numerous
and diverse migrants travel under a host of legal statuses, including without papers,
as temporary laborers and refugees, on student and tourist visas, as family unifica-
tion migrants, and in the role of skilled workers and investors.
Drawing on technological, economic, social, and political innovations like low
cost and high speed transportation and communication, dual citizenship, global cul-
ture, and cross-national agreements, contemporary migrants maintain myriad con-
nections such that people living in distant locations retain ties to their former
residence to a degree far outstripping connections available in earlier eras.
Jews, a group noted for their high levels of education and geographic dispersion,
and for their multiple engagements in social, political, cultural, economic, and reli-
gious life, are involved in many of these processes. Pew (2012) notes that while only
5 % of Christians and 3 % of Muslims globally have migrated internationally during
their lifetime, 25 % of living Jews no longer reside in their country of birth.
Applying world system theory, Sergio DellaPergola (1992, 1994) showed that
the post-WWII migration of Jews has followed a pattern of movement from less
developed areas of the world to more economically central, advanced regions, dem-
onstrating that economic improvement ranks with nationalism as a major force
behind Jewish migration. (Chapter 7 in this volume shows that this pattern of move-
ment continues to this day.) Since the US is among the most economically developed

S.J. Gold (*)

Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
e-mail: gold@msu.edu

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 3

A. Dashefsky, I. Sheskin (eds.), American Jewish Year Book 2015,
American Jewish Year Book 115, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-24505-8_1
4 S.J. Gold

countries globally, migration from the Former Soviet Union (FSU), Iran, Latin
America, South Africa, and Israel is consistent with this general trend.
While most migrants to the US prior to the mid-twentieth century were from
Europe, the recent era reveals a much larger percentage from Asia, Africa, Latin
America, and the Middle East. The same pattern is evident among Jewish migrants
to the US, with growing numbers of arrivals from Israel, Iran, South Africa, Latin
America, and elsewhere. Contemporary Jewish migrants to the US are diverse in
language, culture, religious outlook, and occupational profile. They maintain exten-
sive contacts with their countries of origin, with Israel, and with coworkers, friends
and relatives worldwide. Finally, like migrants globally, their numbers include a
broad array of legal statuses. New Jewish immigrants bring energy, diversity, imagi-
nation, youth, and numbers to the American Jewish community, while allowing
another generation of Jews born abroad to partake in an environment conducive to
Jews’ achievements and well-being.
At the same time, it is important to note that the meeting of minds, cultures, and
communities required for Jewish immigrants, US Jews, and the larger American
population to develop constructive and salutary relations is not an easy endeavor.
Rather, this process is challenging for both newcomers, hosts and, in some cases,
bystanders as well. It requires time, effort, tolerance, resources, and respect.
This chapter reviews Jewish migrants’ motives for migration, social and demo-
graphic characteristics, outlines of economic adaptation, community formation,
social and religious practices, and their integration into the American Jewish com-
munity. In addition, it explores patterns of contention and collaboration between the
host communities and newly-arrived Jewish groups. A review of American history
suggests that the appearance and partial resolution of such intragroup conflicts—
like those occurring between German and Yiddish-speaking Jews during the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century—are near universal aspects in the history of
American ethnic groups (Jewish and non-Jewish) and inform us about the processes
of growth and accommodation that are central features of life in a diverse, dynamic,
and ever- changing society (Goldscheider and Zuckerman 1984; Howe 1976;
Castles et al. 2014).

1.1 Jewish Migrants to the US

From the mid-nineteenth century until the formation of Israel in 1948, the US was
the number one destination for Jewish migrants. From 1881 to 1928, 2,414,989
Jews entered the US. During those same years, 112,611 Jews (5 %) departed, yield-
ing a net increase of 2,302,378 (AJYB 1929, pp. 326–327). The overwhelming
majority derived from Russia and other areas of Eastern Europe, including Romania
and Austria-Hungary. Even those entering the US from other locations (Germany,
France, the UK, Canada, and Africa) were largely “transmigrants from Eastern
1 Patterns of Adaptation Among Contemporary Jewish Immigrants to the US 5

Europe” (Rischin 1970, p. 270). Hailing from the “Pale of Settlement,” they shared
many commonalties in culture, religion, diet, and language (Yiddish). These simi-
larities acknowledged, this group was also stratified by considerable differences in
terms of urban experience, political outlook, religiosity, work experience, cultural
orientation, and time of arrival.
In addition to the great preponderance of Eastern European Ashkenazi Jews,
smaller numbers of Jews did arrive from other regions, including Sephardim (those
tracing their origins to Spain, Portugal and the Middle East). Twelve thousand
Sephardic Turkish Jews entered the US between 1899 and 1914 (Rischin 1970,
p. 270). According to Thomas Archdeacon’s (n.d.) statistics, the 1.8 million
“Hebrews” were the second largest immigrant group to enter the US from 1899 to
1924, their numbers surpassed only by Italians.
Between 1924 and 1965, immigration to the US from regions outside of Western
Europe was heavily restricted by the Johnson-Reed Act. Nevertheless, approxi-
mately 500,000 Jews were able to enter the country. Many were admitted as refu-
gees, and as such were exempt from the Johnson-Reed Act’s restrictions
(Goldscheider and Zuckerman 1984, p. 174).1 From 1954 through 1995, HIAS (for-
merly the Hebrew Immigration Aid Society) assisted 519,750 Jewish arrivals. The
largest numbers were from the FSU (367,021), North Africa (61,430), other coun-
tries (80,496), and Iran (10,803). While HIAS claims to have assisted fewer than
11,000 Iranians, the 1997 Los Angeles Jewish Population Survey estimated almost
17,000 Iranian Jews in that city alone (HIAS 1997; Herman 1998, p. 14). Finally,
substantial numbers of Jewish migrants from other nations were not assisted by
HIAS and hence do not appear in their counts. The largest of these, Israelis, com-
prise something on the order of 175,000–250,000 persons (Cohen 2009a, b). Latin
American Jews are the fastest growing recent Jewish immigrant group in the US,
and have been the subject of a burgeoning body of research. While they have a pres-
ence in several US locations, their largest settlement is in Miami, the major American
city with the largest percentage of foreign-born persons as well the largest percent-
age of foreign-born Jews. Israelis and FSU Jews, together with Latin Americans and
other immigrants, account for about one-third of adults in Miami’s Jewish popula-
tion—a percentage slightly larger than New York’s 29 % (Jewish Community Study
of New York 2011) and more than double that of the national percentage of foreign-
born Jews, which is about 15 % (NJPS 2000–2001, United Jewish Communities
2003; Pew Research Center 2013). Finally, in addition to those mentioned above,
there are several smaller groups, about which relatively little data are available:
Syrians, Iranians, South Africans, and Ethiopians.

1
Immigration restrictions from the 1920s through 1940s did exclude thousands of European Jews
seeking refuge from the Nazis (Breitman and Kraut 1987, p. 9; Goldscheider and Zuckerman 1984,
p. 174).
6 S.J. Gold

1.2 Data Sources

Studying Jews and Jewish immigrants in the US presents a significant challenge due
to definitional matters and the cost of obtaining large, high-quality quantitative data
sets. The first obstacle is definitional since both “Jew” and “immigrant” have mul-
tiple meanings which vary depending on context and location, and self-reported
definitions are subjective (Pew Research Center 2013; Kosmin 1991). Since much
of the data used in this chapter are from secondary sources, the best we can do is to
be aware of the definitions originally used and be cognizant of when they are incom-
patible or contradictory.
A second issue involves how to access data on Jews—however they are defined.
Demographers and students of migration often rely on government sources such as
the US Census as the basis for their enumerations of migrant populations. However,
the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits
the collection of religious data. Accordingly, government statistics, which rarely
report religion, are of limited utility for identifying Jews.

Census and Quantitative Data

Creative researchers have developed procedures for estimating some populations

from US Census data. “Russian” nationality has been a proxy for Jews, since Jews
have been well over half of all immigrants from Russia to the US (Simon 1997;
Lieberson and Waters 1988; Chiswick and Larsen 2015). Moreover, since relatively
few non-Jews from the USSR entered the US between the 1950s and about the
mid-1990s, persons from the USSR can be counted as Jews during these years
(ORR 2007). [Armenians also received FSU refugee status during the 1980s and
1990s. Accordingly, researchers using Census data to enumerate Soviet Jews
excluded Armenian speakers from their calculations (Chiswick 1993)].
A language-based approach has also been used in US Census-based tabulations
of Israelis who were born outside of Israel. Nearly 30 % of the population of Israel
was born elsewhere. However, because Israel is the only nation where Hebrew is
commonly spoken, a person’s fluency in Hebrew suggests Israeli nationality and
Jewish religion.
While language and nationality offer a means of selecting Russian or Israeli
Jewish respondents from US Census data, other Jewish immigrants are much harder
to identify. For example, Latin American, Iranian, European, Syrian, and South
African migrant populations include some number of Jews; but no means exist to
enumerate these groups.
While the US Census is unable to collect information about the religious affilia-
tion of respondents, other government data sources do sometimes include religious
information. Among these are data collected by the US Office of Refugee
Resettlement about groups who receive refugee or asylee status due to their being
1 Patterns of Adaptation Among Contemporary Jewish Immigrants to the US 7

members of religions that are targets of hostility in their country of origin—a

category that includes Jews from the FSU and Iran. Accordingly, some data on
Jewish migrants have been released by HIAS, an agency that works with the US
government to resettle refugees, including Jews, and by the Office of Refugee
Resettlement (ORR 2007). However, as noted above, not all Jewish immigrants in
the US receive refugee or asylee status or immigration assistance from HIAS. For
example, few if any Israeli or Latin American Jewish migrants receive assistance
from HIAS. Accordingly, HIAS lacks data on such groups.
Because of the relatively large numbers of Jewish migrants in local communities,
several community-level Jewish population studies have collected data on immi-
grant populations, including Israelis, Russian-speaking Jews, Iranians, Syrians,
Latin American Jews, and Holocaust Survivors. Communities that have done so
include New York, Miami, and Los Angeles. In addition, National Jewish Population
Studies establish definitional parameters as well as collect population data (Kosmin
1991; United Jewish Communities Report 2003). Since these studies were profes-
sionally done for the specific purpose of learning about Jewish populations, they
tend to be high quality and include a wide range of useful data including family
composition, socioeconomic status, religious involvement, philanthropic giving,
communal participation, Jewish identity, and a number of other factors.
Academic studies offer another source of information about Jewish immigrants.
These vary in size, sophistication, and focus. Finally, there have been a number of
ethnographic, historical, and community studies conducted with Jewish immigrants.
While few offer large representative samples of immigrant communities, they do
provide detailed information about migrant groups’ history, identity, patterns of
social and economic adaptation, collective concerns, politics, and many other issues.

Qualitative Data on Russian-Speaking Jews and Israelis

Much of the interview and fieldwork data on Russian-speaking Jews cited in this
chapter were collected by the author between 1982 and 1994, primarily in the San
Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles (Gold 1992, 1995a, 2013a, b). In-depth inter-
views were completed with 68 Soviet Jewish émigrés and 25 non-refugee service
providers. Extensive participant observation data were acquired while the author
worked as a volunteer English teacher in émigré homes, businesses, and other set-
tings in the San Francisco Bay Area. Additional observations were made as the
author served for 2 years as a board member of a Los Angeles agency that assisted
Soviet Jewish immigrants.
To learn about the experience of Israeli immigrants, the author employed five
Hebrew-speaking research assistants who collected several forms of data between
June 1991 and July 2004 (Gold and Hart 2013). A major source was 194 in-depth
interviews (conducted in both Hebrew and English) with Israeli immigrants and
others knowledgeable about their community in the Los Angeles area. Additional
interviews were collected in suburban Detroit, Silicon Valley, and New York City, as
8 S.J. Gold

well as London and Paris. Other interviews were completed with returned
emigrants in Israel.
Referrals to Israeli respondents were obtained from a variety of sources, including
Jewish communal agencies, the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles, representatives of
various Israeli associations, research assistants’ acquaintances, and snowball referrals.
Questions were selected from prepared lists of interview topics (Gold 2002).
In addition to data collected by the author, this chapter relies on a wide variety of
additional sources including official statistics, communal reports, academic publi-
cations, and journalistic accounts.

1.3 Migrant Populations: Jews from the Former Soviet

Union (FSU)

The following section discusses the experience and social characteristics of recent
Jewish immigrant groups. Most attention is devoted to the largest and best docu-
mented groups: Russian-speaking Jews followed by Israelis and Cuban/Latin
American Jews. In addition, smaller and less well-studied groups including Iranians,
Syrians, South Africans, and Ethiopians are also examined.

Motives for Migration

From 1975 until 2007, 605,100 refugees (including Jews and non-Jews) from the
FSU arrived in the US, making them the second largest refugee nationality to enter
the country (after the Vietnamese) during the last quarter of the twentieth century
(ORR 2007, p. 71). The peak year of arrival was 1992, when HIAS resettled 45,871
refugees from the FSU and the US Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) (2007,
p. 71) reported the arrival of 61,397 persons from the same location. Since 2000,
about 7500 refugees have come into the US annually from the FSU, but only a small
percentage have been Jewish. In addition to those with refugee status, a number of
FSU immigrants have also arrived in the US under various other migrant statuses.
Most had refugee status that was conferred as a consequence of the Cold War
(Gold 1992). This made them eligible for permanent resident status as well as citi-
zenship, and entitled them to cash assistance and social benefits, such as housing,
job training, and health care. Such benefits, which varied considerably according to
the time and place of their arrival in the US, were often supplemented by services
from Jewish and other non-profit agencies.
Soviet Jews’ exit was motivated by blocked mobility, anti-Semitism, and restric-
tions on travel—as well as the desire for family unification and free religious and
cultural expression. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, Jews continued to leave
the FSU in record numbers, fleeing a hostile and unstable environment.
1 Patterns of Adaptation Among Contemporary Jewish Immigrants to the US 9

Russian Jews’ Demographics

Unlike most immigrant and refugee groups who are characterized by youthful pop-
ulations, Russian-speaking Jewish families include many elderly individuals.
According to the 2000 Census, 40.4 % of persons born in the FSU living in the US
were age 45 and over. Of the 67,458 persons age 18 and over born in Russia who
became naturalized in the US between 2003 and 2010, more than 40 % were age 45
and over. Of these, 66 % were married. Only 35 % were male (US Department of
Homeland Security 2011).
Refugee families experience problems because the elderly have difficulties
learning English, finding employment, and making their way in the US. At the same
time, aged relatives provide social benefits, as they assist with childcare and build
stable and interconnected communities as they interact in parks, agencies, and
apartment buildings (Markowitz 1993; Gold 1995a).

Family and Gender Patterns

Patterns of family composition that have their roots in the FSU reinforce intimacy
and mutual involvement among FSU émigrés in the US. Because of Soviet housing
shortages and the desire to maximize available resources for promoting children’s
mobility, family size was typically small. Families rarely had more than one or, at
the most, two offspring. Soviet grandparents retired early (women at age 55, men at
age 60) and were often extensively involved in the lives of their children and grand-
children, with whom they lived. Russian families often migrate with their aged
members so that the family remains intact, so that the aged members can care for
children, and to provide the older generation with an environment more secure than
that of the FSU. Women outnumber men and are significantly older, indicating their
greater life expectancy as well as the effects of WWII (Shlapentokh 1984).
Jews in the FSU often were married and had children at a much younger age than
is common in the US. As a consequence, both in the FSU and in the US, parents and
children tend to be much closer in age than among American families who are char-
acterized by higher educational profiles. It is not uncommon to find four generations
residing together in FSU households. The labor force participation of parents and
children overlaps for many more years than among the American middle class,
allowing employed parents to be actively involved in shaping their children’s careers
(by offering advice, exercising influence, or working together in family businesses)
and facilitating multiple earner households (Kasinitz et al. 2009). In the US, many
Russian-speaking Jewish families retain their Soviet-based ideas about marriage.
This continued emphasis on early marriage for women maintains Soviet-based pat-
terns of family closeness, but in the American context can thwart a young woman’s
ability to obtain a higher education and adversely affect her career options.
10 S.J. Gold

According to the 2000 US Census, the early age of marriage and child bearing in
FSU households has been sustained in the US. The percentage of women born in the
FSU residing in the US who are unmarried by age 40 (4 %) is less than one third (14
%) of that for all US women and substantially lower than that for other migrant
populations, including women born in China and Latin America (US Bureau of the
Census, 5 % PUMS 2000).
Jews from the FSU who have relocated to the US tend to feel satisfied with their
life here. Although they retain cultural and linguistic patterns associated with their
country of origin, and enjoy interacting in coethnic settings, they are content to fit
into the widely-accepted pattern of “hyphenated American” ethnic membership.
Their white skin, legal status and high educational profile grants them a privileged
position in the new setting, which contrasts quite favorably with the centuries of
oppression that their group had endured in the FSU.

Adaptation of Russian-Speaking Jewish Children

Reflecting their access to family and community resources, Russian-speaking

Jewish immigrant children and the children of Russian-speaking Jewish immigrants
who have entered the US since the 1970s generally have a strong educational back-
ground and do well in American schools. For example, in a 1991 comparison of the
12 largest immigrant groups attending New York City public schools, grades 3–12,
who had been in the country 3 years or less, students from the FSU ranked first in
reading scores, second in math, and fifth in English. Their reading and math scores
were much higher than the average for all students, including the native born. In
addition, their mean increase in score over the previous year was the highest of all
groups, in both reading and English, and among the highest in math (New York City
Public Schools 1991).
Russian immigrants’ educational accomplishments make sense because many
described America’s educational opportunities as a major reason for their families’
immigration (Kasinitz et al. 2009). They also have high rates of attending college
(over 70 % for a sample of New York residents between age 18 and 32 who had
been in the US for at least 6 years). However, they often choose their college or
university on the basis of location rather than prestige. A New York-based study
found that only about 10 % go away to college. This is lower than the rates of resi-
dential college attendance maintained by other highly-educated US migrant groups
(Zeltzer-Zubida and Kasinitz 2005).

Economic Adjustment

Russian-speaking Jews who have entered the US since 1970 have very high levels
of education, often in technical and professional fields. As such, their economic
progress has been impressive. According to the 2000 Census, 59.9 % of FSU-born
1 Patterns of Adaptation Among Contemporary Jewish Immigrants to the US 11

persons residing in the US age 24–64 had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Thus, they
are much better educated than all foreign-born, of whom 26 % have a bachelor’s
degree or higher. Their educational achievements also outstrip those of the native-
born population. Of employed Russian-born persons age 18 and over who became
naturalized between 2006 and 2010, 15 % are in management, professional, and
related occupations (US Department of Homeland Security 2011).
Reflecting their high levels of education, recent Russian immigrants experience
rapid economic mobility. According to the 2000 Census, FSU-born men in the labor
force age 25–64 were earning a median income of $38,000 in 1999, compared to
$27,000 for all foreign-born men age 25–64 in the US who were in the labor force.
According to the 2000 Census, FSU-born women in the labor force age 25–64 were
earning a median income of $24,500 in 1999, compared to $19,400 for all foreign-
born women age 25–64 in the US labor force.
According to the 2000 US Census, 73 % of immigrants from the FSU age 25–64
and in the labor force were employed as managers, administrators, sales, profes-
sionals, or technical specialists, compared to 54 % of all foreign-born persons in the
US age 25–64 and in the labor force. Other important occupational categories are
gender-based: craft work (frequently in construction and jewelry) for men and ser-
vice occupations for women (US Bureau of the Census, PUMS 2000).
One economic asset of recent Russian immigrants over natives and other immi-
grant groups is the high percentage of women with professional and technical
skills—a product of the FSU’s egalitarian educational system. As of 1981, 67 % of
Soviet women in the US were engineers, technicians, or other kinds of professionals
prior to migration, whereas only 17 % of American women worked in these occupa-
tions. According to the 2000 Census, 31 % of Soviet-born women in the US were
college graduates. This is more than double the 15.1 % figure of college graduation
for all foreign-born women. As of 2000, 47.1 % of Soviet women in the US were
employed as managers or professionals. In contrast, the figure for all foreign-born
women is 33.2 %. A smaller percentage of Russian immigrant men (45.5 %) were
employed as managers or professionals.
The 2000 Census reports that 12 % of Russians/Former Soviets (14.9 % of men
and 9.5 % of women) are self-employed. The rate of self-employment for all
foreign-born is 10.8 %, 11.9 % for all foreign-born men, and 9.3 % for all foreign-
born women. Of the 29,278 Russian women age 18 and over who became natural-
ized in the US between 2006 and 2010, 19 % had no occupation or were not working
outside the home. Of these, about 12 % (or 2.2 % of all recently-naturalized Russian
women) were homemakers. Fourteen percent of Russian-born men had no occupa-
tion or were not working outside the home (US Department of Homeland Security
2011).
The most recent summary of this group’s adaptation is available from research
conducted by Chiswick and Larsen (2015) based on the 5-year cumulative 2005–
2009 American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the US census. They found
that while Russian adults had relatively low levels of English skill and earnings
upon arrival, they experienced rapid improvement over time and obtained parity or
better than other immigrants. In fact, “they appear to obtain greater earnings
12 S.J. Gold

(compared to other immigrants) in the US labor market from their schooling, their
time in the United States, and their English proficiency.” In this, the experience of
the most recently arrived Russian-speaking Jewish immigrants mirrors the impres-
sive rates of economic mobility associated with earlier waves of the same popula-
tion, including those who arrived from 1980 to 2000, as well as the cohort who
entered the country during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. While
the average income of Russian migrants suggests a generally successful merger into
the American middle class, the economic adjustment of this population covers a
wide range, from poverty to significant wealth.

Relations with American Jews

The migration and resettlement of several hundred thousand Jews from the FSU to
the US was in many ways an impressive undertaking. The American Jewish com-
munity and US government provided prized refugee status and a generous package
of services and benefits for rebuilding émigrés’ lives (Eckles et al. 1982; Gold
2013a, b). The resettlement is notable not only for its size, but for the rapid adjust-
ment made by a population which included a particularly large percentage of elderly
persons.
Despite its general success, the migration to and resettlement in the US of Soviet
Jews also involved certain forms of conflict and contention among the migrants, the
host community and other interested parties. The most significant issues concerned
the extent to which Soviet Jews were expected to conform to the broader Jewish
community’s perspective on where and how they should live their lives.
The international Soviet Jewry movement, which began in the early 1960s,
sought to permit members of this group to leave the oppressive and atheistic Soviet
Union so that they could escape anti-Semitism, move to Israel, and freely practice
their religion. From the late 1960s until the middle 1970s, the majority of Soviet
Jews granted exit visas did settle in Israel. However, between 1976 and 1989, at
least half opted instead to move to the US and by the late 1980s, fewer than 10 %
each year chose Israel (Gitelman 2012, pp. 245–247).
Émigrés’ desire to live in the US caused considerable consternation among
Soviet Jewry activists as they appeared to be favoring material comfort and afflu-
ence over religion and Zionism. In response, there was a growing call to deny Soviet
Jews US refugee status, thus directing their resettlement exclusively to Israel (Gold
1995a; Orleck 1999). According to journalist J.J. Goldberg, “The first Soviet Jewry
activists in the 1960s hardly intended their work to result in Jewish immigration to
the US. The movement was from the start a Zionist enterprise, conceived by Israelis
and driven by activists who wanted the world’s second largest Jewish community
‘repatriated’—brought en masse ‘back’ to Israel, their ancestral homeland”(Goldberg
1996, p. 180).
In 1976, an effort to implement such a policy, led by Max Fisher, the powerful
Detroit philanthropist, was rejected at the General Assembly of the Council of
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 The Project Gutenberg eBook of Survey of
London, Volume 05 (of 14), the parish of St.
Giles-in-the-Fields, part 2
 This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

Title: Survey of London, Volume 05 (of 14), the parish of St.

Giles-in-the-Fields, part 2

Author: George Laurence Gomme

William Edward Riley

Release date: November 16, 2023 [eBook #72144]

Language: English

Original publication: London: London County Council, 1912

Credits: Richard Tonsing, Bryan Ness, and the Online

Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SURVEY OF

LONDON, VOLUME 05 (OF 14), THE PARISH OF ST. GILES-IN-
THE-FIELDS, PART 2 ***
Transcriber’s Note:
New original cover art included with this eBook is
granted to the public domain.
 LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL

SURVEY OF LONDON
ISSUED BY THE JOINT PUBLISHING

COMMITTEE REPRESENTING THE LONDON

COUNTY COUNCIL AND THE COMMITTEE

FOR THE SURVEY OF THE MEMORIALS OF

GREATER LONDON

UNDER THE GENERAL EDITORSHIP OF

SIR LAURENCE GOMME (for the Council)

PHILIP NORMAN (for the Survey

Committee)
 VOLUME V.

THE PARISH OF ST. GILES-IN-THE-FIELDS

(Part II.)

PUBLISHED BY THE LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL, SPRING

GARDENS, LONDON
1914
THE PARISH OF ST. GILES-IN-THE-FIELDS (PART II.), BEING
THE FIFTH VOLUME OF THE SURVEY OF LONDON, WITH
DRAWINGS, ILLUSTRATIONS AND ARCHITECTURAL
DESCRIPTIONS, BY W. EDWARD RILEY, ARCHITECT TO THE
COUNCIL. EDITED, WITH HISTORICAL NOTES, BY SIR
LAURENCE GOMME, CLERK OF THE COUNCIL.
JOINT PUBLISHING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTING THE LONDON COUNTY
COUNCIL AND THE COMMITTEE FOR THE
SURVEY OF THE MEMORIALS OF GREATER
LONDON.

Chairman.

E. L. MEINERTZHAGEN.

Members appointed by the Council.

GRANVILLE-SMITH, R. W.
JOHNSON, W. C.
MEINERTZHAGEN, E. L.
TAYLOR, ANDREW T.

Members appointed by the Survey Committee.

GODFREY, WALTER H.
LOVELL, PERCY.
NORMAN, PHILIP.
MEMBERS OF THE SURVEY COMMITTEE
DURING THE PERIOD OF THE WORK.

The former Presidents of the Committee were—

The late LORD LEIGHTON, P.R.A.

The late Rt. Hon. and Rt. Rev. Dr. CREIGHTON, LORD
BISHOP OF LONDON.

President.

The Rt. Hon. EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON, G.C.S.I.,

G.C.I.E., F.R.S.

Honorary Members and Subscribers.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Aberdare.

The Board of Agriculture.
C. E. Allen.
Mrs. J. W. Allen.
Sir Robert Allison.
The Society of Antiquaries.
William Sumner Appleton.
The Architectural Association.
The Society of Architects.
The Royal Institute of British Architects.
The Athenæum.
John Avery.
Samuel P. Avery.
E. Burrell Baggallay.
E. J. Barron.
B. T. Batsford.
Boylston A. Beal.
Henry Forbes Bigelow.
Mrs. Percy Bigland.
Arthur L. Bilham.
Harry W. Birks.
The Birmingham Central Library.
The Bishopsgate Institute.
John Briggs.
E. W. Brooks.
A. Herve Browning.
Alfred Burr.
Mrs. Cadic.
The Worshipful Company of Carpenters.
Miss A. G. E. Carthew.
W. J. Checkley.
Cyril S. Cobb.
E. C. Colquhoun.
The Columbia University Library.
The Constitutional Club.
William W. Cordingley.
The Rt. Hon. Lord Courtney of Penwith, P.C.
Walter Crane.
The Rt. Hon. the Earl Of Crawford, F.S.A.
The Croydon Public Library.
G. J. Crosbie Dawson.
George H. Duckworth.
The Board of Education.
The Rt. Hon. the Earl Ferrers.
Mrs. Charles Fewster.
Owen Fleming.
Mrs. Wickham Flower.
Miss Forbes.
Sir George Frampton, R.A., F.S.A.
Miss Agnes Garrett.
Sir Rickman Godlee.
Goldsmiths’ Library, University of London.
A. Gray, K.C.
Miss I. I. Greaves.
Maj.-Gen. Sir Coleridge Grove, K.C.B.
The Guildhall Library.
Richard Waldon Hale.
Edwin T. Hall, F.R.I.B.A.
Mrs. Henry Hankey.
Ambrose Heal.
David Hills.
S. J. G. Hoare.
R. R. Hodgson.
V. T. Hodgson.
J. J. Holdsworth.
Charles H. Hopwood, F.S.A.
E. J. Horniman.
Miss Huth.
Mrs. Alfred Huth.
Edward Huth.
Douglas Illingworth.
Mrs. Illingworth Illingworth.
Miss Edith F. Inderwick.
The Rt. Hon. the Viscount Iveagh, K.P., G.C.V.O., F.R.S.
Edward Tyrrell Jaques.
Gilbert Jenkins.
Philip M. Johnston, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.A.
Miss Caroline A. Jones.
C. H. F. Kindermann.
C. L. Kingsford.
Sir Hugh Lane.
Miss E. M. Lang.
G. C. Lawson.
Sir W. H. Lever, Bt., M.P.
H. W. Lewer.
Owen C. Little.
The London Library.
Dr. G. B. Longstaff.
Mary, Countess of Lovelace.
W. L. Lucas.
Justin Huntly Mccarthy.
William McGregor.
The Manchester Central Library.
C. O. Masters.
Miss B. A. Meinertzhagen.
The Metropolitan Public Gardens Association.
G. Vaughan Morgan.
John Murray, F.R.I.B.A.
The New York Public Library.
Allan Nickinson.
F. H. Norman.
R. C. Norman.
Mrs. Robert Norman.
The Rev. J. P. Noyes.
Vere L. Oliver.
The Oxford and Cambridge Club.
F. W. Peters.
Mrs. W. Wilton Phipps.
F. W. Platt.
D’Arcy Power, F.R.C.S.
Sir E. J. Poynter, P.R.A., F.S.A.
F. W. Procter.
The Public Record Office.
Mrs. F. L. W. Richardson.
Colin E. Reader.
The Reform Club.
Sir Joseph Savory.
Sion College.
Mrs. Vernon Smith.
A. G. Snelgrove.
W. J. Songhurst.
H. C. Sotheran.
Walter L. Spiers.
F. B. Spooner.
The Rt. Hon. Lord Alexander Thynne.
A. G. Warren.
The Library of Congress, Washington.
Mrs. Westlake.
Mrs. Wharrie.
J. Barrington White.
Miss M. J. Wilde.
Dr. George C. Williamson.
Walter Withall.
John E. Yerbury.
Keith D. Young, F.R.I.B.A.
 Active Members.

C. R. Ashbee.
Oswald Barron, F.S.A.
A. H. Blake.
W. W. Braines.
A. E. Bullock, A.R.I.B.A.
G. H. Chettle.
A. W. Clapham, F.S.A.
George Clinch, F.G.S., F.S.A., Scot.
A. O. Collard, F.R.I.B.A.
F. T. Dear.
William Doddington.
H. W. Fincham.
Matt. Garbutt.
Walter H. Godfrey.
Mrs. Ernest Godman.
T. Frank Green, A.R.I.B.A.
Edwin Gunn, A.R.I.B.A.
Osborn C. Hills, F.R.I.B.A.
E. W. Hudson.
T. Gordon Jackson, Licentiate R.I.B.A.
Max Judge.
P. K. Kipps, A.R.I.B.A.
Gilbert H. Lovegrove.
Ernest A. Mann, Licentiate R.I.B.A.
E. T. Marriott, M.A.
Cecil G. McDowell.
W. Monk, R.E.
Sydney Newcombe.
E. C. Nisbet.
Robert Pearsall.
A. Wyatt Papworth, A.R.I.B.A.
Francis W. Reader.
Ernest Railton.
John Ravenshaw.
Francis R. Taylor, Licentiate R.I.B.A.
George Trotman.
Miss E. M. B. Warren.
W. A. Webb, A.R.I.B.A.
A. P. Wire.
W. Wonnacott, A.R.I.B.A.
E. L. Wratten, A.R.I.B.A.
Edward Yates.
W. P. Young.
Philip Norman, F.S.A., LL.D., Editor of the Committee.
E. L. Meinertzhagen, J.P., Treasurer of the Committee.
Percy Lovell, B.A., A.R.I.B.A.,
Secretary of the Committee, 27, Abingdon Street, Westminster,
S.W.
CONTENTS.
 PAGE
GENERAL TITLE PAGE i
SPECIAL TITLE PAGE iii
MEMBERS OF THE JOINT PUBLISHING COMMITTEE iv
MEMBERS OF THE SURVEY COMMITTEE v
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATES ix
PREFACE xv
THE SURVEY OF ST. GILES-IN-THE-FIELDS:—
Boundary of the Parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields 1
High Holborn, from the Parish Boundary to Little
Turnstile 3
Nos. 3 and 4, Gate Street 10
High Holborn, between Little Turnstile and Kingsway 13
No. 211, High Holborn 16
Smart’s Buildings and Goldsmith Street 18
Nos. 181 and 172, High Holborn 23
Site of Rose Field (Macklin Street, Shelton Street,
Newton Street (part) and Parker Street (part)) 27
No. 18, Parker Street 33
Great Queen Street (general) 34
No. 2, Great Queen Street 38
Nos. 26 to 28, Great Queen Street 40
Nos. 55 and 56, Great Queen Street 42
Freemasons’ Hall 59
Markmasons’ Hall 84
Great Queen Street Chapel 86
Site of Weld House 93
Nos. 6 and 7, Wild Court 98
No. 16, Little Wild Street 99
No. 1, Sardinia Street 100
Site of Lennox House 101
Nos. 24 and 32, Betterton Street 104
No. 25, Endell Street 105
North of Short’s Gardens 106
Site of Marshland (Seven Dials) 112
The Church of All Saints, West Street 115
 Site of the Hospital of St. Giles 117
Church of St. Giles-in-the-Fields 127
Nos. 14 to 16, Compton Street 141
Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11, Denmark Street 142
North of Denmark Place 144
Site of The Rookery 145
Nos. 100, 101 and 102, Great Russell Street 147
Bedford Square (General) 150
No. 1, Bedford Square 152
Nos. 6 and 6A, Bedford Square 154
No. 9, Bedford Square 157
No. 10, Bedford Square 158
No. 11, Bedford Square 161
No. 13, Bedford Square 163
No. 14, Bedford Square 164
No. 15, Bedford Square 165
No. 18, Bedford Square 166
No. 23, Bedford Square 167
No. 25, Bedford Square 168
No. 28, Bedford Square 170
No. 30, Bedford Square 171
No. 31, Bedford Square 172
No. 32, Bedford Square 174
No. 40, Bedford Square 176
No. 41, Bedford Square 177
No. 44, Bedford Square 178
No. 46, Bedford Square 179
No. 47, Bedford Square 180
No. 48, Bedford Square 181
No. 50, Bedford Square 183
No. 51, Bedford Square 184
Nos. 68 and 84, Gower Street 185
North and South Crescents and Alfred Place 186
House in rear of No. 196, Tottenham Court Road 188
INDEX
PLATES Nos. 1 to 107
MAP OF THE PARISH