CHAPTER XI.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND THE EMANCIPATION OF THE JEWS.

Foreshadowing of the French Revolution--Cerf Berr--Mirabeau on

the Jewish Question in France--Berr Isaac Berr--The Jewish

Question and the National Assembly--Equalization of Portuguese

Jews--Efforts to equalize Paris Jews--Jewish Question

deferred--Equalization of French Jews--Reign of Terror--

Equalization of Jews of Holland--Adath Jeshurun Congregation

--Spread of Emancipation--Bonaparte in Palestine--Fichte's

Jew-hatred--The Poll-Tax--Grund's "Petition of Jews of

Germany"--Jacobson--Breidenbach--Lefrank--Alexander I

of Russia: his Attempts to improve the Condition of the Jews of

Russia.

1791-1805 C. E.

He who believes that Providence manifests itself in history, that sins,

crimes, and follies on the whole serve to elevate mankind, finds in

the French Revolution complete confirmation of this faith. Could this

eventful reaction, which the whole of the civilized world gradually

experienced, have happened without the long chain of revolting crimes

and abominations which the nobility, the monarchy, and the Church

committed? The unnatural servitude inflicted by the temporal and

spiritual powers produced liberty, but nourished it with poison, so

that liberty bit into its own flesh, and wounded itself. The Revolution

was a judgment which in one day atoned for the sins of a thousand

years, and which hurled into the dust all who, at the expense of

justice and religion, had created new grades of society. A new day of

the Lord had come "to humiliate all the proud and high, and to raise up

the lowly." For the Jews, too, the most abject and despised people in

European society, the day of redemption and liberty was to dawn after

their long slavery among the nations of Europe. It is noteworthy that

England and France, the two European countries which first expelled the

Jews, were the first to reinstate them in the rights of humanity. What

Mendelssohn had thought possible at some distant time, and what had

been the devout wish of Dohm and Diez, those defenders of the Jews, was

realized in France with almost magical rapidity.

However, the freedom of the French Jews did not fall into their laps

like ripe fruit, in the maturing of which they had taken no trouble.

They made vigorous exertions to remove the oppressive yoke from

their shoulders; but in France the result of their activity was more

favorable and speedy than in Germany. The most zealous energy in

behalf of the liberation of the French Jews was displayed by a man,

whose forgotten memory deserves to be transmitted to posterity. Herz

Medelsheim or Cerf Berr (born about 1730, died 1793) was the first

to exert himself by word and deed to remove the prejudices against

his co-religionists, under which he himself suffered severely. He was

acquainted with the Talmud, in good circumstances, warm-hearted enough

to avoid the selfishness bred by prosperity, and sufficiently liberal

to understand and spread the new spirit emanating from Mendelssohn.

He was intimately acquainted with the Berlin sage, and undertook

to disseminate the Pentateuch translation in Alsace. Owing to his

position, Cerf Berr was enabled to work for the emancipation of his

brethren. He furnished the French army with the necessaries of war, and

therefore had to be in Strasburg, where no Jew was allowed to live. At

first he was allowed in Strasburg only one winter, but having performed

great services to the state, during the war and a famine under Louis

XV, the permission to stay was repeatedly prolonged by the minister,

and he utilized this favor to take up his permanent residence there.

Cerf Berr drew other Jews to Strasburg. Secretly he purchased houses

for himself and his family, and owing to his services to the state, he

obtained from Louis XVI all the rights and liberties of royal subjects,

especially the exceptional privilege of possessing landed property and

goods. He also established factories in Strasburg, and tried to have

the work done by Jews, so as to withdraw them from petty trading and

deprive their accusers of all excuse for their prejudices.

Although Cerf Berr was a useful member of society, and brought profit

to the town, the Germans in Strasburg viewed the settlement of Jews

within their walls askance, and made every conceivable effort to expel

Berr and his friends. This Philistine narrow-mindedness on the one

hand, and Dohm's advocacy of the Jews on the other, as well as the

partial relief afforded by Emperor Joseph, impelled Berr seriously to

consider the emancipation of the Jews, or at least their admission

to most of the French towns, and to endeavor to carry the measure at

court. To win public opinion, he energetically spread Dohm's Apology in

France. The proposals of Cerf Berr were favorably received at court.

From other quarters, also, the French government was petitioned to

lighten the oppressive measures, which weighed especially on the Jews

of Alsace and Lorraine. The good-natured Louis XVI was inclined to

remove any abuse as soon as it was placed before him in its true light.

The noble Malesherbes, enthusiastic for the well-being of mankind,

probably at the instigation of the king, summoned a commission of Jews,

which was to make suggestions for the amelioration of the condition of

their brethren in France. As a matter of course, Cerf Berr was invited.

As representative of the Jews of Lorraine, his ally, Berr Isaac Berr

of Nancy, was summoned, who afterwards developed the greatest zeal

for the emancipation of his co-religionists. Portuguese Jews from

Bordeaux and Bayonne, the two towns where they resided, were also

included in the commission. Furtado, who subsequently played a part in

the history of the Revolution, Gradis, Isaac Rodrigues of Bordeaux, and

Lopes-Dubec, were members of this commission instituted by Malesherbes.

These eminent men, all of them animated with zealous sympathy for

their languishing brethren, undoubtedly insisted upon the repeal of

exceptional laws, but their proposals are not known. Probably in

consequence of their efforts, Louis XVI abrogated the poll-tax, which

had been particularly degrading to the Jews in the German-speaking

provinces of France.

More effectually than Cerf Berr and the Jewish commission, two men

worked for the liberation of the Jews who in a measure had been

inspired by Mendelssohn and his friends, and were the incarnation of

the Revolution. They were Mirabeau and the Abbé Grégoire, no less

zealous for liberty than the former. Count Mirabeau (born 1749;

died 1791), who was always on the side of the oppressed against the

oppressors, was first induced, by his intimacy with Mendelssohn's

circle, to raise his voice of thunder on behalf of the Jews.

Filled with admiration for the grand personality of Mendelssohn, and

inspired by the thought of accomplishing the deliverance of an enslaved

race, Mirabeau wrote his important work "Upon Mendelssohn and the

Political Reform of the Jews" (1787). Of the former he drew a brilliant

picture. The Jewish sage could not have wished for a warmer, more

inspired, more clear-sighted interpreter. The liking he entertained for

Mendelssohn Mirabeau transferred to the Jews in general.

"May it not be said that his example, especially the outcome

of his exertions for the elevation of his brethren, silences

those who, with ignoble bitterness, insist that the Jews are so

contemptible that they cannot be transformed into a respectable

people?"

This observation was the introduction to Mirabeau's vindication of the

Jews, in which he gave a correct exposition of what Dohm had adduced

and what he himself had experienced. He surveyed the long, tragic

history of the Jews, discovering traits very different from those found

by Voltaire. Mirabeau saw the glorious martyrdom of the Jews and the

disgrace of their oppressors. Their virtues he extolled freely, and

attributed their failings to the ill-treatment they had received.

"If you wish the Jews to become better men and useful citizens,

then banish every humiliating distinction, open to them every

avenue of gaining a livelihood; instead of forbidding them

agriculture, handicrafts, and the mechanical arts, encourage

them to devote themselves to these occupations."

With telling wit, Mirabeau refuted the arguments of the German

anti-Semites, Michaelis and the Göttingen guild of scholars, against

the naturalization of the Jews. It was only necessary to place the

different objections side by side to demonstrate their absurdity. On

the one hand, it was maintained that, in their rivalry with Christians,

the Jews would gain the upper hand, and from another point of view it

was demonstrated that they would always remain inferior. "Let their

opponents first agree among themselves," he remarked, "at present

they refute each other." Mirabeau foresaw, with prophetic clearness,

that in a free and happy condition the Jews would soon forget their

Messianic king, and that therefore the justification of their permanent

exclusion, derived from their belief in the Messiah, was futile.

"There is only one thing to be lamented, that so highly gifted

a nation should so long have been kept in a state wherein it

was impossible for its powers to develop, and every far-sighted

man must rejoice in the acquisition of useful fellow-citizens

from among the Jews."

On all occasions Mirabeau seized the opportunity of speaking warmly

on behalf of the Jews. He was devoted to them and their biblical

literature, and scattered the clouds of prejudice with which Voltaire

had enveloped them. When Mirabeau undertook the defense of any matter,

the victory was already half won. His suggestions for reform came at

the right moment.

Among the thousand matters that occupied public opinion on the eve

of the Revolution was also the Jewish question. The Jews, especially

in Alsace, complained of their unendurable misery, and the Christian

populace, of their intolerable impoverishment through the Jews. In

Metz an anti-Jewish pamphlet had appeared, entitled "The Citizen's

Cry against the Jews," which inflamed the worst passions of the

people against them. The pamphlet was indeed prohibited; but what

slanderous assertion, however incredible, has ever been without

result? Appearances, in point of fact, were against the Jews. A young

Jewish author, the first Alsatian Jew who wrote in French, published a

stinging reply (1787), which justified the expectation that the Jews

would no longer, as in Voltaire's time, permit such insults to pass

unnoticed, but would emerge from their attitude of silent suffering.

Isaiah Berr Bing (born 1759; died 1805), well-educated and eloquent,

better acquainted with the history of his people than his Jewish

contemporaries, including even the Berlin leaders, rebutted every

charge with convincing emphasis.

Through these writings for and against the Jews, the Jewish question

became prominent in France. The Royal Society of Science and Arts in

Metz offered a prize for the best essay in answer to the question, "Are

there means to make the Jews happier and more useful in France?" Three

replies, all in favor of the Jews, were sent in--by two Christian

inquirers, and one Jewish, the Abbé Grégoire, Thiery, the member of

Parliament for Nancy, and Salkind Hurwitz the Pole, of Kovno (on the

Niemen), who had emigrated to Paris. That of Grégoire, however, had

the greatest effect. Grégoire was a simple nature, and in the midst of

universal corruption had preserved a pure, childlike mind.

When these apologetic pamphlets appeared, the storm-charged clouds

of the Revolution, which were to bring about destruction and

reorganization in the world, had already gathered. The fetters of a

double slavery, beneath which European nations groaned, that of the

State and the Church, were at length, in one country at least, to be

broken. As if touched by a magic wand, France turned into a glowing

furnace, where all the instruments of serfdom were consumed, and out

of the ashes arose the French nation, rejuvenated, destined for great

things, the first apostle of the religion of freedom, which it loved

with passionate devotion. Was it not natural to expect the hour to

strike for the redemption of the most abased people, the Jews? Two of

their most ardent defenders sat in that part of the National Assembly

which, truly representative of the nation, restored inalienable

rights to those so long disinherited by Church and State. These

representatives were Mirabeau, one of the fathers of the Revolution,

and the Abbé Grégoire, who owed his election to his essay in defense of

the Jews.

At the outbreak of the Revolution, there lived in France scarcely

50,000 Jews--almost half of whom (20,000) dwelt in Alsace--

under the most oppressive yoke. In Metz, the largest, "the pattern

community," only 420 Jewish families were tolerated, and in the whole

of Lorraine only 180, and these were not allowed to increase. In

Paris, in spite of stringent prohibitions, a congregation of about 500

persons had gathered (since 1740); about as many lived in Bordeaux,

the majority of them of new-Christian or Portuguese descent. There

were also some communities in the papal districts of Avignon and

Carpentras. In Carpentras there dwelt about 700 families (over 2,000

souls) with their own rabbinate. Those in the best condition were the

Jews of Bordeaux and the daughter community of Bayonne. Among the Jews

of the various provinces there was as little connection as among those

in other European countries. Misfortune had separated them. Thus it

happened that no concerted action was taken to obtain naturalization

from the National Assembly at once, although Grégoire, the Catholic

priest, true love for mankind in his heart, exhorted them to seize this

favorable opportunity. They indeed boasted men of energy, filled with

love for their race, and ready for self-sacrifice, men of tact, such

as Cerf Berr, Furtado, Isaac Berr, and David Gradis, but at first no

measures were taken. An appeal for united action may possibly have been

made, but the pride of the Portuguese probably made it ineffectual.

Therefore, in the first stormy months of the Revolution, nothing was

undertaken for the emancipation of the Jews. The deputies in the

States General or the National Assembly were sufficiently occupied

without thinking of the Jews. Besides, they adhered rather closely to

the programme enumerating the wishes of their electors, on which the

emancipation of the Jews was not mentioned. The deputies of Alsace and

Lorraine, in fact, had received instructions to attack the Jews. The

assaults made upon the Jews in the German provinces, as a result of the

disorders of the Revolution, first moved the victims to bring their

complaints before the National Assembly. It was, perhaps, an advantage

that the ripe fruit of liberty did not fall into their laps, but that

they had to exert themselves energetically to obtain it; for thus

liberty became the more precious to them.

The storming of the Bastille had finally torn the scepter from the

deluded king, and handed it over to the people. The Revolution had

tasted blood, and began to inflict punishment upon the tyrants. In

many parts of the land, as if by agreement, castles were burnt down,

monasteries destroyed, and the nobility maltreated or slain. The

people, brought up in ignorance by the Church, and now released from

the chains of slavery, knew not how to distinguish friend from foe,

and rushed recklessly upon what lay nearest their stupid gaze. In

Alsace the lower classes of the people at the same time made a fierce

attack upon the Jews (beginning of August, 1789)--perhaps incited

by secret Jew-haters--destroying their houses, plundering their

property, and forcing them to flee half-naked. They, who hitherto

had been humiliated and enslaved by the nobles and the clergy, were

now fellow-sufferers with their tyrants. The Alsatian Jews mostly

escaped to Basle, and although no Jew was allowed to live there, the

fugitives were sheltered and sympathetically treated. Complaints were

made to the National Assembly of the excesses after the first draught

of liberty; from that Assembly all expected help, no longer from the

monarchy, which had already become a mere shadow. Every deputy received

detailed reports of disquieting, sometimes sanguinary, events. The

ill-treated Jews of Alsace had turned to Grégoire, and he sketched

(August 3) a gloomy picture of the outrages upon the Jews, and added

that he, a servant of a religion which regards all men as brothers,

requested the interference of the powerful arm of the Assembly on

behalf of this despised and unhappy people. He also published a

pamphlet, called "Proposals in Favor of the Jews," to influence public

opinion. Then followed the memorable night of the Fourth of August,

which covered the French nation with eternal fame, when the nobles

sacrificed their privileges on the altar of freedom, and acknowledged

the equality of all citizens--the birth-hour of a new order of

things. In consequence of this agitation, and dreading that they might

fall victims to anarchy, the Jews of the various provinces resolved

to present petitions for admission into the fraternity of the French

people; but again they acted singly, and to some extent preferred

contradictory requests. The Jews of Bordeaux had already joined the

National Guard, and one was even appointed captain. They had only one

desire, that their equalization be sealed by law, and this wish their

four deputies, David Gradis, Furtado, Lopes-Dubec, and Rodrigues,

publicly expressed. About a hundred Parisian Jews were also enrolled

in the National Guard, and rivaled the other citizens in patriotism

and revolutionary spirit. They sent eleven deputies to the National

Assembly, who prayed for the removal of the ignominy which covered them

as Jews, and for equalization by law, saying that the example of the

French people would induce all the nations of the earth to acknowledge

the Jews as brothers. The community of Metz desired besides that their

oppressive taxes be removed, and the debts which they had contracted

in consequence of the taxes be made void. The communities of Lorraine

sent a delegate to the National Assembly, Berr Isaac Berr (born 1744;

died 1828), who, a man of many virtues and merits, and an admirer of

Mendelssohn and Wessely, had great influence. He drew up a petition

containing the special request that the authority and autonomy of the

rabbis in internal affairs be established and recognized by law. The

deputies for Lüneville and an adjacent community protested against

this. It was a long time, however, before the Jewish question became

the distinct order of the day. The National Assembly seemed to shrink

from discussing the point, for fear of stirring up public opinion

still more passionately in the German provinces with their obstinate

prejudices and hatred of Jews.

Religious intolerance manifested itself even in the Assembly. On the

23d of August an exciting sitting was held. The subject of debate

was whether the inviolable rights of man, to be placed at the head

of the constitution, were to include religious freedom of conscience

and freedom of worship. A deputy, De Castellane, had formulated this

point plainly: "No man shall be molested on account of his religious

opinions, nor disturbed in the practice of his belief." Against this

motion a storm arose on the part of the Catholic Clergy and other

representatives of Catholicism. They continually spoke of a dominant

religion or confession, which, as hitherto, should be supported by the

State, whilst other creeds might be tolerated. In vain Mirabeau raised

a bold protest against such presumptuousness.

"The unrestricted freedom of belief is so sacred in my eyes,

that even the word tolerance sounds despotic to me, because the

very existence of an authority empowered to tolerate, injures

freedom, in that it tolerates, because it might do the reverse."

But his powerful voice was drowned by the opposing clamor. The clever

speech of another deputy, Rabaud Saint Etienne, however, gained the

victory for freedom of conscience. He spoke also on behalf of the Jews.

"I demand liberty for the nation of the Jews, always contemned,

homeless, wandering over the face of the whole globe, and

doomed to humiliation. Banish forever the aristocracy of

thought, the feudal system of opinion, which desires to rule

others and impose compulsion upon them."

Amidst strong opposition the law was passed, which has since become the

basis of the European constitution:

"No one shall be molested on account of his religious opinions,

in so far as their outward expression does not disturb public

order as established by law."

Therewith one point in the petition of the French Jews was disposed

of. But when the Jewish question afterwards came on for treatment

(September 3), it was postponed, and handed over to a committee.

Three weeks later the Assembly was again obliged to deal with the

Jewish question. Persecutions which the Jews underwent in certain

places forced it upon them. Those in Nancy were threatened with

pillage, because they were reproached with having bought up provisions

and raised the prices. The Jewish question became so pressing, that

the order of the day (on September 28) was interrupted by it. It

was again Grégoire who defended the persecuted. He was supported by

Count Clermont-Tonnerre, a sincere friend of liberty. With glowing

eloquence he pointed out that Christian society was guilty of the

degradation of the Jews, and that it must offer them some atonement.

The Assembly thereupon resolved that the president address a circular

letter to the various towns, stating that the declaration of the

rights of man, which the Assembly had accepted, comprehended all

men upon earth, therefore also the Jews, who were no longer to be

harassed. The king, with his enfeebled authority, was asked to protect

the Jews from further persecutions. This action, however, produced

no results for the sufferers. The Jews of Alsace remained exposed to

attack, as before. The Jewish representatives of the three bishoprics

of Alsace and Lorraine lost patience, seeing that their equalization

was being constantly deferred. They therefore strove to obtain a

hearing for themselves. Introduced by the deputies of Lorraine to the

National Assembly (October 14), Berr, the indefatigable advocate of

his co-religionists, delivered a speech, in which he portrayed the

sufferings of a thousand years, and implored humane treatment for

them. He worthily fulfilled his task. He was obliged to be brief; the

Assembly, which had to establish a new edifice upon the ruins of the

old kingdom, could not spare time for long speeches. President Preteau

replied that the Assembly would feel itself happy to be able to afford

rest and happiness to the Jews of France. The meeting applauded his

words, permitted the Jewish deputies to be present as guests at the

proceedings, and promised to take the equalization of the Jews into

consideration at the next sitting. From this time the French Jews

confidently hoped that their emancipation would be realized.

Meanwhile, the Revolution had again made a gigantic stride forward:

the people had brought the proud French sovereign like a prisoner from

Versailles to Paris. The deputies also moved to Paris, and the capital

became more and more infected with revolutionary fever. The youthful

Parisian Jews, as well as the immigrants, took great interest in all

occurrences. Even the middle classes aided the cause of the fatherland

by supplying funds. At length the Jewish question was to be settled. A

deputy was appointed to report upon it, and a special sitting called.

But it was brought into connection with another question, namely,

the franchise of executioners, actors, and Protestants, to whom the

Catholic population in some towns did not wish to grant permission to

vote.

The report was sent in by Clermont-Tonnerre, and spoke most logically

in favor of all four classes. All sincere friends of liberty,

Robespierre, Duport, Barnave, and, of course, Mirabeau, expressed

themselves in favor of the Jews and their fellow-sufferers. The

followers of the old school opposed them with determination, chief

among them Abbé Maury, Bishop La Fare of Nancy, and the bishop of

Clermont. Only one ultra-revolutionist, Reubell, from Alsace, spoke

against the Jews, maintaining that it was dangerous forthwith to grant

complete rights of citizenship to those resident in Alsace, against

whom there was deeply-rooted hatred. Abbé Maury produced utterly false,

or partially true statements, as arguments for unfriendly behavior

towards the Jews. He even quoted Voltaire's anti-Jewish writings in

order to prejudice the Assembly. The Assembly hesitated; it feared

to attack the gross prejudice entertained by the populace of the

eastern provinces against the Jews. At the representation of one of

the deputies, the equalization of the Jews was separated from that

of the Protestants, and the resolution ran in this equivocal manner:

that the Assembly reserved to itself the right of deciding about the

Jews, without determining upon anything new concerning them. This

reservation was repeated at the discussion of the laws for the election

of municipal officers (January 8, 1790), from which Jews were excluded.

This evasive decision grossly offended the Portuguese Jews of Bordeaux.

Hitherto they had tacitly enjoyed all the rights of citizens, and in

their turn fulfilled all their duties with self-sacrificing readiness.

Now they were to be kept in uncertainty about their civil status, in

company with the German Jews, against whom they bore an antipathy

not less than that of hostile Christians. They therefore hastily

despatched a deputation to Paris to cause this injurious resolution

to be rescinded. As the population were on better terms with the

Portuguese, their request was easily obtained. The deputy for Bordeaux,

De Sèze, spoke warmly on their behalf. Talleyrand, then bishop of

Autun, was appointed to report upon the matter, and concisely suggested

(February 28), that those Jews who had hitherto enjoyed civil rights

as naturalized Frenchmen should continue to enjoy that privilege. The

enemies of the Jews, of course, opposed this motion, fearing that it

would apply also to German Jews.

Nevertheless, the majority decided that those Jews in France who were

called Portuguese, Spaniards, or Avignonese (of Bordeaux and Bayonne)

should enjoy full privileges as active citizens, and the king at once

approved of this law. It was the first legal recognition of the Jews

as citizens, and, though only a partial recognition, it at least would

serve as a precedent.

The deputies of the Jews from German districts did not so easily attain

success; they had to struggle hard for equality. At the same time

they lighted upon a means whereby to bring pressure to bear upon the

National Assembly, and induce them to concede them full citizenship.

There were five men who worked most perseveringly to remove all

obstacles. They won over to their side the fiery, eloquent advocate

Godard, to plead their cause with pen and tongue. They knew that power

was no longer in the hands of the National Assembly, but had been

seized by the parties of the capital, who, with their revolutionary

ardor, held complete sway over Paris, the deliberating Assembly,

the king, almost the whole country. The Jewish representatives from

Paris, Alsace, and Lorraine therefore turned to them for help. They

had Godard draw up a petition to the National Assembly, stating

that the emancipation of the Jews was not only demanded by the

principles of the Constituent Assembly and by justice, but that it

was cruelty to withhold it. For, so long as their equality was not

legally established, the people would believe that they were indeed

the outcasts their enemies had described them to be. But even more

efficacious than this petition was a scene which the Parisian Jews

arranged with their advocate, before the General Assembly of the

Paris Commune; it decided the question. Fifty Jewish members of the

National Guards, adorned with cockades, among them Salkind Hurwitz,

the Pole, appeared as deputies before the Assembly of the Commune,

and petitioned that the city of Paris itself should energetically set

about obtaining equality for the Jews. Godard delivered a fiery speech

in their support. The president of the General Assembly, Abbé Mulot,

replied to this vigorous address with the fervid eloquence peculiar

to the orators of the Revolution: "The chasm between their religious

conceptions and the truth which we as Christians profess, cannot hinder

us as men from approaching each other, and even if we reproach each

other with our errors and complain of each other, at least we can

love each other." In the name of the meeting he promised to support

the petition of the Paris Jews for equalization. Next day (January

29, 1790), the Jews of Paris obtained a certificate, couched in most

flattering terms, and testifying to their excellent reputation, from

the inhabitants of the district of the Carmelites, where most Jews

dwelt at this time.

The six deputies appointed for the district of the Carmelites then

went to the City Hall, to support the resolution in favor of the Jews.

One of them, Cahier de Gerville, afterwards a minister, delivered

an impressive address. "Do not be surprised," said he, "that this

district hastens to be the first to make public recognition of the

patriotism, the courage, and the nobility of the Jews who dwell in

it. No citizen has proved himself more zealous for the gaining of

liberty than the Jew, ... none has displayed more sense of order and

justice, none shown more benevolence towards the poor, and readiness

in voluntarily contributing towards the expenses of the district. Let

us attack all prejudices, and attack them with determination. Let not

one of the monstrosities of despotism and ignorance survive the new

birth of liberty and the consecration of the rights of man.... Take

into consideration the just and pressing demands in favor of our new

brethren, and join your wishes to their petition, so that thus united

they may come before the National Assembly. Do not doubt but that you

will obtain, without trouble, for the Jews of Paris that which was not

denied the Jews of Portugal, Spain, and Avignon. What reason is there

for showing a preference for this class? Do not all Jews hold the

same doctrines? Are not our political conditions alike for the one as

for the other? If the ancestors of those Jews on whose behalf we plead

experienced more bitter suffering and persecution than the Portuguese

Jews, then this long, cruel oppression which they have sustained should

give them a new claim to national justice. For the rest, look to the

origin of these strange and unjust distinctions, and see whether any

one to-day dares set up a distinction of rights between two classes of

the same people, two branches of the same stem, basing his action upon

apocryphal tradition, or rather upon chimeras and fables."

To this speech the President Abbé Mulot replied, bringing into

prominence the fact that the report from the district of the Carmelites

was to be considered of great weight in favor of the Jews.

The next speech, that of Abbé Bertolio, at length induced the meeting

to add its favorable testimony to the Jews of Paris, and to express the

wish to the National Assembly that these Jews, most of them of German

birth, be put on an equal footing with the Portuguese. Mayor Bailly

and his committee on the same day passed the resolution, that as soon

as the other districts announced their approval, the whole weight of

the influence of the municipality of Paris be exerted on behalf of the

equalization of the Jews. In the course of the following month all

the city districts, with the exception of that of the Halles, sent in

their approval of the decision of the Carmelite district. Accordingly,

a deputation of the Commune, together with its president, Abbé Mulot,

officially commissioned by the capital (February 25), presented itself

at the meeting of the National Assembly, to request, or rather by moral

suasion to compel, that body to extend to Jews resident in Paris the

decree declaring the Portuguese Jews full citizens.

After some delay, certain deputies demanded (April 15) that the Jewish

question be placed on the order of the day. Abbé Maury again opposed

the motion, and promised to present a memorial which the Jews should be

called upon to answer. In order, however, to protect the Jews of Alsace

from the attacks of mobs, the Assembly again decreed that they were

under protection of the laws, and that the magistrates and the National

Guard were to take precautions for their security. In this way they

appeased their consciences. The king forthwith sanctioned (April 18)

the law of protection for the Alsatian Jews, after which the question

was not broached for three months.

Fortunately the Jewish question did not stand isolated, but was

connected with other questions. The Jews of Alsace, especially those of

Metz, had to pay high protection-taxes. When the subject of finances

came on for discussion, the Assembly had to determine whether this tax

should continue or cease. They came to a liberal decision, although

the deputies were sorely troubled about the deficit thus created. The

secretary of the committee of the crown land, Vismes, first showed

how unjust it was that the community of Metz, which Louis XIV, once

when in good humor, had given to the Duke of Brancas and the Countess

De Fontaine, should pay annually to the house of Brancas 20,000

francs. He therefore proposed that the Jew taxes should be remitted

without any indemnification, and that every tribute, under whatever

name--protection-money, residence-tax, or tolerance-money--should

cease. This proposal was passed into law (July 20) almost without

opposition. Louis XVI, who by this act saw another remnant of the

Middle Ages vanish, at first showed himself tardy in confirming the

law (August 7). Ten years previously the Jews of Alsace had in vain

presented a memorial to the state council detailing the misery of their

condition; it received no notice. Owing to the sudden revolution of

affairs, they now achieved in less than an hour more than they had ever

dared hope for.

But the National Assembly would not proceed to deal with the chief

demand of the Jews of the Lower Rhine--as these districts were then

called--to grant them civil rights. Several had expressed themselves

favorably, when the Duc de Broglie intervened with a violent speech.

He asserted that the proposed resolution would engender new causes of

excitement in Lorraine and Alsace, already in a state of ferment owing

to the action of the clergy who refused to take the oath. Strasburg

was likewise greatly excited on account of the Jews, who desired to

settle there, where hitherto no Jew had been permitted. De Broglie

further remarked that the general body of Jews in Alsace was utterly

indifferent to citizenship; that the petition presented in their name

was an intrigue carried on by four or five Jews; especially one, who

had amassed a great fortune at the expense of the state (Cerf Berr),

was scattering large sums of money most liberally in Paris, to gain

adherents for the scheme of equalization. His motion to adjourn this

question till the Constitution was finished was carried.

But the Constitution was definitely fixed and ratified by the king

(September, 1791), and the German-speaking Jews of France did not

obtain the equality so often promised. Only the paragraph in the

"Rights of Man," which said that no one might be molested on account

of his religious opinions, benefited them. At last, a few days before

the dissolution of the National Assembly, the Jews were remembered

by one of the friends of liberty, Duport, a member of the Jacobin

Club, formerly a parliamentary councilor. In a speech of a few words

he procured the equality they so much desired. He drew the natural

conclusion from the above-quoted rights of religious freedom, and said,

"I believe that freedom of thought does not permit any distinction

in political rights on account of a man's creed. The recognition

of this equality is always being postponed. Meanwhile the Turks,

Moslems, and men of all sects, are permitted to enjoy political rights

in France. I demand that the motion for adjournment be withdrawn,

and a decree passed that the Jews in France enjoy the privileges of

citizenship (citoyens actifs)." This proposition was accepted amid

loud applause. In vain did Reubell strive to oppose the motion, he

was interrupted. Another member suggested that every one who spoke

against this motion be called to order, because he would be opposing

the Constitution itself. Thus the National Assembly adopted (September

27, 1791) Duport's proposal, and next day formulated the law that

all exceptional regulations against Jews be abrogated, and that the

German Jews be admitted to the oath of citizenship. Two days later

the National Assembly was dissolved, to make way for a still more

violent revolutionary assembly. A few days later Louis XVI confirmed

this full equalization of the French Jews (November 13, 1791). They

were not required to swerve one iota from their religion as the price

of emancipation; all demanded of them being that they forego certain

ancient privileges.

Berr Isaac Berr was justified in rejoicing at this success, in which he

had had a large share. He at once despatched a letter of congratulation

to his co-religionists, to rouse enthusiasm for their newly-attained

freedom, and at the same time incline them to appropriate improvements.

"At length the day has arrived on which the veil is torn

asunder which covered us with humiliation! We have at last

again obtained the rights of which we have been deprived

for eighteen centuries. How deeply at this moment should we

recognize the wonderful grace of the God of our forefathers! On

the 27th September we were the only inhabitants of this great

realm who seemed doomed to eternal humiliation and slavery, and

on the very next day, a memorable day which we shall always

commemorate, didst Thou inspire these immortal legislators of

France to utter one word which caused 60,000 unhappy beings,

who had hitherto lamented their hard lot, to be suddenly

plunged into the intoxicating joys of the purest delight."

"God chose the noble French nation to reinstate us in our due

privileges, and bring us to a new birth, just as in former days

He selected Antiochus and Pompey to degrade and oppress us....

This nation asks no thanks, except that we show ourselves

worthy citizens."

Berr added certain important, timely remarks, in which he gently

pointed out to his French co-religionists faults growing out of their

former wretched plight, and admonished them to remove these faults.

He also supplied the French Jews with means to enable them to become

thorough Frenchmen and at the same time remain members of the House

of Jacob. The Bible was to be rendered into French on the basis of

Mendelssohn's German translation, and put into the hands of the young,

so that the corrupt German language which they used might be completely

banished from their midst. Berr thus attacked a foolish prejudice which

regarded the German or Jewish-German dialect as akin in sanctity to

the Hebrew, therefore a more worthy organ for Divine Service than the

language of Voltaire.

Berr was thoroughly imbued with the conviction that Judaism was in

every way compatible with liberty, civilization, and patriotism for the

country which had restored to his co-religionists their rights as men.

Berr was a better disciple of Mendelssohn than David Friedländer and

the Berlin Jews.

With great assiduity and self-sacrifice, most of the French Jews

interested themselves in the welfare of the state which had given them

a fatherland, liberty, and equality. They destroyed at one blow all

the calumniations of their opponents, who had asserted that as Jews

they would not be able to fulfill the duties of citizens. They came to

the front whenever the state stood in need of help. A large number of

Jews in this feverish time calling forth courageous action, threw aside

with wonderful rapidity the shy, grovelling manner which had debarred

them from intercourse with the world, and had subjected them to general

ridicule. When the French legions, inspired by freedom, had put to

rout the mercenary troops of Germany, Moses Ensheim, the Hebrew poet

of the Mendelssohn school, composed a fiery triumphal hymn, similar to

the song of Deborah, which was solemnly chanted in the synagogue. The

Jews, however, took no part whatever in the bloody atrocities of the

Revolution.

In the frenzy of the Reign of Terror, which like a scourge of God

fell upon the innocent and the guilty, some Jews also suffered. The

familiarity of the Jews with persecutions, their acuteness, and the

dexterity with which they effaced themselves, their obedience to the

precept, "Bend thy head a moment, till the storm is passed," protected

them against wide-spread massacre. In general, they were not stirred by

the ambition to thrust themselves forward, or a desire to take part in

affairs; nor did they give offense to the rulers of the hour. Thus the

storm of the Revolution rushed over them without serious results.

The attack upon a belief in God, when the two blaspheming deputies,

Chaumette and Hebert, succeeded in inducing the convention (November,

1793-May, 1794) to set up the religion of Reason, had likewise

no effect upon the Jews. The intense hostility and anger felt to

religion and the Divinity were directed only against Catholicism, or

Christianity, by whose servants mankind had ever been degraded, who

themselves had sacrificed myriads of victims, and during the Revolution

had fomented a civil war. The Reign of Terror, the Massacre of

September, and the Guillotine, had been conjured up by them almost as

a sad, stern necessity, because, together with the feudal aristocracy,

they were bitter enemies of freedom. The decree of the Convention ran

thus: "The Catholic faith is annulled, and replaced by the worship of

Reason." This represented not alone the mood of the most advanced, the

Jacobins; it was the inclination of the French people to oppose the

Church and its followers fiercely, because of a feeling that they are

naturally hostile to liberty. Twenty days after the resolution of the

Convention had been passed, more than 2,300 churches were transformed

into Temples of Reason. The law included no provisions against Jews

and Protestants. Only the magistrates or fanatically inclined members

of clubs in the provinces, principally, it appears, in the old German

districts, extended the order for the suppression of religion to the

Jews also. In Nancy an official demanded of the Jews of the town, in

the name of the city council, that they attend on an appointed day

at the National Temple, and together with the clergy of other creeds

renounce "their superstition," and further surrender all the silver

and golden vessels of the synagogue. Brutal and riotous men forced

their way into the synagogues, tore the Holy Writings from the Arks and

burnt them, or searched the houses for books written in Hebrew in order

to destroy them. Prayers in the synagogues of certain congregations

were forbidden just as in the churches. By reason of the spy system

which the revolutionary clubs supported, to enable them to oppose

the imminent counter-revolution, even private meetings for religious

purposes were attended with great danger. When the order of the

Convention was issued, decreeing that every tenth day be observed as

a day of rest, and making Sunday a working day, the Mayors of certain

cities, as of Strasburg and Troyes, extended this decree also to the

Sabbath. They commanded that Jewish merchants display their wares for

sale on the Sabbath. In agricultural districts Jews were compelled, on

the Sabbath and on Jewish Holidays, to mow and gather in the crops, and

rabbis as well as bishops were molested. David Sinzheim, who lived

in Strasburg, and afterwards became president of the great French

Synhedrion, was forced to flee from town to town to escape imprisonment

or death. In Metz the Jews dared not openly bake their Passover cakes,

until a clever Jewish matron had the courage to explain to the officers

of the Revolution that this bread had always been a symbol of freedom

with the Jews. In Paris Jewish schoolmasters were compelled to conduct

their pupils to the Temple of Reason into which the church of Notre

Dame had been transformed on the Décadi. However, this persecution

passed away without any serious effects. With the victory of the

Thermidorians (9 Thermidor--July 27, 1794) over Robespierre, the

Reign of Terror began to die out. The populace was anxious to resort

to milder means. The equalization of the French Jews, once definitely

settled, remained untouched through all changes of government. The new

Constitution of the year Three of the Republic, or the Constitution of

the Directory (autumn of 1795), recognized the adherents of Judaism,

without further difficulty, as on an equal footing with all around

them; moreover, it wiped away the last trace of inequality, inasmuch

as the Catholic Church was no more than the synagogue acknowledged to

be the state church. The law laid down the fundamental proposition,

that no one can be compelled to contribute to the expenses of a church

establishment, as the Republic subsidized none. Only the community of

Metz had to suffer under some baneful effects of the Middle Ages.

Together with the victorious French troops of the Republic, the

deliverance of the Jews, of the most oppressed race of the ancient

world, advanced from one place to another. It took firm root in

Holland, which had been changed into a Batavian Republic (beginning

of 1795). Here several energetic Jews, among them Asser (Moses and

Carolus), De Lemon, and Bromet, had joined a club, called Felix

Libertate, which had taken the motto of the French Republic--Liberty,

Equality, and Fraternity.

These state maxims were on the whole adopted by the assembled States

General (March 4, 1795). Although the 50,000 Jews of Holland, who

formed the thirty-ninth part of the whole population of the country,

and were divided into the Portuguese and German communities, might

justly have regarded this land as their Paradise, they had hitherto

been laboring under many disadvantages as compared with Christians.

They were suffered to exist only as corporate bodies, little

commonwealths, as it were, in the midst of larger ones. That they

were excluded from public offices did not trouble them. But they

were also debarred from several trade-guilds, and this was a matter

of great importance to them. They had to contribute to the ruling

church establishment and to its schools without deriving any benefit

therefrom. Also, there was no lack of vexatious grievances. In

Amsterdam, for instance, when a Jewish couple went to register their

wedding, they were compelled to wait till Christians had been attended

to, and, besides, to pay double fees. On this account the demand for

equalization became pressing, more on the part of the German than on

that of the Portuguese Jews, the latter, wealthy and of noble birth,

being generally treated with distinction by the patricians, whilst the

Germans were despised as wretched Poles. In the first excitement of the

agitation several disabilities of the Jews of Holland or Batavia were

removed, and voices were raised in favor of their admission to full

civil rights. But later on, as in France, writings hostile to the Jews

roused public opinion against them. Amongst these Van Swieden's work,

entitled "Advice to the Representatives of the People," especially

produced a great impression.

He asserted that owing to their origin, their character, their history,

and their belief in the Messiah, the Jews remained strangers, and could

not be absorbed by the state. This statement was in a measure accepted

by the official representatives of Judaism as correct. For strangely

enough the rabbis and administrators of Jewish affairs, especially the

powerful Parnassim in Amsterdam, alike in the Portuguese and German

communities, were averse to equalization. They feared that Judaism

would suffer from the great freedom of the Jews and from their new

duties, such as military service.

In a circular letter they declared that the Jews renounced citizenship,

seeing that it was opposed to the commands of Holy Writ. Within

a short time this declaration was covered with more than one

thousand signatures. Although Jews were invited, but few took part

in the election of the first Batavian National Assembly (Nationale

Vergadering). Thus it happened that Amsterdam, which contained more

than 20,000 Jews, did not return a single Jewish deputy. The Jewish

friends of liberty in Holland were in a sorry plight, having to combat

enemies within and without. They were driven to exert all their

energy to overcome this double difficulty. David Friedrichsfeld, a

member of the school of the Measfim, who had settled in Amsterdam,

composed an excellent work (about 1795) against the assailants of

the Jews, called "Investigation of Van Swieden's Work in Reference

to the Civil Rights of the Jews." Beside him, six distinguished and

intelligent Jews--most of them of German descent--developed the

greatest zeal to accomplish the emancipation of the Jews of Holland.

They were: Herz Bromet, who had long lived in Surinam, where he was

recognized as a free citizen, and whence he had brought a knowledge of

politics and a fortune; Moses Asser, who had been appointed knight of

the Belgian Order of the Lion; another Asser, Carolus, and Isaac de

Jonghe, all distinguished members of the German community. Only two

of the Portuguese community participated in the endeavor to obtain

equalization of rights: the highly respected physician Herz de Lemon,

and Jacob Sasportas. They presented a petition to the Batavian National

Assembly (March 29, 1796), which held its sittings at the Hague,

demanding the emancipation of the Batavian Jews as a right; inasmuch as

they were citizens of the Batavian Republic, possessing the franchise,

and had already exercised civil rights, they prayed the Assembly to

declare that they might enjoy this privilege in its entirety. The

National Assembly considered the petition, and appointed a commission

to advise and decide upon it. When the Jewish question came on for

discussion (August, 1796), excitement ran high, and the tension between

the parties was great.

Although the emancipation of the Jews in the Batavian Republic had been

recognized in principle, and practically acknowledged by the permission

to vote at the election, there were still many opponents to contend

against, almost more than in France. The conservative Dutch deputies

in their hearts believed firmly in the Bible, and they considered as

the word of God the writings of the New Testament, in which it was said

that the Jews were outcasts, and should remain so. The relatively large

number of Jews, their wealth, respectability, and intelligence, gave

cause for grave fears that they would make their way into the highest

offices of the state, and expel the Christians. Sixty or a hundred

thousand Jews, in the great territory of France, were lost like a grain

of sand in an immense plain, but fifty thousand among two millions,

especially twenty thousand Jews in Amsterdam among two hundred thousand

Christians, might make themselves felt, and effect their purpose. One

of the deputies, Lublink de Jonghe, dwelt upon this state of affairs

with great emphasis. If the friends of the Jews pointed to America,

where, as in France, they had recently attained to full civil rights,

then he brought into prominence the unequal proportion of numbers; in

Holland their great number would soon invest the populace with Jewish

characteristics. The noble Portuguese might be admitted to full rights;

but as to the German Jews, the majority of whom were outcasts, Lublink

de Jonghe quoted Pinto's work against Voltaire, in which he, a Jew

himself, had plainly shown the vast difference between the Portuguese

and the German Jews. Thus the artificial caste feeling, within the fold

of Judaism, brought about its own revenge. The fear was still greater

that the number of the Jews in Holland might be considerably increased

by immigrants from Germany and Poland, whose goal, for a long time

past, had been Amsterdam. Opponents to the scheme of equalization could

further adduce the argument that the majority of Jews did not desire

emancipation, and that the six petitioners had acted without authority.

Noel, the French ambassador, in somewhat imperious fashion, took the

first step in favor of the equalization of the Jews. After a long

debate, the complete equality of the Batavian Jews was finally decreed

(September 2, 1796), with the addition, for those who wished to make

use of it. Thereupon all earlier provincial and municipal laws which

referred to their disabilities were abolished.

The Jews in Holland did not receive the announcement of this decision

with joy, as those in France, when the rights of equality had been

granted them. They had not felt the deprivation of liberty enough to go

into ecstasies about their new freedom. They had no ambition to obtain

state offices, and saw in citizenship only a burden and a danger to

religion. They therefore were embittered against those who had procured

their equalization, and so had broken asunder the bonds which held

the two congregations together as corporate bodies. Thus there arose

causes for dispute and internal dissension in Amsterdam.

The liberal-minded, most of whom belonged to the German community,

demanded that the regulations which endowed the rabbis, and to a

greater extent the Parnassim, or wardens, with powerful authority

over the members, should be altered in accordance with the spirit

of the age. The leaders of the community not only refused this

demand, but even threatened the petitioners with fines. Upon this

the advanced left the existing synagogue, established their own

congregation, and declared that they constituted the real community

(Adath Jeshurun, formed at the end of 1796). The conservative members

of the old community thereupon passed a kind of interdict upon the

separatists, forbade their own congregants to have any intercourse,

or to intermarry with them. The political divergence of opinion at

the same time became a religious one; for the supporters of the new

congregation, Adath Jeshurun, initiated a sort of reform. They struck

out of their ritual the formula of imprecation (v'la-Malshinim), which

had originally been directed against the apostate Jewish Christians,

but by misinterpretation was afterwards applied to all Christians.

They abolished the practice of hastily burying the dead, and erected

a new, clean communal bath,--innocent reforms, which, however, were

regarded by the strictly orthodox as grave offenses against Judaism.

The new congregation succeeded in having the fanatical leaders of the

German community, who were more inconsiderate than the Portuguese in

their opposition to those who had withdrawn from their midst, removed

from their posts, probably through the action of the French ambassador

Noel. Among the new council officers, members of the new congregation

were elected. Gradually many of the old party became reconciled to

the new order of things and to the aspirations of the liberal-minded

section. The orthodox were also greatly flattered when two Jews, Bromet

and De Lemon, were elected as deputies for Amsterdam. Several attended

at the Hague at the opening of the second National Assembly (September

1, 1797), to participate in the honor of the Jewish deputies. They

were still more pleased with the idea of equalization when the Jewish

deputy, Isaac da Costa Atias, was successively elected a member of the

city council, of the National Assembly, and finally to the position of

President of the same (1798). The head of the Batavian Republic, the

Grand Pensioner Schimmelpenink, was in earnest about the emancipation

of the Jews, and without hesitation appointed able Jews to public

offices. The first appointment to public posts in Europe was made in

Holland.

It was natural that a sense of self-importance and honorable pride

should be awakened in the breasts of the liberal members of the new

congregation, among whom state offices were distributed. Indignation

seized them when they saw that the Jews under the German princes

were still treated as outcasts or wild beasts. They therefore laid a

proposal before the National Assembly, entreating that the Batavian

ambassador to the French Republic be instructed to move at the Peace

Congress held at Rastadt, that the Dutch Jews in Germany should no

longer be compelled to pay poll-tax, and to threaten that, unless this

was granted, all Germans journeying through Holland would be subjected

to the same dishonorable treatment. The National Assembly agreed to

this proposition.

Righteous judgment soon overtook the German princes and people, who,

stubborn as Pharaoh and the Egyptians, refused to loosen the chain of

slavery from the Jews. They themselves were soon forced to become the

_servi cameræ_ of the French Republic, and to pay a poll-tax. Wherever

in Germany and Italy the courageous French obtained firm footing, the

Jews were made free. The walls of the Ghetto were burst open, and bent

figures stood erect.

The name of the invincible French, who had achieved wonderful victories

in Italy, quickly spread abroad, even beyond Europe, and aroused

terror and surprise in the most remote countries. A new Alexander,

the Corsican Bonaparte, a god of war when scarcely thirty years old,

set out with a comparatively small army to subdue Egypt, and hoped to

penetrate to India. In less than six months (July-November, 1798) Egypt

lay crushed at his feet. But a Turkish army was on its way to meet

him, against which Bonaparte advanced into Palestine. Thus, through a

marvelous series of historical events, the Holy Land became the scene

of a bloody war between the representatives of the old and the new

spirit in Europe.

El Arish and Gaza in the south-west of Palestine fell into the hands

of the French army, which scarcely numbered 12,000 men (17th and 25th

February, 1799). The Jewish community of Gaza had fled. In Jerusalem

the news of French victories and cruelty created a panic. It was

rumored that Napoleon was about to enter the Holy City. At the command

of the sub-pasha, or Motusallim, the inhabitants began to throw up

ramparts, the Jews taking part in the work. One of their rabbis,

Mordecai Joseph Meyuchas, encouraged and even assisted them in their

operations. The Turks had circulated the report that the French treated

Jews particularly in a cruel manner. Bonaparte had issued a summons to

the Asiatic and African Jews to march under his banners, promising to

give them the Holy Land, and restore ancient Jerusalem to its pristine

splendor. But the Jews in Jerusalem appear either not to have trusted

in these flattering words, or to have been utterly ignorant of the

proclamation. Probably it was only a trick on the part of Bonaparte,

intended to win over to his side the Jewish minister of the pasha of

Acco, Chayim Maalem Farchi (assassinated in 1820), the soul of the

defense of the important sea-fortress of Acco. Had Bonaparte succeeded

in conquering Syria and carrying the war into the heart of Turkey, he

would perhaps have assigned a share in his government to members of

the Jewish nation upon whom the French could rely. But the appearance

of Bonaparte in Palestine was like that of a terrible meteor, which

disappears after causing much devastation. His dream to become Emperor

of the East, and restore Jerusalem to the Jews, quickly faded away.

The glowing enthusiasm for France, where his enthralled co-religionists

had been freed, had created a Jewish poet in Elia Halevi, while a

Jewish youth was aroused to become a spirited orator, whose eloquence

was always tinged with poetry. Michael Berr (born 1780, died 1843),

a worthy son of Isaac Berr, who had so zealously striven for the

emancipation of the Jews of France, in his youth aroused great hopes,

by reason of his handsome, noble form, and his manifold talents. In

him for the first time Jewish and French spirit met in harmonious

combination. He was the first Jewish attorney in France. Animated

by the ambition of courageous youth and in the glow of his fiery

spirit, this young man conceived a bold idea, at the beginning of the

new century, when peace was concluded. A Congress of the princes of

Europe was expected to take place. To them and their people Michael

Berr addressed a "Summons" in the name of "all the inhabitants of

Europe professing the Jewish religion," praying them to free his

co-religionists from oppression, and to guarantee to them the justice

so long withheld. This youth voiced the hopes of rejuvenated Israel.

Berr's summons was especially directed to the Germans, both to princes

and nations, who still treated the Jews living in their midst as

branded _servi cameræ_.

Berr, who was inspired with love for his co-religionists, preached

to deaf ears, his burning words and convincing arguments finding no

response in the hearts of the Eastern European people. In Austria,

Prussia, and the numerous smaller German states, the Jews remained in

their former abasement. In Berlin itself, the seat of enlightenment,

Jewish physicians, however honorable their reputation, were not

included in the list of their Christian fellow-practitioners, but were

enumerated by themselves, relegated, as it were, to a medical Ghetto.

Two men of the first rank, the greatest poet and the greatest thinker

of the time, Göthe and Fichte, shared in the prejudices of the Germans

against the Jews, and made no secret of it. Göthe, the representative

of the aristocratic world, and Fichte, the defender of democratic

opinion in Germany, both desired to see the Jews removed like plague

patients beyond the pale of Christian society. Both were on bad terms

with the Church, both looked upon Christianity with its belief in

miracles as a folly, and both were considered atheists. Nevertheless

they abhorred the Jews in the name of Jesus. Göthe's intolerance

against the Jews cannot be taken as the expression of his personal

prejudice; he only showed how the current of opinion flowed in cultured

German circles.

Fichte, the one-sided complement of Kant, was still more savage and

embittered against the Jews. Like most German metaphysicians, his

philosophy was of a visionary nature before the outbreak of the French

Revolution.

Apparently Fichte bestowed great honor upon the Jews when he put them

on a level with the nobility and the clergy. But he did not wish in any

way to honor them, but rather to accuse them before the bar of public

opinion. Fichte, the philosophical thinker, cherished the same ill-will

against the Jews and Judaism as Göthe, the aristocratic poet, and

Schleiermacher, the Gnostic preacher.

Should civil rights be granted to Jews? Fichte opposed it in a most

decided fashion; not even in the Christian state, in his view a petty

state, contrary to right and reason, should they be emancipated. "The

only way I see by which civil rights can be conceded to them (the Jews)

is to cut off all their heads in one night, and to set new ones on

their shoulders, which should contain not a single Jewish idea. The

only means of protecting ourselves against them is to conquer their

promised land and send them thither." History judged otherwise: new

heads have not been set on the Jews, but on the Germans themselves.

His view was that Jews should not be persecuted, that, in fact, the

rights of men should be granted them, "because they are men," but that

they should be banished altogether. Even the clerical opponents of

emancipation in France, Abbé Maury and Bishop La Fare, had not spoken

of the Jews in so perverse and hateful a manner. Fichte may be regarded

as the father and apostle of national German hatred of the Jews, of

a kind unknown before, or rather never before so clearly manifested.

Even Herder, although filled with admiration for Israel's antiquity and

the people in its biblical splendor,--the first to examine sacred

literature from a poetical point of view--felt an aversion to the

Jews, which became apparent in his relations with Mendelssohn, whom it

cost him an effort to treat in a friendly manner. Herder, it is true,

prophesied a better time, when Christian and Jew would work together in

concord on the structure of human civilization. But like Balaam of old,

he pronounced his blessings upon Israel in a half-hearted way. This

growing hostility to the Jews among the Germans was not noticed by

educated Jews who dwelt in their midst, at least they did not combat it

vigorously. Only one pamphlet from the pen of a Jewish author appeared

at this time. Saul Asher wrote his "Eisenmenger the Second, an open

letter to Fichte," but hardly any notice was taken of it.

If the Jews met with no favor in the eyes of those who formed public

opinion in Germany, who had raised it from antiquated customs to

a brilliant height of culture, both in the democratic and in the

aristocratic camps, but experienced at their hands only repulse and

scorn, how much worse was their relation to the great mass of the

populace, still engulfed in the depths of darkest ignorance and

crudeness! Two noble-minded Christians addressed to the Congress

of Rastadt the soundest arguments that the German Jews should be

raised from their ignominious condition. One of them, an unknown

philanthropist, hurled the shaft of ridicule at the stupidity and

bombastic haughtiness of the German Jew-haters, and the other,

Christian Grund, demonstrated with pitiless logic the injustice with

which the Jews were treated. Both desired to support the demand of

the Dutch Jews to the diplomatic representatives, that the princes

of Germany be compelled to respect the Jews, and that influence be

brought to bear upon public opinion to that effect. Grund acted as a

clever advocate for the Jews; he complimented the Germans in order to

win favor with them. "The German Jews," said he, "venture to approach

the German nation, capable of great deeds, the creator of its own

destinies, not merely an imitator of the actions of other peoples,

uniting their voice with that of their brethren, to petition the

representatives of the nation at Rastadt most respectfully for the

abolition of those distinctions under which they live, and for the

acquisition of greater rights." The answer of the German princes and

rulers was not very encouraging.

The most disgraceful degradation and humiliation of the Jews consisted

in the poll-tax, an impost unknown outside of Germany. Of what

advantage was it that Emperor Joseph of Austria and Frederick William

II had remitted it? It still existed in all its hideousness in Central

and Western Germany, in the districts of the Main and the Rhine, where

diminutive states bordered close on other diminutive states of the

extent of a square mile, and where turnpike after turnpike at short

intervals presented itself. If a Jew took a day's journey, he passed

through different territories, and at the borders of each had to

pay a poll-tax. A Jewish beggar, accompanied by his young son, once

exhibited his poll-tax bills, which amounted to a florin and a half for

six days, paid in various places. The way in which the tax was levied

was more degrading than the duty of paying it. Very often the tax

amounted to a few kreuzers, which only the poor, who were not exempt

from it, felt as a burden. But the brutal procedure of the officers,

and the ignominious treatment at each frontier-line offended also the

rich. As long as the French armies were encamped in German territory,

the Jews escaped paying the poll-tax. But no sooner was the peace of

Lüneville concluded, and the French troops withdrawn, than the petty

German princes re-imposed the tax, not in order to raise the small

income derivable from this source, but to humiliate the Jews. They

inflicted the insult also upon French Jews who crossed the Rhine for

business purposes, defending their action by a literal construction

of one of the articles of the peace of Campo Formio, which stated:

"All business and intercourse shall for the present continue under the

same conditions as before the war." The French Jews, proud of their

citizenship, would not submit, severed their business connections with

Germany, and complained of the injustice to the French government,

by whom the question was not lightly passed over. The government

commissioner Jollivet despatched a circular letter (1801) to the agents

of the French Republic resident at German courts, instructing them not

to permit French citizens of the Israelite faith to be degraded to

animals. They were to make earnest representations to the governments

concerned, and menace them with retaliation. Several small princes,

like those of Solms, gave heed, and forthwith removed the poll-tax;

from fear of the French the French Jews were freed from it, but it

still weighed heavily upon German travelers. Every step towards the

removal of oppressive restrictions in Germany was the result of great

exertions.

In consequence of the peace of Lüneville, the Holy Roman Empire

was now for the first time dismembered. The representatives of the

Empire, assembled in Ratisbon, were driven to seek means of bringing

their disunited members into some sort of order, or to decide upon

the indemnity for the damage suffered. To this conference of the

ambassadors of eight princes, occupied with traffic in territory,

and regarded by the short-sighted as representing the German nation,

the German Jews presented a petition asking for passive citizenship

(November 15, 1802). This entreaty was drawn up "in the name of

the Jews of Germany," by state attorney Christopher Grund. Which

congregation, or what individuals zealous for emancipation had

commissioned him to do this is not exactly known. It appears that the

petition originated in Frankfort. It prayed that the representatives

of the Empire remove from the German Jews the burdensome distinctions

under which they labored; that the narrow confines in which they were

forced to reside be thrown open, so that for the sake of health and

free enjoyment of life, they might select their own dwelling-place

in the cities. Further, that the bonds by which their population,

their trade, and their industry were restricted to a fatal degree

be loosened, and that, in short, the Jewish community be considered

worthy, by the grant of civil rights, to constitute one united people

with the German nation. The Jews, or their attorney Grund, cited the

fact that they were "classed with dishonorable persons, outlaws, and

serfs." The miserable condition of the Frankfort community, which,

after the orders promulgated for the regulation of the town in 1616,

had been deprived of natural freedom, and crowded together into the

narrowest limits, served as a conclusive proof. The example of France

and the Batavian Republic in emancipating the Jews was adduced; but

the Jews could hardly have deceived themselves with the fond hope that

the representatives of the Empire would concede so much to them. They

hoped at least to have one restriction removed, viz., that of the

poll-tax, and this point was insisted upon with great vigor. "The most

degrading of all these disabilities," they said, "is the poll-tax,

which removes the name of Jew from the category of rational beings, to

place it among wild beasts, and forces him to pay his way when he sets

foot upon one soil or another." Contrary to expectation, this petition

to the representatives of the Empire was handed in and supported by

the most distinguished member among them, the ambassador from the

Electorate of Bohemia or Austria. He proposed the motion "that the Jews

of Germany be allowed civil rights" (at the end of 1802). Meantime the

Indemnification Congress had other affairs to engross its attention,

and its members were unable to occupy themselves with the Jewish

question. The petition was buried under a pile of state papers.

Nothing was to be expected from the German people, as those who watched

the course of affairs readily perceived. The Jews therefore directed

their zeal towards inducing the various governments to remit the

poll-tax. Two men made their names famous in the struggle to remove

this odious impost, viz., Israel Jacobson and Wolff Breidenbach. The

former, court agent and finance counselor to the Prince of Brunswick,

succeeded in procuring the abolition of the poll-tax in the territories

of Brunswick-Lüneburg (April 23, 1803). During a number of years Wolff

Breidenbach strove in the same cause, and effected more far-reaching

results. Breidenbach was born in a village of that name near Cassel,

1751, and died at Offenbach 1829. He was a man of high culture, noble

ideals, and so modest that his name has almost been forgotten in spite

of all the sacrifices he made on behalf of the German Jews. He did not,

like Jacobson, make provisions to have his name spread far and wide.

Deeply moved by the annoyances, and the contemptuous treatment

inflicted on Jewish travelers in places where the tax was imposed,

which came daily under the notice of Breidenbach in his business

journeys, he determined at least to have the poll-tax remitted, and

applied himself with all his energy to this task. Quietly he strove to

have the chain loosened, where it weighed most heavily. He perceived

that large sums of money would be required to provide presents for the

police magistrates and the city clergy under the pretense of giving

alms to the poor, and also "to erect beautiful monuments in honor

of magnanimous princes" who would allow themselves to be influenced

to leave the Jews untaxed and unoppressed. He was not able to meet

this enormous expense out of his own means. He therefore issued a

summons to German and foreign Jews (September, 1803), asking them to

subscribe to a fund, from which the cost of abolishing the poll-tax

might be defrayed. It was well known at the time who circulated this

appeal, but out of modesty, Breidenbach did not append his name. By

these means, and through negotiations with the minor German princes

at the Diet in Ratisbon, carried on with the friendly help of the

imperial chancellor, Dalberg, and finally by the recommendations of the

princes themselves, who learned to esteem him, Breidenbach succeeded

in obtaining the right of free passage for the Jews throughout the

Rhineland and Bavaria. Even the narrow-minded, Jew-hating, most noble

council of Frankfort was moved by Breidenbach's petition to abolish the

poll-tax exacted at the gates and bridges.

The petition of the Jews to the representatives of the Empire for

civil privileges, however restricted, the feeling displayed by

several princes in favor of removing their bonds, and other signs,

made the Jew-haters of Germany suspect that the old condition of

imperial serfdom would soon vanish. They were terror-struck; they

could not conceive the idea that the down-trodden Jews should be

raised from their abasement in Germany. This painful idea induced a

host of authors, most of them jurists, as if by mutual agreement, to

employ all their efforts in various parts of Germany in opposing the

deliverance of the Jews from slavery. Among these men were Paalzow,

Grattenauer, Buchholz, and many anonymous writers, who persisted in

their hostility for several years (1803-1805). They displayed hatred

to the Jews, so malignant that it savored of the days of the Black

Death, of Capistrano, Pfefferkorn, and the Dominicans. They produced

an artificial fog, to prevent the spread of rays of enlightenment. In

former days it had been the servants of the church who had branded

the Jews with dishonor. Now the priests of justice assumed this part,

and by perversion of justice sought to keep the Jews in servitude,

for which course Fichte had prepared the way. As soon as the petition

of the Jews reached the representatives of the Empire in Ratisbon, a

jurist of South Germany opposed it, urging that a thousand reasons

existed why Jews were unworthy of becoming citizens of the Empire

and the provinces. The greater number and the most obstinate of

the representatives of this Jew-baiting movement had their seat in

Berlin, the city of enlightenment and of the Christianity taught by

Schleiermacher. The character, teachings, and history of the Jews, even

their prophets and patriarchs, in fact, everything Jewish, was attacked

by these cowardly writers, most of whom wrote anonymously, and was made

the subject of foulest abuse and vituperation.

The leaders of Berlin Judaism were at a loss how to oppose these

systematic onslaughts. David Friedländer remained silent. Ben-David

resolved to write an answer, but wisely abstained. The parts were now

changed. In the days of Mendelssohn, and for some time afterwards,

the German Jews had acted as guardians to the French Jews whenever

the latter had any grievances to redress. Now freedom had made the

French Jews so powerful and confident that they repulsed every attack

upon themselves and their belief with courage and skill. The Berlin

Jews, who had always been ready enough to boast of their courage, at

the first hostile attack found themselves helpless as babes. In their

perplexity they solicited the aid of the police, who issued an order

that no pamphlet either for or against the Jews should be published.

This step was regarded by their antagonists as a sign of cowardice or

a confession of powerlessness. A new abusive tract, entitled "Can the

Jews remain in their present condition without harm to the state?" gave

additional weight to the accusations against them.

"What were a number of the most wealthy Jews or their fathers

twenty or thirty years ago? Hawkers, who crawled about the

streets in ragged clothes, annoying the passers-by with

their importunity to buy some yards of Potsdam hair riband;

or rustics, who, under the pretext of trading, stole into

Christian dwellings, and often did damage to their owners."

This writer proposed to render the Jews harmless by means more

revolting than those employed in the Middle Ages.

"Not only must the Jews again be enclosed in a Ghetto, and be

placed under continual police supervision; not only should

they be compelled to wear a patch of noticeable color upon

their coat sleeves, but in order to prevent their increase, the

second male child of each Jew should be castrated."

Protestant theology and German philosophy proposed regulations against

the Jews unrivaled by the canonical decrees of Popes Innocent III and

Paul IV.

In Breslau appeared similar libels which inflamed the hatred of the

populace against the Jews. Even the well-meaning writings composed in

their defense by Christians, such as Kosmann and Ramson--"A Word to

the Impartial"--admitted the low character of the Jews, and seemed

to imply that in every way it would be better for Christians if there

were no Jews among them; but seeing that the evil existed, it must be

endured. The honor of the Germans was partly redeemed by a man who

belonged to the olden time, Freiherr von Diebitsch, once a major in the

Russian service, to whom love of mankind was no empty phrase. He warmly

defended the Jews against the venomous attacks of Grattenauer and his

malicious allies (1803 and 1804), and thereby laid himself open to the

charge of having been bribed. In view of the general prejudice against

the Jewish race, he was prepared to see himself "caricatured, and

represented as riding upon a sow or an ass." His kindly but pedantic

pamphlets in defense of the Jews were not sufficient to close the

mouths of their opponents.

Equally inadequate and fruitless were the attempts at vindication made

by Jewish writers outside of Berlin, who found it necessary to lift

their voice in opposition to the general outcry against their people.

Two Jews, one from Königsberg, the other from Hamburg, hit upon an

excellent plan. Both recognized that the Jew hatred of the Germans

could not be refuted by solid and weighty arguments, but might

be silenced by ridicule. They were the forerunners of Börne and

Heine, one being an unknown physician, the other writing anonymously

(Lefrank). The former, in a satirical pamphlet written under the name

of Dominicus Haman Epiphanes, expressed the opinion that unless all

Jews were speedily massacred, and all Jewesses sold as slaves, the

world, Christianity, and all states, must necessarily perish. Mankind

would benefit enormously by the sale of the Jews: all immorality

would thereby at once diminish, and the immortal Grattenauer, who had

originated the glorious idea and had disseminated his noble abhorrence

of the Jews, would everywhere be acknowledged a benefactor of mankind,

and be deservedly commemorated by temples and monuments.

The other satirist, Lefrank, called his work "Bellerophon," (or the

defeated Grattenauer). He wished to kill the chimerical monster "Jew

hatred" in Grattenauer by mounting Pegasus. He addressed the Jew-baiter

with the scornful "thou."

"Thou who hast grafted with so much success jurisprudence upon

theology, thou who didst lick salt in Halle--not indeed Attic

salt--thou who hast studied ignorance and stupidity under the

great Semler, if thou art so proud of thy Christianity, that

with contempt thou dost look down upon Jews, then pray let me

ask thee why thy prisons are crammed with criminals condemned

upon charges of high treason, murder, poisoning, robbery,

and adultery? First remove from thy midst the scaffold, the

gallows, the rack, the scourge, and all the ghastly instruments

of torture and death, not one of which was invented by Jews.

Divest thyself of the demon, and then wilt thou pity a people

condemned to engage in traffic against its will, and accused

because it does traffic. Deceit is said to be a widespread vice

among Jews. Thy Christian tailor robs thee, thy bootmaker gives

thee bad leather, thy grocer false measure and weight, thy

baker despite prosperous harvests undersized loaves. Thy wine

is adulterated, thy man-servant and thy maid-servant combine

to cheat thee. Thou thyself--in the innocence of thy heart

--offerest for sale wretched lies and spiteful malice written

upon blotting-paper, for six farthings, which are not worth

six pins, and thou darest assert that fraud is peculiar to

Jews. See whether among all the bankruptcies now occurring in

London and Paris there is a single Jewish failure." "Thou dost

foolishly repeat the silly prattle of the great Fichte, when

thou dost remark that the Jews constitute a state within the

state. Thou canst not forgive the Jews the crime of speaking

correct German, of dressing more respectably, and often judging

more justly than thou. They no longer wear beards, which

thou canst pull; they no longer speak gibberish, which thou

mightest mimic.... The Jew for over twenty years has striven

to approach the Christian, but how has he been received? How

many alterations has he made in his canonical laws to be able

to join you; but from pure humanity ye turn your backs upon

him.... Yet thy pamphlet appears to me to be a good omen. The

average man believes that winter can be parted from summer only

by terrible thunder and hail-storms. Thus is it with thee.

Persecution, fanaticism, and superstition are at their last

gasp, and by mighty raging make their final effort through

thee, before their spirit becomes entirely quenched."

The self-confidence manifested by Lefrank was the surest sign of the

ultimate victory of the Jews.

Under existing conditions, in view of the fact that the Jews were apt

to underrate and despise their own power, the hope of emancipation was

deceptive. In Protestant as well as in Catholic countries, in Prussia

as well as in Austria, the people were even more blindly opposed to

them than their princes. That an Austrian voice might not be wanting

in the chorus of Jew-baiters, a German-Austrian official, named Joseph

Rohrer (1804), wrote against the "Jew people." He drew a dreadful

picture, especially of the Jews of Galicia, without hinting that the

Galician peasants were in a still lower state, and that the nobility

was more degenerate than either class. Paalzow, Grattenauer, Buchholz,

Rohrer, and their allies succeeded in their design. The idea of the

emancipation of the Jews in Germany could not yet be entertained.

With all his zeal, Breidenbach could not effect the abolition of

the capitation-tax in all places. It still remained in force, a sad

reminder and disgrace, in certain German provinces. Cannon had to be

brought into the field to destroy these putrefying, deeply implanted

prejudices.

A ray of light from the sun of freedom shining on the Jews of France

penetrated even to Russia. The heart of Emperor Alexander I was filled

with mercy towards the numberless Jews dwelling in his kingdom. He

appointed a commission to consider a proposal for improving their

condition. But a Russian commission takes time over its work, and

after two years' careful consideration of the interests of Christians,

and of the most effectual way of benefiting the Israelites, an ukase

was at length published in 1804. By this law, farmers, manufacturers,

artisans, those who had acquired a university education, or who

had visited the upper or lower schools, were exempt from the

exceptional laws against Jews. To wean them from using the jargon,

special privileges were granted to those who would learn one of

three languages--Russian, Polish, or German. The culture of the Jews

within his kingdom was desired by Alexander, who hoped that another

Mendelssohn would spring from their midst. Attendance at schools was

not enforced; it therefore depended on the Jewish community to support

boys' schools (Chedarim) as best they could. Nor could it be otherwise

amongst the millions of serfs in Russia, not one of whom was permitted

to visit a school.

A limitation was, however, introduced at that time which nullified all

privileges in favor of the Jews. Those who dwelt in the country were

ordered to depart within a short space of time and crowd together in

the cities. Cruel subtlety dictated this order. The Polish landowners,

who from indolence had given over the care of their breweries and the

sale of produce to industrious and trustworthy Jewish managers and

farmers, were ruined by the removal of the Jews from the villages,

and thus rendered incapable of revolt. This law could not be carried

out for the time being, but remained in existence as a dead letter,

until later days. The worst result was that the Jews were treated

as strangers, although they had been more than half a century in

the Polish provinces. Naturally they did not advance in culture,

being hindered and persecuted by Rabbinism, and even more so by

Neo-Chassidism.