THE JEWISH-FRENCH SYNHEDRION AND THE JEWISH CONSISTORIES.
Jew-Hatred in Strasburg--Bonald's Accusations--Plots against
French Jews--Furtado--David Sinzheim--Assembly of Notables
--Italian Deputies--The Twelve Questions--Debate on
Mixed Marriages--The Paris Synhedrion--Its Constitution
--Napoleon's Enactments--Israel Jacobson--Consistory of
Westphalia--Emancipation in Germany--In the Hanse-Towns--
Restrictions in Saxony.
1806-1813 C. E.
Since the days of the Romans, the world had not witnessed such sudden
changes and catastrophes as in the beginning of this century, when a
new Empire was founded with the intention of establishing a universal
monarchy. All the powers bent even lower before Napoleon, Emperor of
the French, than before the First Consul Bonaparte. The pope, who
in his heart cursed him and the whole new order, did not hesitate
to anoint him successor to Charlemagne. The German princes were the
first to recognize cringingly this innovation, the elevation of an
upstart over themselves. As if Napoleon by contact with the Germans
during his wars against Austria and Prussia had become infected with
their Jew-hatred, his feelings with reference to them from that time
underwent a change. Although he had before shown admiration for the
venerable antiquity and gigantic struggles of the Jewish race, he now
displayed a positive dislike to them. His unfavorable attitude towards
the Jews was used by the Germans in Alsace to induce him to deprive the
French Jews of their privileges and reduce them to their former state
of abasement.
The storms of the Revolution had put an end to the old accusations
against the Jews of Alsace. Jewish creditors, usurers, Christian
debtors were alike impoverished by the Reign of Terror; the olden times
were swept away. When quiet was restored, many Jews, who through their
energy had acquired some property again, went back to their former
trades. What else could they do? To commence to learn handicrafts
and agriculture could not be expected of men advanced in years. Even
young men found it difficult, as bigoted Christian employers in the
German-speaking provinces did not care to take Jewish apprentices. A
numerous class of the populace of Alsace offered well-to-do Jews a
source of income. The peasants and day-laborers, before the Revolution
serfs, had been liberated through it, but possessed no means wherewith
to purchase land and commence work. Their cattle and even their
implements of agriculture were lost during the stormy years; and many
of them had fled to escape military service. These peasants, on the
return of peace, had addressed themselves to Jews for advances of
money, to obtain small parcels of the national land for cultivation.
The Jewish men of substance had responded, and probably demanded high
rates of interest. The peasants, however, were not the losers, for,
although originally destitute of means, they had greatly improved
their condition. In a few years their possessions in landed property
amounted to 60 million francs, the sixth part of which they owed to
Jews. It was, indeed, hard for the peasants of Alsace to obtain ready
money to discharge debts to their Jewish creditors, especially as the
wars of Bonaparte called them away from the plough to bear arms, and
many lawsuits ensued against the debtors. The Strasburg Trade Court of
Justice alone, during the years 1802-4, had to decide upon summonses
for debt between Jewish creditors and Christian debtors amounting to
800,000 francs. The defaulting peasants were sentenced to hand over
their fields and vineyards to the Jewish creditors, some of whom may
have acted harshly in these matters.
These circumstances were made use of by the Jew-haters. They
generalized the misdeeds of the Jews, exaggerated the sufferings of
the Christian debtors forced to pay, and stamped the Jews as usurers
and bloodsuckers, so as to deprive the French Jews living in their
provinces of their recently-acquired equalization, or if possible to
prepare some worse fate for them. As at all times, the citizens of the
German town of Strasburg took the most prominent part in this movement
against the Jews. They had made a vain attempt to keep the Jews out
of their city and to persecute them during the Reign of Terror. With
fierce rage they beheld the number of Jewish immigrants increase. There
were no Jewish usurers in their midst; on the contrary, there were
wealthy, highly respected, and educated Jews, such as the families
of Cerf Berr, Ratisbonne, and Picard, most of whom lived from their
estates. Nevertheless the people of Strasburg raised the loudest
clamors against the Jews, as if the latter were the cause of their
impoverishment. The prefect of Strasburg, a German, aided and abetted
the merchants. When Napoleon stayed in Strasburg (January, 1806), after
the campaign of a hundred days against Austria, he was besieged by
the prefect and a deputation of the people of Alsace with complaints
showing how harmful to the state were the Jews; how like a crowd of
ravens they ruined the Christian populace, so that whole villages
passed into the possession of Jewish usurers, how half the estates
of Alsace were mortgaged to Jewish creditors, and other malicious
charges. Napoleon thereupon called to mind that during his campaign
some Jews near Ulm had bought stolen articles from the soldiers, which
had greatly displeased him. The Jew-haters suggested that these may
have been Strasburg Jews, who followed in the track of the army in
order to enrich themselves by means of the booty; and that all Jews
were usurers, hawkers, and ragmen. To incite the emperor still more to
acts of hostility, the following grave statement was added--that,
in the whole of Alsace, indeed, in all the (German) Departments of
the Upper and Lower Rhine, the people were so embittered against the
Jews that a general massacre, scenes such as were witnessed in the
Middle Ages, might ensue. In taprooms the question of slaughtering the
Jews was often discussed. His mind filled with such evil impressions,
Napoleon left Strasburg, promising redress of these grievances. That
this impression might not fade away, the enemies of the Jews besieged
the minister of justice with loud complaints about the baseness
and hurtfulness of the Jews. Judges, prefects, all German-speaking
officials vied with each other in attempts to deprive the Jews of their
civil rights. The minister of justice, carried away by the complaints,
was actually on the point of putting an exceptional law into force
against the Jews of France, forbidding them for a time to do any
business in mortgages.
Mingled with this Jew-hatred, which arose from the petty jealousy of
guild members, and from fear of excessive competition, were the bigoted
and gloomy views of the reactionary party, who commenced to spin their
network of schemes in order to suppress mental freedom, the mother,
so to speak, of political liberty. One of the chief representatives
of this party, hostile to liberty, and skilled in intrigues, was
Louis Gabriel Ambroise Bonald, a man of kindred spirit to Gentz, Adam
Müller, and others of like caliber, who, together with the romanticist
Chateaubriand, and Fontanes, a past-master of flattery, brought about
the most terrible religious and political reaction. Bonald, who, after
short-lived enthusiasm for liberty, unfurled the flag of the Bourbon
Legitimists, and glorified it with mystical-Catholic inanities,
beheld in the liberation of the Jews a diminution of the power of the
Church, and employed means to undermine their equalization in France.
He wished to lower them to the level of such despicable beings as the
Church required for its purposes. In a paper which he issued conjointly
with Chateaubriand for the purpose of maintaining the Ultramontane
power, he attacked the Jews with sophistical eloquence. He envied the
Germans because, more reasonable and prudent than the French, they had
remitted only the capitation-tax, and had otherwise kept the Jews
in subjection. He blamed the National Assembly for having conceded all
rights without considering that when the French Jews were released from
the yoke, they might easily act in concert with their co-religionists
in other countries to secure all influence and all wealth to themselves
and enslave the Christians. Bonald again gave utterance to that
venomous slander which a venal, unscrupulous Alsatian had circulated in
a pamphlet before the Revolution. His recurring statements were that
the Jews were ever in conflict with morality, that they formed a state
within a state, and that most of them were vampires and petty traders,
among whom the high-minded disappeared. Bonald concluded his list of
charges with an opinion which stigmatized the French nation as much
as the Jews. "If the latter are ever permitted to enjoy independence
and frame laws, then a Jewish Synhedrion would not establish more
nonsensical or unworthy laws than the Constituent Assembly of
philosophers has established."
It was a fortunate circumstance for the future of the Jews that the
enemies of freedom as well as orthodox Christians included Jew-hatred
in their programme, because this impelled friends of liberty to defend
the cause of the Jews in part as their own. But for the moment,
Bonald's Jew-hating attempts greatly harmed them. They were approved
by those who strove to retard the advancing spirit of the age, and
in a roundabout way were dinned into the ear of Napoleon. The French
Jews had no idea of the extent of this agitation, they imagined that it
concerned only the Jewish usurers in Alsace, and that it did not affect
the honor, position, and existence of all, and therefore they did not
sufficiently oppose it.
Matters now assumed a serious complexion. Napoleon laid the Jewish
question for discussion before his council, which entrusted it to
a young member, a Count Molé, known in later French history as the
prototype of ambiguity. To the surprise of all the elder and more
influential members of the council, Molé, whose great-grandmother was
a Jewess, presented a report decidedly hostile to the Jews, suggesting
that all French Jews be placed under exceptional laws, which meant that
their legally acknowledged and practically realized equality was to be
taken from them. His report was received with deserved derision by the
oldest members of the council, who were so imbued with the principle
of absolute equality sanctified by the Revolution, that they could not
conceive that a creditor suing for payment from his debtor could have
a right to inquire into his religious belief. They suspected that Molé
was in league with the reactionary politicians Fontanes and Bonald,
who were anxious to offer up the Jews as the first sacrifice to their
retrograde policy. Molé, however, appears to have sought to curry favor
with the emperor, who, as he knew, was not kindly disposed towards the
Jews. Although all the councilors were in favor of their unabridged
civil rights, the Jewish question was to be brought up at the regular
session of the state council under the presidency of Napoleon (April
30, 1806), who attached great importance to the matter.
It was a fateful moment when these questions, settled long ago, again
came up for discussion. The weal and woe not alone of the French and
Italian Jews, but of those in all Europe, depended upon the issue of
this consultation. For if the equalization of the Jews of the former
countries was in any way threatened, those of other countries would be
doomed to remain in a state of degradation and oppression for a long
time to come. The sitting was stormy. It happened unfortunately that a
recently elected state councilor named Beugnot, who in the absence of
the emperor had spoken with great spirit and address in favor of the
Jews, wished to display his eloquence before the emperor. He therefore
made use of the following unlucky phrase: "To deprive the Jews of their
full civil rights were like a battle lost on the field of justice."
Napoleon was annoyed. Both the tone and matter of Beugnot's speech
sorely displeased him. It vexed him that his prejudices against the
Jews should be regarded as unfounded. Beugnot aroused his passion, he
spoke against theorists and propounders of principles, and allowed his
anger to outrun his discretion. He spoke of the Jews as Fichte had
done, saying that they constituted a state within a state, being the
feudal nobles of the time; that they could not be placed in the same
category with Catholics and Protestants, because, besides not being
citizens of the country, they were a dangerous element. The keys of
France, Alsace and Strasburg, should not be allowed to fall into the
hands of a nation of spies. It would be prudent to suffer only 50,000
Jews in the districts of the Upper and Lower Rhine, to scatter the
remainder throughout France, and prohibit them from engaging in trade,
because they corrupted it by usury. He made other accusations which he
had learnt from the Jew-haters. In spite of this speech, two councilors
of importance, Regnault and Ségur, ventured to speak on behalf of the
Jews, or of justice. They pointed out that the Jews in Bordeaux,
Marseilles, and the Italian cities belonging to France, like those in
Holland, were held in the highest esteem, and that the offenses charged
against the Jews of Alsace should not be imputed to Judaism, but rather
to their unhappy condition. They succeeded in mollifying Napoleon's
wrath for the moment, and a second session decided the matter.
Meantime some influential persons succeeded in impressing Napoleon with
a better opinion of the Jews. They called to his attention how quickly
they had become proficient in the arts and sciences, in agriculture and
handicrafts. Persons were pointed out to him who had been decorated
with the Order of the Legion of Honor, or who had received pensions for
courage in war, and that, therefore, it was slander to call all Jews
usurers and hawkers. At the second sitting of the state council (May
7, 1806) Napoleon spoke in a milder tone of the Jews. He rejected the
proposal made to him to expel Jewish peddlers, and endow the tribunals
of justice with unlimited authority over usurers. He desired to do
nothing that might be disapproved by posterity, or darken his fame.
Nevertheless, he could not free himself from the prejudice that the
Jewish people, from the most ancient times, even from the days of
Moses, had been usurers and extortioners. He was, however, determined
not to permit any persecution or neglect of the Jews. He then conceived
the happy thought--or it may have been suggested to him--to bring
together a number of Jews from various provinces, who were to tell
him whether Judaism demanded of its adherents hatred and oppression
of Christians. The Jews themselves, through the medium of their
representatives, were to decide their fate.
The decree which announced this resolution (May 30, 1806) was couched
in harsh terms. Napoleon himself, it appears, gave it the last touches
whilst in an angry mood. The first part of the decree ran as follows:
"The claims of Jewish creditors in certain provinces may not be
collected within the space of a year." The second part ordered the
assembly of Jewish notables. The reason for their meeting was such as
to satisfy the Bonalds. Certain Jews in the northern districts having
by usury brought misery upon many peasants, the emperor had deprived
them of civil equality. But he had also considered it necessary to
awaken in all who professed the Jewish religion in France a feeling
of civic morality, which, owing to their debasement, had become
almost extinct amongst them. For this purpose Jewish notables were
to express their wishes and suggest means whereby skilled work and
useful occupations would become general among Jews. Thus, for a time at
least, a portion of the Jews of France were deprived of their rights of
equality. But balm might be expected from the Assembly of Notables for
the wounds inflicted by Napoleon. The prefects were required to select
prominent persons from among the rabbis and the laity, who, on a fixed
day, should present themselves "in the good city of Paris." Not only
the congregations of the old French provinces, but also those in the
new ones, in the district on the left bank of the Rhine, were to be
represented by deputies. The Italian Jews, who applied for permission
to take part in this meeting, were likewise admitted.
Although the notables were somewhat arbitrarily chosen by the
magistrates, on the whole their selections were fortunate. Among the
hundred and more notables of French, German, and Italian speech, the
majority were fully aware of the magnitude and importance of their
task. They had to defend Judaism before the eyes of all Europe--a
difficult but grateful task. Among them were men who had already gained
fame, such as Berr Isaac Berr, his promising son, Michael Berr (who
had issued the summons to princes and nations, to release the Jews
from bondage), and Abraham Furtado, the partisan of the Girondists,
who had suffered for his political opinions, and was a man of noble
mind and great foresight. His descent is interesting. His parents were
Marranos in Portugal, but in spite of the family's outward adherence
to the Church during two hundred years, his mother had not forgotten
her origin and her attachment to Judaism. When the terrible earthquake
made Lisbon a heap of ruins, Furtado's parents were overwhelmed by
their falling house--his father killed, but his mother, who was
with child, entombed in a living grave. She vowed that if God would
save her from this danger, she would, in spite of all difficulties,
openly embrace Judaism. A fresh shock opened her tomb. She succeeded
in escaping from this place of horror, made her way to London, and
there publicly returned to Judaism. Here her son Abraham was born,
whom she brought up as a Jew. Abraham Furtado was well acquainted with
Jewish literature; he collected materials for a Jewish history, and
paid particular attention to the Book of Job; but his Jewish knowledge
was mere dilettanteism, without thoroughness. His favorite study
was natural science. During the Revolution, Furtado belonged to the
commission appointed to make proposals for ameliorating the condition
of the French Jews. During the Reign of Terror, and as a supporter of
the Girondists, his life was endangered and his property confiscated.
By assiduous industry he had enabled himself to purchase an estate
in Bordeaux. Next to the elder and younger Berrs, Furtado was the
brightest ornament of the assembly; he was an eloquent speaker, and
possessed great tact in public affairs.
A happy choice was that of Rabbi Joseph David Sinzheim, of Strasburg
(born 1745, died 1812). He was a man of almost patriarchal character,
of the deepest moral earnestness, and of a most lovable, gentle nature.
Well furnished with means, and the brother-in-law of the wealthy
Cerf Berr, Sinzheim devoted himself to the study of the Talmud, not
from any mercenary purpose, but from inclination. His acquaintance
with Talmudical and Rabbinical literature was astounding, but he was
lacking in depth. His education prevented his being interested in other
branches of science, but at least he had no antipathy to them. During
the Reign of Terror, which caused the Jews in Jew-hating Strasburg to
suffer severely, he was compelled to flee for safety, and could not
return until peace was restored. The number of the Jews in Strasburg
increased under the Directory and Napoleon. They formed themselves
into a congregation, appointing Sinzheim as their first rabbi. Thence
he was summoned to Paris to attend the Assembly of Notables. He was
considered the most eminent French Talmudist, and became the leader of
the orthodox party. Besides Sinzheim, only one rabbi was prominent, the
Portuguese Rabbi Abraham Andrade, from Saint-Esprit; the majority of
the members were laymen.
With trembling hearts about a hundred Jewish Notables from the
French and German departments assembled. They had no plan, as they
did not know precisely what were the emperor's intentions. A summons
from the minister, addressed to each member singly (July 23, 1806),
enlightened them but little. They learnt that in three days' time,
on a Sabbath, they were to hold a meeting in a hall of the Hôtel de
Ville set apart for them. There the assembly was to organize, and
they were to answer the questions which imperial commissioners would
lay before them. The purpose was to make useful citizens of the
Jews, bring their religious belief into agreement with their duties
as Frenchmen, refute the charges made against them, and remedy the
evils which they had occasioned. The selection of Molé as imperial
commissioner, together with Portalis and Pasquier, who were to treat
officially with the Assembly, was not calculated to quiet their
fears. Molé had been the first to serve as a medium for the spread
of the anti-Jewish slanders of Bonald and others. On the day before
the opening of the Assembly (July 25), there appeared in the official
journal, the "Moniteur," an account of the history of the Jews from
the return from Babylon till that time. The French nation was thus to
be acquainted with the importance of the questions now to be submitted
to the Jews themselves. In rapid sequence the following circumstances
were depicted:--The independence and the dependence of the Jewish
people, their victories and defeats; their persecution during the
Middle Ages and the protection they found; their scattered condition
and their massacres; the accusations directed against them; their
abasement and oppression in different countries inflicted by monarch
after monarch, and by fluctuating opinions and policies. Jewish history
thus received, so to speak, an official seal. That there were many
errors and false statements in this account was not to be wondered
at. At the command of the emperor, the Jewish religion, or Judaism,
was officially expounded, with even greater display of ignorance. Two
points were particularly emphasized, viz., that the religious and moral
separation of the Jews from the rest of the world, and the pursuit of
usury to the injury of members of other creeds, if not prescribed, was
at any rate tolerated by the Jewish law. "How otherwise is the fact
to be explained," it was remarked at the conclusion of the official
document, "that those Jews who at the present time extort high rates
of interest, are most religious and follow the laws of the Talmud most
faithfully?" The inference was to the last degree false. "Do we not see
that the Portuguese Jews, who do not sully themselves with usury, are
less strict in their adherence to the Talmud? Had the distinguished
Jews in Germany, such as their famous Mendelssohn, great reverence for
the rabbis? Finally, are those men among us who devote themselves to
the sciences orthodox Jews?" Thus Talmudical Judaism was once again
represented as a stumbling-block in the way of the progress of the
Jews, not, indeed, in that spirit of hatred which prevailed in Germany;
but it was laid open to attack, and that, too, before a public, so to
say a European, tribunal.
On the same day that the Jews formed the topic of conversation in
Paris, the deputies assembled to decide upon a question of conscience.
The first official meeting was to be held on Saturday, and the first
business was the election of a president and of secretaries by means
of written votes. It was the first time that representatives of the
French, German, and Italian Jews came together, and the contrasts
and variations developed during the last half century by the changes
in the times, became apparent,--all shades were represented, from
the politician Furtado, to the rabbis who had spent all their lives
in schools. They were expected to harmonize. At first they could
not understand each other, but had to employ German and Italian
interpreters. Was the public activity of the Jewish deputies to
commence with the desecration of the Sabbath? Or should they strictly
adhere to the religious prohibition, and thus give a handle to enemies
of the Jews, who asserted that Judaism was incompatible with the
exercise of civil functions? These serious questions occupied the minds
of the members. The rabbis and the party of Berr Isaac Berr were of
opinion that the first sitting should be postponed to another day, or
at least that no election should take place. The less critical party,
the politicians, urged that they prove to the emperor that Judaism can
subordinate itself to the law of the land; and the debate grew very
violent.
Thus the first Jewish Parliament in Paris assembled on a Sabbath, in
a room of the Hôtel de Ville, decorated with appropriate emblems.
The deputies attended in full force, none were absent; some of them
intentionally came in carriages. Some of the stricter members again
tried to have the first meeting postponed, but in vain. The dread of
Napoleon's authority terrified those who as a rule paid scrupulous
regard to religious ordinances. Under the chairmanship of Rabbi
Solomon Lipmann, the oldest member, the election now proceeded. The
orthodox had provided themselves with ballot tickets, but most of the
others wrote them out unabashed before the very eyes of the rabbis,
whilst a few had theirs written for them. Only two men were qualified
for the presidency, Berr Isaac Berr and Furtado. The former was
supported by the orthodox party, the latter by the politicians. Furtado
obtained the majority of votes. With parliamentary tact he presided
over the meeting. The deputies became fully conscious of the grave
responsibility resting upon them, and proved themselves equal to their
task. All were animated by a strong desire for unanimity.
Even the German rabbis, who hitherto had been buried in the seclusion
of the academies amidst the Talmud volumes, quickly adapted themselves
to the new circumstances and to parliamentary forms. Certain deputies
contributed to impress all present with a feeling of concord. The
speech of the deputy Lipmann Cerf Berr had a remarkable effect,
especially the following words:--
"Let us forget our origin! Let us no longer speak of Jews of
Alsace, of Portugal, or of Germany. Though scattered over the
face of the globe, we are still one people worshiping the same
God, and as our law commands us, we are to obey the laws of the
country where we live."
When the officer of the guard of honor furnished for the meeting
approached the newly-elected president to receive his orders, and when
at the departure of the deputies, the guard greeted them with military
honors and beat of drums, they felt themselves exalted, and their fear
was turned to hope.
This joyful expectation revived their courage, and enabled them to
oppose the attacks of Jew-hating writers. Meantime the whole body of
deputies from the kingdom of Italy arrived, and created a favorable
impression by their bearing. Amongst them the spirit of the age
manifested itself in difference of religious views and opinions,
although not so sharply marked as among the French and German Jews.
The most distinguished among the Jewish-Italian deputies was Abraham
Vita di Cologna (born 1755, died in Trieste, 1832). He was well
versed both in Rabbinical and scientific learning, of prepossessing
appearance, and an elegant speaker. While rabbi of Mantua, he was
elected a member of the Parliament of the Italian kingdom. His
Talmudical and secular knowledge, however, was neither comprehensive
nor deep. Cologna was in favor of the new tendency, which removed
Judaism from its isolated position to imbue it with European ideas; but
both the means and end were not clearly defined in his mind, and he
took no steps to carry out his wishes. An elder member of the Italian
notables, Joshua Benzion Segre (born about 1720, died 1809), at once
owner of an estate, rabbi, and municipal councilor of Vercelli, was
also in favor of scientific studies, and belonged to the advanced
party. The follies of the Kabbala still found many supporters among
educated Italian Jews, although its first opponents had come from
Italy. Benzion Segre was averse to the study, while the Italian deputy
Graziadio (Chanannel) Nepi, rabbi and physician in Cinto (born 1760,
died 1836), was a firm believer in it. He was exceedingly well read in
Jewish literature, and compiled an alphabetical register of the names
of Jewish authors of ancient and modern times.
At the second sitting (July 29), the three imperial commissioners
solemnly propounded twelve questions, which the Assembly were to
answer conscientiously. The chief points were, whether the French Jews
regarded France as their country, and Frenchmen as their brothers;
whether they considered the laws of the state as binding upon them,
and, by way of deduction from these two points, the incisive third
question, "Can Jews legally intermarry with Christians," and, lastly,
whether usury in the case of non-Jews is permitted or forbidden. The
remaining points referred to polygamy, divorce, and the authority of
the rabbis, and were of a subordinate nature. Most of the members
could not listen to these queries without feeling pain that their
love of country and their attachment to France should be called into
question, notwithstanding that Jews had attested their patriotism by
shedding their blood upon battlefields. From many sides rose a cry
at these questions, "Aye, unto death." The address delivered by Molé
on submitting these twelve questions was cold and to some extent
offensive. Its contents were nearly as follows:--The charges against
various Jews had been proved. The emperor was, however, not satisfied
to check the evil himself, but desired the assistance of the deputies.
They were to state the whole truth in replying to the questions laid
before them. The emperor permitted full liberty of discussion, but
wished them to bear in mind that they were Frenchmen, and would be
relinquishing that honor unless they showed themselves worthy of it.
The assembly now knew what was expected. They were brought face to face
with the alternative of renouncing their equality or damaging Judaism.
Furtado, in his reply to the speech of the commissioner, very cleverly
turned the mistrust of the emperor into a semblance of trust. He said
that the Jews welcomed the opportunity of answering these questions,
to lay bare all errors and put an end to the prejudices entertained
against them. The speech which Berr Isaac Berr delivered at this
meeting was more sincere, more manly, and altogether more fervent.
Furtado represented the Jews, but not Judaism; he caused it to be
understood that the Assembly should consider it a duty and an honor to
obey every hint of the emperor. Berr gave dignified expression to the
claims of Judaism. The duty of replying to the questions was assigned
to a commission, which included, besides the president, the secretary,
and the auditors, the four most eminent rabbis, Sinzheim, Andrade, di
Cologna, and Segre, and two learned laymen.
This commission handed over the chief part of their work to Rabbi David
Sinzheim, the most scholarly and esteemed member of the assembly,
who in a very short time completed his task to the satisfaction of
his colleagues, of the imperial commissioners, and eventually of the
emperor (July 30 till August 3). His report was submitted to the
commissioners, who reported it to the emperor before it was brought up
for public discussion. Napoleon was so pleased with the behavior of
the Assembly that he announced his intention to grant an audience to
all the members. In fact, their parliamentary tact, as displayed in
the proceedings, filled him with such high regard towards them that
he partially overcame his prejudices against the Jews. He had always
pictured them as ragmen and usurers, with cringing, bent forms, or
as sly, cunning flatterers lying in ambush for their prey; and to
his astonishment he beheld among the members men of fine character,
intelligence, and imposing appearance. He thus acquired a better
opinion of the Jews. It must be admitted that the incense offered him
by the Assembly, as to a deity, did not leave him unmoved. On the other
hand, the serious task placed before the Jewish deputies made them
greater, exalted them above the common level, idealized them. Their
harmonious work aroused their enthusiasm, the orations intoxicated
them, and even the sober German members became infected.
At the third sitting (August 4), at the debate upon the replies to the
various questions, the deputies were filled with self-confidence and
the certainty of victory. No difficulty was offered by the first two
questions--whether polygamy was allowed among Jews, and whether the
validity of a divorce granted by the French law was acknowledged by
their religious and moral code. These were decided according to the
desire of the emperor without any injury to Judaism. But the third
question aroused painful excitement, and revealed the opposition which
had divided the Jews since the time of Mendelssohn--"May a Jewess
marry a Christian, or a Christian woman a Jew?" This question had given
rise to heated debates in the commission, how much more in public
assembly. Even the orthodox party felt that to reply unconditionally
in the negative would be extremely perilous. The commission, however,
had already supplied a clever answer, and if it is owing to Sinzheim's
efforts, it redounds to his intellect and tact. At the outset it was
skillfully explained that, according to the Bible, only marriages with
Canaanite nations were forbidden. Even by the Talmud intermarriages
were allowed, because the nations of Europe were not considered
idolaters. The rabbis, to be sure, were opposed to such unions, seeing
that the usual ceremonies could not be performed. They would refuse to
bless such an union, as the Catholic priests refused their assistance
on such occasions. This refusal, however, was of little consequence, as
civil marriages were recognized by the state. At all events, the rabbis
considered a Jew or Jewess who had contracted a union of this kind as a
full co-religionist.
The remaining questions were settled without any excitement in two
sittings (August 7th and 12th). The questions whether the Jews
regarded Frenchmen as their brothers, and France as their country, were
answered by the Assembly with a loud, enthusiastic affirmative. They
were able to refer to the doctrines of Judaism, which in its three
phases--Biblical, Talmudical, and Rabbinical--had always emphasized
humanity and the brotherhood of man. Only one point in the report
of the commission gave rise to a certain amount of friction, viz.,
that which seemed to ascribe a kind of superiority to the Portuguese
Jews, as if through their conduct they were held in higher esteem by
Christians than the German Jews. This clause was therefore struck out.
In answering the two questions relative to usury, the Assembly was able
to demolish a deeply-rooted prejudice and place Judaism in a favorable
light.
The commissioner Molé, the first to yield to Jew-hatred and propose to
exclude Jews from state offices, had now to declare publicly (September
18) that the emperor was satisfied with the intentions and zeal of the
assembly. His speech on this occasion struck quite a different note to
former ones. "Who, indeed," he exclaimed, "would not be astonished at
the sight of this assembly of enlightened men, selected from among the
descendants of the most ancient of nations? If an individual of past
centuries could come to life, and if this scene met his gaze, would he
not think himself transplanted within the walls of the Holy City? or
might he not imagine that a thorough revolution in the affairs of man
had taken place?" "His Majesty," continued Molé, "guarantees to you the
free practice of your religion and the full enjoyment of your political
rights; but in exchange for these valuable privileges, he demands
a religious surety that you will completely realize the principles
expressed in your answers."
What could the surety be? Napoleon then announced a surprising
message, which filled the assembly with joyful astonishment and
electrified them. "The emperor proposes to call together the great
Synhedrion!" This part of their national government, which had
perished together with the Temple, and which alone had been endowed
with authority in Israel, was now to be revived for the purpose of
transforming the answers of the Assembly into decisions, which should
command the highest respect, equally with those of the Talmud, with
Jews of all countries and throughout all centuries. Further, the
Assembly was to make known the meeting of the great Synhedrion to
all the synagogues in Europe, so that they send to Paris deputies
capable of advising the government with intelligence, and worthy of
belonging to this assembly. That the revived Synhedrion might possess
the honorable and imposing character of its model, it was to be
constituted on the pattern of the former one; it was to consist of
seventy-one members, and have a president (Nasi), a vice-president
(Ab-Beth-Din), and a second vice-president (Chacham). This announcement
made the deputies feel as if the ancient glory of Israel had suddenly
risen from the tomb and once more assumed a solid shape. Three months
previously they had been summoned to rescue their civil rights which
were endangered, and now a new vista opened before them; they seemed to
behold their glorious past revived in the present, and assisted in the
accomplishment of the dream; and they were filled with amazement.
Naturally, on receipt of this announcement, the Assembly passed
enthusiastic motions and votes of thanks. They expressed their approval
of everything which the commissioners had proposed or intimated. The
Synhedrion was to be composed of two-thirds rabbis and one-third
laymen, and was to include all the rabbis in the Assembly of Notables,
together with others to be afterwards elected. The true importance
of the Assembly now came to an end; its duties now were merely
perfunctory. The proclamation issued to the whole Jewish world (Tishri
24--October 6) was its only momentous action thereafter. It aimed
at rousing the Jews to take an interest in the Synhedrion and to send
deputies. This proclamation was written in four languages, Hebrew,
French, German, and Italian, and expressed the feelings which animated
members of the Assembly, and the hopes entertained for the great
Synhedrion:
"A great event is about to take place, one which through a long
series of centuries our fathers, and even we in our own times,
did not expect to see, and which has now appeared before the
eyes of the astonished world. The 20th of October has been
fixed as the date for the opening of a Great Synhedrion in the
capital of one of the most powerful Christian nations, and
under the protection of the immortal Prince who rules over it.
Paris will show the world a remarkable scene, and this ever
memorable event will open to the dispersed remnants of the
descendants of Abraham a period of deliverance and prosperity."
The Jewish Parliament, and the re-establishment of a Synhedrion created
much interest in Europe. The world was accustomed to Napoleon's feats
of war and brilliant victories; the power of his arms had ceased
to astonish men. But that this admired and terrible hero should
descend to the most ancient people, to raise and restore them to
some of their lost splendor, caused, perhaps, more general surprise
among Christians than among Jews. It was looked upon as a miraculous
event, as marking a new era in the history of the world, in which a
different state of things would prevail. Some Christian writers in
Bamberg, at their head a Catholic priest (Gley), expected such abundant
and important results from the Jewish assembly in Paris that they
established a special newspaper, a kind of journal for the Jews. Only
the Berlin _illuminati_--David Friedländer's circle--experienced an
uncomfortable sensation at the news, because they feared that, through
the Synhedrion in France, ancient Judaism might be revived in a new
garb. They therefore declared the Synhedrion a juggler's performance,
provided by Napoleon for his Parisians. Patriotism was also involved
in this sense of uneasiness, for the Prussian Jews participated in the
deep grief into which the people of Prussia and the royal family had
been plunged by the defeats at Jena and Auerstädt (October 14, 1806).
Four days after the dissolution of the Assembly of Notables (Adar
9--February 9, 1807), the Great Synhedrion, very different in
character, assembled. It consisted, as mentioned above, for the
greater part of rabbis, most of whom had been members of the Assembly
of Notables. Twenty-five laymen from the same Assembly were added,
and the ratification of the answers to the twelve questions according
to the wishes of Napoleon was secured. To all appearances the great
Synhedrion was to assemble and transact business according to its
own pleasure. The commissioners were not to have any communications
with it. The minister of the interior had chosen only the first three
officials: Sinzheim as President (Nasi), the grey-headed Segre as
first Vice-President (Ab-Beth-Din), and Abraham di Cologna as second
Vice-President (Chacham).
After attending the synagogue, the Assembly made its way to the Hôtel
de Ville, and there the seventy members, in a hall specially decorated
for them, took their seats according to seniority, by ancient custom in
a semi-circle around the president. The sittings were public, and many
spectators were present at them. The members of the Synhedrion were
suitably attired in black garments, with silk capes and three-cornered
hats. The meeting was opened by a prayer specially composed by
Sinzheim. The speeches of Sinzheim and Furtado, with which the first
meeting commenced, were entirely appropriate to the situation.
The second sitting (February 12) was occupied with the reading of
the motions which the Synhedrion was to sanction, together with the
presentation of addresses from different congregations in France,
Italy, and the Rhineland, and especially in Dresden and Neuwied,
expressing their agreement with the assembly, and the reception of
messengers to the Synhedrion from Amsterdam.
The Synhedrion felt itself at a loss for subjects to discuss. The new
matters which they had proposed to settle were left untouched. The
Franco-Prussian war had caused the emperor to be forgetful of the
Synhedrion and the Jews in general. There only remained for the members
of the Synhedrion to convert the replies of the previous assembly
into definite, inviolable laws. The question as to the power of the
new Synhedrion to impose binding laws, or whether it could be placed
on the same basis as the ancient one, was not debated. The rabbis
overcame this scruple by arguing that each generation was permitted by
the Talmud to institute suitable ordinances and make new decisions,
and therefore, without further discussion, they declared themselves
as constituted. Without demur, the Synhedrion adopted Furtado's
disintegrating view, that Judaism consisted of two wholly distinct
elements--the purely religious and the political-legislative laws.
The first mentioned are unalterable; the latter, on the other hand,
which have lost their significance since the downfall of the Jewish
state, can be set aside. The inferences from this difference, however,
could not be drawn by any individual, but only by an authorized
assembly, a great Synhedrion, which owing to unfavorable circumstances
had never been able to assemble. The Synhedrion was, therefore, no
innovation. The following highly important paragraph with reference to
marriage was also passed without opposition: That not only must the
civil marriage precede the religious ceremony, but that intermarriages
between Jews and Christians were to be considered binding, and
although they were not attended by any religious forms, yet no
religious interdict could be passed upon them. In this evasive manner
the Synhedrion satisfied its own conscience and the suspicions of the
imperial officers.
As the Synhedrion had no actual business to transact, the time of
the sittings was filled up with speeches delivered by Furtado,
Hildesheimer, the deputy from Frankfort, Asser, the deputy from
Amsterdam, and finally by Sinzheim, who made the closing speech.
The new decisions of the Synhedrion, drawn up in French and Hebrew,
enacted the following: That it is prohibited for any Jew to marry more
than one wife; that divorce by the Jewish law was effective only when
preceded by that of the civil authorities; and that a marriage likewise
must be considered a civil contract first; that every Israelite was
religiously bound to consider his non-Jewish neighbors, who also
recognize and worship God as the Creator, as brothers; that he should
love his country, defend it, and undertake military service, if called
upon to do so; that Judaism did not forbid any kind of handicraft and
occupation, and that, therefore, it was commendable for Israelites
to engage in agriculture, handicrafts, and the arts, and to forsake
trading; and finally, that it was forbidden to Israelites to exact
usury either from Jew or Christian.
These new laws of the Synhedrion were of very limited scope. The
Synhedrion had in view only the present, and did not look into the
distant future. The Jews in general were not satisfied with its action
and results. An English Jew, in a letter addressed to the members,
boldly reproached them for having disowned, not alone Judaism, but all
revealed religion.
"Has any one of our brethren in Constantinople, Aleppo, Bagdad,
Corfu, or one of our (English) communities been sent as a
deputy to you, or have they recorded their approval of your
decisions?"
The French Government, however, had obtained the surety stipulated
before the rights of citizenship would be legally recognized anew. At
the proposition of the commissioners the Synhedrion dissolved, and
their resolutions were submitted to Napoleon, whose attention had been
fixed on the Prusso-Russian war, until owing to the decisive battle
of Prussian Friedland the delusive peace of Tilsit was concluded.
During Napoleon's absence, plans were secretly laid with the purpose
of restricting the rights of the French Jews. The Jewish deputies,
however, discovered this, and the indefatigable Furtado, together
with Maurice Levy of Nancy, hastened from the Seine to the Niemen
to acquaint the emperor with the agitation against the Jews; and he
remained prepossessed in favor of Judaism.
After the dissolution of the Synhedrion the Assembly of Notables again
convened to present their formal report to the authorities (March
25-April 6, 1807).
After an interval of a year, Napoleon announced to the Jews his
intentions with reference to legislation on their behalf. He expressed
(March 17, 1808) his approval of the wretched consistorial organization
which degraded the officials of the synagogue to the level of
policemen, and regulated the civil position of the Jews, or rather
made encroachments on their hitherto favorable condition, although
he repeatedly assured them that their equalization would suffer no
restrictions. He had deceived all the world, and everywhere trodden
freedom under foot; how could he be expected to keep his word with
the Jews and to leave their freedom unmolested? The law suggests
that the Jew-hating Molé framed it. It contained no word about the
equalization of the Jews. No French Jew henceforth was to engage in
any species of trade without having obtained the permission of the
prefect, and his consent was to be granted only on the testimony of
the civil magistrates and the consistory as to the good character
of the applicant. Contracts of Jews who could not show a patent were
null and void. The taking of pledges as security for a loan was also
surrounded by limitations which savored of the Middle Ages. Further, no
foreign Jew was to settle in the German departments, nor any from those
departments in another district. Finally, the Jewish people were not
allowed to procure substitutes for military service; each Jew who was
chosen as a soldier had to enter the ranks. These restrictive laws were
to remain in force for ten years, "in the hope that by the end of that
period, and by the enforcement of various regulations, no difference
whatever would exist between the Jews and the other citizens."
Thus the Jews of France, the anchor of hope of their brethren in other
countries, were once again humiliated and placed under exceptional
legislation. The law enacted, indeed, that the Jews of Bordeaux and
certain other departments who had given no cause for complaint should
not be included under these new restrictions. Shortly afterwards, owing
to their loud complaints, exceptions were made in favor of the Jews of
Paris, Livorno, the department of the Lower Pyrenees, and of fifteen
other districts in France and Italy, so that only the scapegoats, the
German-speaking Jews in France, were deprived of their civil rights.
But the odious stain which had been again fastened to the Jews adhered
to the emancipated as well. Their opponents, who zealously strove to
check the elevation of the Jews, could now point to France, and urge
that the race was indeed incapable of amendment, seeing that even where
its members had been emancipated long since, they had to be deprived of
their rights of equality.
Napoleon's arm, powerful though it was, could not stem the flood
once set in motion, by the liberation of oppressed nationalities and
classes. By his own genius and impetuosity he increased the tumult
of forces. After the subjection of Prussia, Napoleon called into
existence, chiefly at the expense of this state, two new political
creations, the duchy of Warsaw (avoiding the dangerous and magical
title of kingdom of Poland), under the rule of the Electoral Prince
of Saxony, and the kingdom of Westphalia under his brother Jerome
(Hieronymus).
In the latter kingdom, formed from the territories of many lords,
the Jews obtained freedom and equalization. Napoleon framed the
constitution of the new kingdom with the assistance of the statesmen
Beugnot, Johannes von Müller, and partially also of Dohm, who, being
friends of the Jews, had made their emancipation a feature. Jerome,
juster and more honest than his brother, issued an edict (January
12, 1808) declaring all Jews of his state without exception to be
full citizens, abolishing Jew-taxes of every description, allowing
foreign Jews to reside in the country under the same protection as
that afforded to Christian immigrants, and threatening with punishment
the malicious who should derisively call a Jewish citizen of his state
"protection Jew" (Schutz-Jude). Michael Berr, the brave and pious
defender of Judaism, was summoned from France to accept office in the
kingdom of Westphalia. Jews and Christians alike were filled with
hope at this just treatment of German Jews, and the Jew-hating German
University of Göttingen elected Berr a member.
An important part was played at the new court in Cassel by Israel
Jacobson (born at Halberstadt, 1769; died at Berlin, 1828), who had
been court agent, or councilor of finance, at the court of Brunswick.
Although he cuts a figure in modern Jewish history, and was pleased
to consider himself a German Furtado, yet he bore only external
resemblance to this earnest Jewish patriot. The similarity lay in the
fact that Jacobson possessed extraordinary flow of language and great
vigor in carrying out his projects, which talents, it must be admitted,
he employed for ameliorating the condition of his co-religionists. His
wealth provided him with the means of realizing, or attempting, all the
schemes which his active brain invented. Noble-minded, good-natured,
ready for any sacrifice, and energetic, he kept one aim before him, the
removal of the hateful, repulsive exterior of the Jews and Judaism, and
the endeavor to render them externally attractive and brilliant.
To commemorate the day of the emancipation of the Jews, Jacobson
caused a gold medal to be struck with the emblem of the union of
hitherto antagonistic beliefs, and the Latin inscription: "To God
and the fatherly king, united in the kingdom of Westphalia." At the
instigation of Jacobson, the Jews of the kingdom of Westphalia were
to be organized somewhat like their brethren in France. Twenty-two
notables were summoned to Cassel, among whom the originator of the
movement was naturally included. Jerome received them kindly, and
spoke the memorable words on the occasion: that he was pleased to find
that the constitution of his kingdom, which had been forced upon him,
confirmed the equality of all creeds, and in this respect entirely
corresponded with his own ideas. In the commission appointed to draw up
the plan for a Jewish consistory in the kingdom of Westphalia, Jacobson
was naturally elected to the presidency. Michael Berr was also a
member. The constitution of the consistory, on the model of the French,
was published at about the same time as the latter (March 3, 1808).
In France a rabbi occupied the chief position, whilst in the German
assembly Jacobson was to be president. He desired to be considered a
rabbi, and even represented himself as one. The chief meeting-place of
the Westphalian consistory was Cassel. Its authority was acknowledged
on many subjects, and Jacobson was all-powerful, being ordered to
consult the magistrates only upon important occasions. The consistory
was also to be employed as a means of rousing patriotic feelings in
the hearts of old and young on behalf of the House of Bonaparte. It
especially busied itself with the debts of the various congregations,
which were to be divided among the several communities, and thus paid
off easily.
Strange to say, one of the members of the consistory was a Christian,
state councilor Merkel, who, acting as secretary, kept a watch upon the
highest Jewish judicial authorities like a detective. In the French
central consistory thoughtful, trusty men, who had given proofs of
their abilities, were elected, such as David Sinzheim, the president,
Abraham di Cologna, and Menahem Deutz, whose son afterwards obtained
sad celebrity, men who knew how to bridge over the gap between the old
times and the new; while Jacobson delighted in foolhardy leaps, and
dragged his colleagues along with him. In transforming the condition
of the congregations and the synagogues under his jurisdiction, he
consulted with David Friedländer, standing almost within the pale
of Christianity, and his colleagues among the Measfim. The desire
of Jacobson was for reforms, or rather for the introduction of such
practices into the Jewish Divine service as were observed in the
Christian Church, especially such as appealed to the senses.
The first German prince who voluntarily conceded to the Jews at least
a restricted amount of freedom was Duke Charles of Baden, one of the
dependents of the family of Napoleon. Baden being on the borders of
France became accustomed to the recognition of the Jews of the latter
country as citizens; and public opinion was more favorable to them
there than in other parts of Germany. To be sure, the German Prince of
Baden was not so free from prejudice as the member of the Napoleon
family who occupied a German throne. He declared the Jews citizens of
the state, but did not give them the freedom of the cities, so that
they could not dwell in such towns as had hitherto been closed to Jews;
and even where they had always been tolerated, they were only to be
regarded as "protected citizens." The duke, however, reserved the right
to confer the freedom of the cities upon those who should give up petty
trading. Their religious peculiarities were to be respected, "only in
so far as they agreed with the Mosaic Law, but not with the Talmudical
interpretations of the same."
Even the city of Frankfort for a moment succumbed to the equality
intoxication, although petty, pedantic hatred of Jews was incorporated
in every patrician. This hatred had greatly increased in intensity
since the spread of revolutionary principles. The subjection of the
Jews was to compensate for loss of independence. Not a single badge
or ceremony which perpetuated Jewish degradation was removed from
the Jews, who numbered about five hundred families. The laws of
"Stättigkeit," defining their dependent status, which had existed for
two hundred years, were still annually read in the synagogue. Every
newly admitted Jew was compelled to take the oath of allegiance to
the Senate. Restrictions continued to be imposed on Jewish marriages.
Jew-taxes had to be paid, as if the Holy Roman Empire still held sway,
instead of the all-powerful will of the Corsican, crushing emperors and
kings. The Jews were obliged to dwell in the narrow, dirty, unhealthy
Jewish quarter, and every Christian, however degraded, had the right of
calling to the most refined Jew, "Mach Mores, Jud'!" of treating him as
a despicable object, and even banishing him from the better parts of
the city and from the parks.
The French general Jourdan had indeed freed the Frankfort Jews from
the Ghetto for a few years, when he bombarded the city and destroyed
that portion of it. Under the eyes of the French victors, the
patricians, sorely against their will, permitted Jews to rent houses
in other districts; under no condition could they purchase or erect
houses. When the Holy Roman Empire melted away like a snowflake before
the breath of Napoleon, when Frankfort fell under the sovereignty of
the Arch-Chancellor or Prince Primate of the Rhenish Confederation,
and the powerful aldermen themselves became subject, the serfdom
of the Jews came to an end, though the change was not expressed in
legal enactments. Karl von Dalberg, a liberal-minded man, and most
favorably disposed towards the Jews, would gladly have removed their
yoke, indeed he wrote to Grégoire, the advocate of emancipation, upon
this subject. However, he was too well aware of the stubborn hatred
of the Frankfort patricians towards the Jews, to venture upon their
complete emancipation. He had only promised in a general way at the
so-called coronation that the members of the Jewish nation should be
protected against injury and insulting treatment. The urgent necessity
of regulating the status of the Jews by law, was apparent to this
Prince Primate, who discharged his duty only by half measures, such as
were characteristic of the Germans. By the publication of a new order
for the government and protection of the Jews, he conceded, in the
spirit of the new era, that "previous laws, being opposed to the modern
constitution of the Jewish nation," should be abrogated. At the same
time he figured as the adherent of the anti-Jewish party by stating
"that complete equality could not be granted so long as the Jews did
not show themselves worthy of it, by forsaking their peculiarities and
adopting the customs of the country." By these new ordinances they were
treated as strangers on sufferance, who might enjoy the benefits of
the law of nations and of humanity, but not the rights of citizens.
The only relief measure was that the various protection-taxes were
consolidated into an annual impost of 22,000 florins. Even the Ghetto
was again held out to them as their residence; they were cautioned not
to renew their leases in town with Christian landlords, because the
day would soon dawn when they would have to return to their prison.
Naturally, the Jews of Frankfort used their utmost endeavors to have
these exceptional laws annulled, the more as their co-religionists in
the neighboring kingdom of Westphalia were enjoying equality. When
the Rhenish Confederation was dissolved and the Duchy of Frankfort
created with a constitution of its own, recognizing the equality of all
inhabitants, of whatever belief, Amschel, Gumprecht, and Rothschild
(the first court-agent who made princes subject to himself), as
representatives of the Jews, did not rest until they had induced the
Archduke Dalberg and his council to establish their equalization by
a special law in spite of all opposition. The new archduke being in
want of funds, besides desiring the freedom and equality of the Jews,
consented to grant these privileges for the sum of 440,000 florins
(being twenty times the amount of the annual tax of 22,000 florins),
150,000 to be paid at once, then 50,000, and the remainder in annual
payments of 10,000 florins. The law (published December 28, 1811)
decreed, "that all Jews living in Frankfort under protection, together
with their children and descendants, should enjoy civil rights and
privileges equally with other citizens." The Jews took the oath of
citizenship, entered upon their privileges and duties, and Louis Baruch
(Börne), a Jew, was employed in the ducal police. The Jew-street, or
what remained of it, lost its mournful privileges, and was swept out of
existence or joined to adjacent quarters. The proud patricians gnashed
their teeth at such unheard-of innovations. They had suffered a double
loss by the abolition of serfdom and of the old laws regarding the
Jewish inhabitants; but for the time they had to acquiesce.
The northern Hanse Towns, where German guild-narrowness joined to
ossified Lutheranism scarcely allowed the Jews to breathe, were
compelled by order of the French garrison to grant them equality.
Hamburg agreed to place all its inhabitants, including Jews, upon
an equal level (1811), and also admitted them to seats in the civic
council. The following testimony was afterwards adduced in their favor--
"With all the privileges of equality received, or guaranteed,
their much-feared presumption did not obtrude itself, nor
had any disadvantages accrued to the Christian citizens;
on the contrary, the Jews displayed a quiet, modest, and
friendly demeanor in spite of additional prerogatives, and
showed eagerness to work for the public weal. Several gained
distinction by their great benevolence and patriotism."
The small town of Lübeck showed more opposition to the settlement and
emancipation of a few Jews under French protection. Hitherto only
about ten families were tolerated in the town as "protection Jews,"
who were forbidden to engage in trade, join the guilds, or obtain
possession of houses. These privileges were regarded as exclusively
Christian; no Jews dared claim them. Only three Jews were allowed to
come daily into Lübeck from the neighboring town of Moisling (under
the dominion of Denmark or Holstein), and these were compelled to pay
a sort of poll-tax at the gate. Any deputy of the merchants' guild
could lay hands upon them, and take them before the police, if they
sold goods, and everything found in the possession of such suspects was
confiscated. With the advent of the French (1811-1814), about forty-two
Jews from Moisling and fourteen foreigners with their families moved to
Lübeck, thus bringing the number of families in Lübeck up to sixty-six.
These sixty-six Jews aroused the fierce rage of the Lübeck patricians
even more than Napoleon's sovereignty. The embargo laid by Napoleon
upon the Continent to annoy England had attracted several Jewish
families to North Germany, hitherto unfriendly to Jews.
In the Hanse Town of Bremen, which until then had known only traveling
Jews, who paid toll on entering the town, Jews took up residence under
French protection, not indeed in great numbers, but too many for the
bigotry of the patricians. Here, too, they were allowed equal rights
with other citizens. Even the Duke of Mecklenburg, Frederick Franz,
granted the equalization of the Jews (February 22, 1812), and allowed
marriages between Jews and Christians, a greater concession than those
made by any other code. Prussia also could no longer resist the tide
in favor of the Jews. In Prussia they had displayed much greater love
for their native land, and brought more sacrifices during the times
of trouble than many of the corrupt nobility, who had ingratiated
themselves with their victorious enemies. But a long time elapsed
before King Frederick William III could overcome his aristocratic
and religious repugnance to them. He only abolished the insulting
cognomen of "protection Jews," declaring them not only admissible to
the citizenship of towns, but under compulsion to perform its duties.
They were forced to take the oath as citizens of towns and to share in
the burdens of the cities in which they lived. But they were not to be
recognized as state citizens, their position being the reverse of that
of the Jews in Baden. The prospect of equalization as state citizens
was continually held out to them, but the promise remained unfulfilled
for several years. When Hardenberg again assumed control of the
disturbed affairs of the state, and insisted upon the repeal of decayed
laws and the removal of rotten conditions, he favored the removal
of the civil disabilities of the Jews, so that by their help new
strength should be infused into the mutilated, bleeding, impoverished
territory,--help which it could ill spare in its wretched state of deep
depression. David Friedländer and his friends, Berlin capitalists,
used their utmost efforts to bring about the state equalization so
long promised. The king again and again delayed the ratification of
the law submitted to him by the chancellor. At length--moved, it is
said, by the interest taken by the Berlin Jews in commemorating the
death of the much-suffering, lamented Queen Louise,--Frederick William
gave his assent (March 11, 1812) to the equalization of all Jews at
that time settled in Prussia. They were to be admitted to posts in
schools and colleges; but the king withheld the privilege of admission
to state offices. With the privileges, they were to assume the duties,
especially as soldiers. Their religious affairs were to be regulated
afterwards: "When the plan for their religious organization is drawn
up, such Jews as enjoy public confidence both on account of their
knowledge and probity will be consulted."
Three German princes alone withstood the spirit of the age: those of
Bavaria, Austria, and Saxony. The first, Maximilian Joseph, appointed
king of Bavaria by Napoleon, promulgated an edict (June 10, 1813),
which appeared to concede equality to Jews, at least to those who
possessed the right of settlement. But it was equality with many
limitations. In cities to which no Jew had hitherto been admitted,
their settlement was to depend upon the royal pleasure, and even in
those places where they had dwelt for a long time their numbers were
not to be increased, but rather diminished. In Austria, Leopold II
and Francis I, the successors of Emperor Joseph, who had somewhat
loosened the chains of the Jews, left the favorable intentions of their
predecessor unexecuted, and imposed new humiliations. In addition to
the unendurable burden of taxes in Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, and
Galicia,--taxes upon candles, upon wine, and meat--a collection-tax
was imposed in Vienna, which was a toll upon every Jew who entered
the capital. Spies closely watched the Jew who stayed in Vienna
for a short time unprovided with a passport, and treated him like a
criminal. Marriages among Jews were still restricted, and could be
contracted only by the eldest son of the family, or by one able to pay
heavy bribes. Although Austria was so often overrun by the soldiers
of liberty, yet, impenetrable as the wall of China, it resisted every
innovation. In the newly-created kingdom of Saxony all the restrictions
imposed in the time of the Electoral princes and the Lutheran Church
were maintained in their fullest rigor. Saxony was rightly called the
Protestant Spain of the Jews. Indeed they were not suffered to dwell
in the country at all; only a few privileged Jews were admitted to the
two towns of Dresden and Leipsic, but under the express condition that
they could be expelled at any time. They were not allowed to have a
synagogue, but only to meet for prayer in small rooms, on condition
that they made no noise. In Leipsic and Dresden every privileged Jew
was compelled to pay annually seventy thalers for himself, besides
other sums for his wife, children, and servants. The Jews were
rigidly constrained in their choice of trades and occupations, and
were placed under strict supervision while traveling. When all other
German districts had abolished the poll-tax, Saxony still retained
it. The example of the two neighboring countries--Westphalia and
Prussia--had no influence upon this district, which at that time was
rendered doubly selfish by trade jealousy and religious prejudice. The
reactionary movement found plenty of fuel in Germany.