The Berlin Jewish community: enlightenment, family and crisis, 1770-1830 9780195083262, 9780195359428

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
Part I Berlin Before Modernity (page 1)
1. The Crisis of Berlin Jewry: Introduction to the Problem (page 3)
2. A Traditional Jewish Community: Berlin Jewry Before the Changes (page 10)
Part II The Stage of "Peaceful Modernization" (page 23)
3. The Seven Years War (1756-1763) and the Emergence of a New Economic Elite (page 25)
4. The Intellectuals of the Berlin Haskala (page 33)
5. The Lifestyle of Modernizing Berlin Jews (page 43)
6. Those Outside the Modernizing Groups: Poor Jews and Orthodox Jews in Berlin (page 55)
Part III The Crisis of Berlin Jewry (page 69)
7. The Struggle for Emancipation and Its Radicalizing Impact (page 75)
8. Intellectual Radicalization and Economic Crisis (page 89)
9. The Salons (page 104)
10. The Crisis: Illegitimacy and Family Breakdown (page 111)
11. The Crisis - Conversion: Its Scope and Characteristics (page 120)
12. Religious Reform: An Attempt to Deal with the Crisis (page 134)
Part IV The Social Analysis of the Crisis and Its Connection to the Enlightenment (page 149)
13. Family, Ideology, and Crisis: The Personal Connections Between the Enlightened and the Converts (page 151)
14. Was the Experience of Women Different from Men's Experience? (page 162)
15. The Aftermath of the Crisis: Berlin Jewry After 1823 (page 177)
Part V Conclusion (page 183)
Conclusion (page 185)
Notes (page 197)
Bibliography (page 277)
Index (page 284)

Citation preview

THE BERLIN JEWISH COMMUNITY

STUDIES IN JEWISH HISTORY

Jehuda Reinharz, General Editor THE JEWS OF PARIS AND THE FINAL THE VATICAN AND ZIONISM

SOLUTION Conflict in the Holy Land, 1895-1925

Communal Response and Internal Conflicts, Sergio Minerbi 1940-1944

Jacques Adler ESCAPING THE HOLOCAUST

| | Illegal Immigration to the Land of Israel,

JEWS IN CHRISTIAN AMERICA 1939-1944 The Pursuit of Religious Equality Dalia Ofer

yata .;

Naomi W. Cohen

ATLAS OF MODERN JEWISH HISTORY CHAIM WEIZMANN

Evvatar Friesel The Making of a Zionist Leader Jehuda Reinharz

A SIGN AND A WITNESS

2,000 Years of Hebrew Books and Illuminated CHAIM WEIZMANN

Manuscripts The Making of a Statesman

Paperback edition (co-published with The New Jehuda Reinharz York Public Library)

Edited by Leonard Singer Gold COURAGE UNDER SIEGE Starvation, Disease, and Death in the Warsaw

A CLASH OF HEROES Ghetto

Brandeis, Weizmann, and American Zionism Charles G. Roland Ben Halpern

, os , The Zionist Resort to Force |

THE MAKING OF THE JEWISH MIDDLE CLASS LAND AN D POWER

Women, Family, and Identity in Imperial Anita Shapira

Germany Marion A. Kaplan

THE TRANSFORMATION OF GERMAN

THE MAKING OF CZECH JEWRY JEWRY: 1780-1840 National Conflict and Jewish Society in Bohemia, David Sorkin 1870-1918

Hillel J, Kieval FOR WHOM DO I TOIL? , Judah Leib Gordon and the Crisis of Russian

THE ROAD TO MODERN JEWISH POLITICS Jewry Political Tradition and Political Reconstruction Michael F. Stanislawski

in the Jewish Community of Tsarist Russia — ,

Eli Lederhendler UNWELCOME STRANGERS | East European Jews in Imperial Germany

THE BERLIN JEWISH COMMUNITY Jack Wertheimer Enlightenment, Family, and Crisis, 1770-1830

Steven M. Lowenstein

THE HOLOCAUST

ON MODERN JEWISH POLITICS , The Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945

Ezra Mendelsohn Leni Yahil

RESPONSE TO MODERNITY WILHELM MARR A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism The Patriarch of Antisemitism

Michael A. Meyer Moshe Zimmermann OTHER VOLUMES ARE IN PREPARATION

THE BERLIN JEWISH COMMUNITY Enlightenment, Family, and Crisis, 1770-1830 STEVEN M. LOWENSTEIN

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Oxford University Press Oxford New York Toronto Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi Kuala Lumpur Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo Nairobi Dares Salaam Cape Town Melbourne Auckland Madrid and associated companies in

Berlin Ibadan

Copyright © 1994 by Steven M. Lowenstein Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., 200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lowenstein, Steven M., 1945The Berlin Jewish community : enlightenment, family, and crisis, 1770-1830 / Steven M, Lowenstein, p. cm.—(Studies in Jewish history) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-19-508326-1 1. Jews—-Germany—Berlin——-History—18th century.

2. Jews—Germany—Berlin—History—19th century. 3, Jews-—Germany—Berlin—Cultural assimilation.

4, Jews--Germany—Berlin—Emancipation. ,

5. Berlin (Germany)—Ethnic relations, I. Title. IT. Series. DS135.G4B46725 1993 943.1'55004924——-de 20 92-39884 Droste Verlag, Diisseldorf for picture of the Reetzengasse.

Leo Baeck Institute, New York for portrait of Rebbeca Itzig. Oesterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna for portrait of David Friedlander. Jewish Museum, London for “Der Samstag”—picture of Jews in front of Fiirth Synagogue. Bildarchiv Preussicher Kulturbesitz for Ephraim mansion and for Jewish poorhouse in Berlin. Staatliche Museeun zu Berlin—Preussischer Kulturbesitz-Nationalgaleric

for portrait of Henriette Herz. |

Jewish Museum, New York and W. J. Wittkower, Herzlia, Israel for portrait of Ephraim Markus Ephraim. Dr. Cecile Lowenthal-Hensel, Berlin for portrait of Moses Mendelssohn.

Berlin Museum for photo of cup and saucer with pictures of Isaac Daniel Itzig and , , his mansion, the Bartholdi’sche Meierei.

135798642

Printed in the United States of America | on acid-free paper .

To Marilynn with gratitude

Blank Page

Note on the Transliteration of Hebrew

The practice of transliteration used in this volume departs from the usual procedure of transcribing according to the Sephardic (Israeli) pronunciation. Sephardic pronunciation is used here only in the transcription of book titles, of Hebrew terms well known in English, or of Hebrew terms used by myself and not merely transcribed from a text. Wherever a text from the Berlin Jewish communal records (or a literary text in which Hebrew is mixed together with German or Yiddish) is used, the transcription is based on my reconstruction of the pronunciation that would have been used by a Berlin Jew of the time. This means that the Ashkenazic pronunciation system is used, with the addition that holam is transcribed au. Although this transcription may appear strange and a bit hard to read for those used to modern Israeli Hebrew, it has the advantage of greater authenticity. In the case of Yiddish or mixed German-Hebrew texts it is a necessity.

Blank Page

Acknowledgments This work has been undertaken over a period of more than five years and has benefited from the help and encouragement of a large number of people. Though I have endeavored to be comprehensive in listing those who have aided me in my work, I may have inadvertently omitted some individuals and ask them for their indulgence. My earliest attempt to deal with some of the issues examined in this book was made in an article about the subscribers to Moses Mendelssohn’s Bible translation. That article was published in the Hebrew Union College Annual in a volume in honor of Dr. Fritz Bamberger, who has since passed away. It was dedicated to Dr. Bamberger’s lifelong interest in the life and work of Moses Mendelssohn. A grant-in-aid from the American Council of Learned Societies made possible some of the travel to foreign archives necessary for this book. I am grateful to the ACLS for its support. In the course of working on Berlin Jewry, I have written a number of articles announcing preliminary findings. I would like to thank the following people and publishers for permission to use the materials contained in those articles in altered form in this volume: Dr. Arnold Paucker, Leo Baeck Institute, London for “Two Silent Minorities: Orthodox Jews and Poor Jews in Berlin, 1770-1823,” Yearbook of the Leo Baeck Institute 36 (1991), 3-25. Prof. Herbert Paper, editor Hebrew Union College Annual for “The Readership of Mendelssohn’s Bible Translation,” Hebrew Union College Annual 53 (1982), 179-213.

Dennis Ford of Scholars Press for the updated version of the article which appears in my book The Mechanics of Change: Essays on the Social History of German Jewry (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). Prof. Stefi Jersch-Wenzel of the Historische Kommission zu Berlin for “Soziale Aspekte der Krise des Berliner Judentums 1780 bis 1830” in Bild und Slebstbild der Juden Berlins zwischen Aufkldrung und Romantik (Berlin: Colloquim Verlag, 1992). Basil Blackwell Publishers for “Jewish Upper Crust and Berlin Jewish Enlightenment—the family of Daniel Itzig,” in Frances Malino and David Sorkin (eds.), From East and West: Jews in a Changing Europe 1750-1850 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990).

This work could not have been completed without the cooperation and help of the staffs of the archives in which I worked. My former colleagues and continuing

x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS friends at the Leo Baeck Institute archives, Diane Spielman and Frank Mecklenburg,

were most helpful, as were the directors of the institute, Fred Grubel and Robert Jacobs. Thanks are also due to Aryeh Segall and his staff at the Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People in Jerusalem for making available the treasures of their archives. Special thanks are due to the director of the Evangelisches Zentralarchiv in Berlin, Dr. Sander, and to his staff, for permitting me to work in their archives beyond the official opening and closing hours of their institution. This made it possible for me to copy the entire “Judenkartei”’ of baptisms in the very limited time available to me in Berlin. In this connection, I also thank Dr. Stefi Jersch-Wenzel of the Historische Kommission zu Berlin. Not only did she arrange with the Evangelisches Zentralarchiv to allow me to work on the special schedule but she also arranged for a member of the Kommission’s staff, Dr. Michael Brenner, to help me find photographic materials for use in this volume. Dr. Brenner’s very professional efforts are acknowledged with gratitude. Professors David Ellenson of Hebrew Union College, Los Angeles, Michael Berkowitz, now of Ohio State University, and Michael A. Meyer of Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, read the entire manuscript of this book in an early stage. All gave me extremely valuable suggestions and corrections, which led to substantial improvement of the manuscript. I thank them for their helpfulness and their continuing friendship. In the course of working on this project, I have had fruitful discussions with many friends, colleagues, and students. While it is impossible to acknowledge them all, I would like to express special thanks to those who were especially helpful. First, thanks are due to Deborah Hertz of the State University of New York at Binghamton, with whom I have had many discussions on this subject, both in person and in correspondence. Although we did not always agree, we always had a useful

exchange of information and views. The administration of the University of Juda- , ism has been most encouraging of my work, and I am grateful for their assistance. The editors and staff of Oxford University Press have been both professional and extraordinarily helpful in bringing this book to the point of publication. Among those who are especially deserving of praise are Nancy Lane, senior editor, her assistant Edward Harcourt, Caroline Tzelios, who worked on the cover design, Ellen Fuchs and Susan Hannan, who supervised the editing and production, and Phyllis

sity Press.

_ Skomorowsky who copy edited the manuscript. Thanks are also due to Professor Jehuda Reinharz, editor of the Studies in Jewish History series for Oxford Univer-

My mother, Yette Lowenstein, has always been a model of those values of German Jewry that inspired me to devote myself to the study of its heritage. Finally, the greatest thanks of all are due to my wife, Marilynn, and my children, Ruth and Kenny, for their patience and understanding during the many years when I seemed obsessed with Berlin Jews long gone from this world. Without their support, help, and understanding I would not have been able to complete this work.

Los Angeles S. L. January 1993

Contents

Part I Berlin Before Modernity, | 1. The Crisis of Berlin Jewry: Introduction to the Problem, 3 2. A Traditional Jewish Community: Berlin Jewry Before the Changes, 10

Part I] The Stage of ‘“‘Peaceful Modernization’’, 23 3. The Seven Years War (1756-1763) and the Emergence of a New Economic Elite, 25 4. The Intellectuals of the Berlin Haskala, 33 5. The Lifestyle of Modernizing Berlin Jews, 43 6. Those Outside the Modernizing Groups: Poor Jews and Orthodox Jews in Berlin, 55

Part Wi The Crisis of Berlin Jewry, 69 7. The Struggle for Emancipation and Its Radicalizing Impact, 75 8. Intellectual Radicalization and Economic Crisis, 89 9. The Salons, 104

10, The Crisis: legitimacy and Family Breakdown, 111

Xi Contents 11. The Crisis—Conversion: Its Scope and Characteristics, 120 12. Religious Reform: An Attempt to Deal with the Crisis, 134

162 | Part IV The Social Analysis of the Crisis and Its Connection to the Enlightenment, 149

13. Family, Ideology, and Crisis: The Personal Connections Between the Enlightened and the Converts, 151 14. Was the Experience of Women Different from Men’s Experience?, 15. The Aftermath of the Crisis: Berlin Jewry After 1823, 177

Part V_ Conclusion, 183

Conclusion, 185 | Notes, 197 Bibliography, 277

Index, 284

Berlin Before Modernity

Blank Page

The Crisis of Berlin Jewry: Introduction to the Problem

Few communities of comparable size have received the scholarly attention that the Jews of Berlin in the period 1770-1823 have received from historians of modern Jewry. Virtually every general history of the Jews devotes several pages to the community, and many histories of modern Jewry devote whole chapters. The life of Moses Mendelssohn, the Berlin Haskala (Jewish Enlightenment), the women of the salons, the “epidemic of baptism,” the conflict over early religious reform,‘ all are the staples of modern Jewish history. The impact of the events has affected Jewish life far beyond Berlin or Germany. Berlin Jewry has served as a model (and also as a cautionary tale) for Jewish communities in Eastern Europe, America, and elsewhere. Debate over the importance and the merit of the changes that took place in Berlin during those generations has been closely tied to ideological battles within Judaism. And yet, the Jewish community of Berlin was relatively small between the years 1770 and 1823. The total number of Jews in Berlin fluctuated, but was never much greater or fewer than 3,500. When compared to a world Jewish population of several million at the time, this seems an infinitesimal number. Even within the areas later to be part of united Germany, Berlin had none of the numeric dominance it was to have later on. Not only were there probably twice as many Jews in Ham-

burg as in Berlin, there were a number of small cities in the Posen district (such as Lissa, Kempen, etc.)—little more than shtetlekh—whose Jewish population exceeded that of Berlin. Until the period of Mendelssohn, Berlin had not played nearly the role in Jewish history that such communities as Frankfurt, Hamburg, Amsterdam, Prague, or Vienna had. It was not as important either for Jewish intellectual history or for the economic history of the Jews. Although there had been Jews in Berlin throughout much of the Middle Ages, the community had been expelled in the sixteenth century. The beginning of the history of the Berlin Jewish community of modern times

4 BERLIN BEFORE MODERNITY does not begin until 1671. In that year the Great Elector, Friedrich Wilhelm of Brandenburg, permitted a group of Jews who had been expelled from Vienna to settle in Berlin. Throughout the ensuing 140 years, the Jewish community of Ber-

tions. .

lin grew, but it was limited in its growth by severe government restrictions on Jewish numbers and Jewish economic activity. Although not confined to a walled ghetto,

Berlin’s Jews were hemmed in by myriad restrictions, special taxes, and regula-

| The story of the modernization crisis of Berlin Jewry comes in three separate but interconnected stages—a premodern stage, a stage of peaceful modernization,

and a stage of crisis. In the first half of the eighteenth century, there was little about the Jewish community of Berlin to hint that it would be a pioneer in breaking with tradition. Berlin Jews set up all the institutions of a traditional kehilla (Jewish community)—synagogue, rabbinate, charity societies, and Talmud study

institute (Beth Hamidrash). Religious practice, if it differed from that of other communities, tended to be stricter rather than looser. All in all, Berlin was a typ-

ical pious Jewish community.

There were, however, two aspects of the situation of Berlin Jews that were unusual from the start. One was the nature of the city of Berlin itself. The city experienced explosive population growth during the first half of the eighteenth century—from 17,400 in 1685 to 113,289 in 1750.* Unlike many other major cities

with Jewish populations, Berlin had little in the way of an established patrician Class. Its inhabitants were mostly recent migrants attracted by the role of the city

as a governmental center, by its royal court, its huge military garrison, and its growing commercial and manufacturing importance. The city had a varied population including, besides thousands of soldiers, a thriving colony of French Huguenot refugees. The many migrants to the city helped to make it an intellectual center as well. By the second half of the eighteenth century it had become the center of the German Enlightenment. The other special aspect of Berlin Jewish life was the result of the severe restrictions imposed on the Jews by Prussian law. These laws favored Jews with wealth over poor Jews and, in fact, divided the Jewish population into groups with differ-

ent legal status based mainly on wealth. The effect of such laws was to exclude poor Jews. Berlin Jewry was therefore more affluent than most Jewish communities in Central Europe at the time. _ Despite the special character of Berlin as a boomtown and of Berlin Jewry as especially wealthy, the distinctiveness of Berlin Jewry did not become evident until

the second half of the eighteenth century. In fact, the changes that Berlin Jewry underwent were remarkable for their rapidity, even suddenness. When Moses Mendelssohn arrived in the city in 1743, there was little to suggest the momentous changes that would take place. The first important changes in Berlin Jewish life were associated with the Seven

Years War (1756-1763). During those years, a small group of Jewish families became extremely rich and rose to positions of dominance in Berlin Jewish life. Unlike earlier groups of wealthy Jews, they soon began to try to live a life that would correspond in its opulence and its culture to the life of non-Jewish patri-

Introduction to the Problem 5 cians in Berlin. It was in the years immediately before the Seven Years War that Mendelssohn published his first Enlightenment works. In the years after the war, the new Berlin Jewish patriclans would be among the chief supporters of Mendelssohn and his Haskala followers. The emergence of a Haskala milieu (as opposed to the rather isolated brilliance of Mendelssohn alone) can be dated to the 1770s.3 It was then that a group of intellectuals, some born in Berlin, others migrants from various places, began to gather in the city and pursue their intellectual activities using both the German and the Hebrew languages. This Haskala circle continued to grow and flourish for most of the rest of the century. Berlin became a center of Jewish intellectual activity and the source of numerous publications concerning Jewish matters written under the influence of the Enlightenment. At first the spread of a new lifestyle and of the Jewish Enlightenment ideology proceeded calmly, with little opposition within the community. Under the rather conservative leadership of men like Mendelssohn and Hartwig Wessely and with the support of the Jewish patricians, Berlin Jewry was moving toward a way of life that combined openness to German culture and preservation of Jewish religious tradition. Though there were certainly circles of Berlin Jews who did not participate in the changes in cultural orientation, there was little in the way of a clear break between a modernist and a traditionalist party in Berlin during Mendelssohn’s lifetime. In fact, what was most noticeable in this stage of modernization

was the harmony between the Berlin Jewish establishment and the forces of modernity.

The death of both Mendelssohn and King Frederick II in 1786 marked the beginning of a new phase in the life of the community. It was around this time, with the coming to the throne of Friedrich Wilhelm II, that the campaign of Berlin Jews for wider rights, and eventually for full emancipation, began in earnest. Despite much disagreement and initial disappointments, this movement, led by Mendelssohn’s closest disciple, David Friedlander, reached its fruition in the granting of broad civic rights to Prussian Jews in 1812. The prospect of a possible integration of Prussian Jewry into society as a whole seems to have been one of the inducements that led the Berlin Enlightenment into

more radical directions. The political goal of emancipation, the absence of the restraining hand of Mendelssohn, and the changes in the sexual mores of society at large helped usher in a revolutionary stage in the development of Jewish modernity in Berlin. This more radical phase of the modernist movement soon led to division and to a sense of crisis within the Berlin Jewish community. The confidence of the earlier Enlightenment that change would progress steadily and with little conflict now seemed overoptimistic. Haskala publications became outspoken in their criticism of traditional Jewish institutions and religious practices. Many wealthy and Enlightened Berlin Jews began to drop the practice of such Jewish rituals as observing the dietary laws and the Sabbath. Disappointed with the slow progress of legal emancipation and the lack of reform of Jewish communal and religious affairs, some Enlightenment figures pushed more and more desperate and radical measures. Characteristic of the

6 BERLIN BEFORE MODERNITY most extreme views was the famous letter to Dean Teller of 1799 by David Friedlander, which proposed acceptance of baptism if it did not also require acceptance

of the nonrational dogmas of Christianity. In this period after the death of Mendelssohn, other changes in Jewish behavior seemed to indicate the approach of a crisis. The family, traditionally the bulwark of Judaism, began to show signs of strain. Often there was a great cultural gap between the older and the younger generations, who differed in dress, speech patterns, religious practice, and cultural attitudes. Many in the younger generation not only became attracted to the culture of the non-Jewish world but also developed personal attachments outside the Jewish community. Love affairs between Jews and Christians became more common. Often these affairs produced children out of wedlock or resulted in conversions to Christianity so that marriage could be undertaken (intermarriage was illegal). But the attraction of Christianity was not restricted to those wishing to marry. Whole families, especially among the upper classes, converted. Conversion seemed for many to be “an entrance ticket into European culture’* or to clear away the obstacles to career advancement or to be

a means to procure social acceptance. To many it seemed that there was a Taufepidemie (epidemic of baptisms) going on in Berlin between 1780 and 1830. Conversions were only one aspect of the challenge to Jewish tradition, however. Marriages seemed less stable, and the divorce rate climbed. Sexual freedom, which reached its height in Berlin during the reign of Friedrich Wilhelm II, became increasingly characteristic of Jewish sexual mores. The role of women, too, seemed to be undergoing rapid change. Traditionally confined mainly to a domestic role, or to certain aspects of economic life, many women began to desire independence in both social and cultural life. The acquisition of Western culture seemed especially noticeable among upper-class Jewish women. The salons headed by wealthy Jewish women became centers of the social and intellectual life of the city. They became meeting places for aristocrats, intellectuals, and Jews, and they had an important role in furthering early Romanticism. Salon women, including Mendelssohn’s own daughter, were prominent in the circles most affected by conversion and libertinage.

The period of the salons seems to have ended around 1806, the victim of a change in general mores and of a growing anti-Jewish sentiment. After 1806 waves of libertinage and illegitimacy within the Jewish community slowly began to abate. The trend to accept baptism, however, did not disappear but continued to increase until around 1830.

With the granting of citizenship in 1812, new movements arose within the Jewish community. These efforts to come to grips with the growing sense of crisis and its implied threat to Jewish continuity at the same time produced new divisions in the community. Berlin Jewry was racked by conflict over reforms in the synagogue service. The Beer-Jacobson reform temple in Berlin was one of the first of its kind in the world. The reform movement aroused intense opposition among the traditionalist minority in the community. After almost nine years of dissension, the orthodox were victorious, with the aid of the royal government, which in 1823 forbade all religious innovations. Another movement, involving far fewer people than the movement for liturgical reform, but having almost as much intel-

Introduction to the Problem 7 lectual influence, was the beginning of modern Jewish scholarship exemplified by the Verein fiir Cultur und Wissenschaft der Juden, which flourished briefly, between the years 1819 and 1823. Besides these manifold changes in the life of the Jewish community, there was much else that was noteworthy in the lives of individual Berlin Jews of the time. The community produced or attracted a number of people who played leading roles in the culture of early nineteenth century Europe—most noteworthy among them Felix Mendelssohn, Giacomo Meyerbeer, and Heinrich Heine. After 1823 the government’s opposition to innovation put a damper on cultural change in Berlin Jewry. Orthodoxy, though only a weak social and intellec-

tual force in the Berlin of the 1820s and 1830s, regained its dominance in the official community. Increasing migration of Jews from the provinces, especially the eastern provinces, replenished the traditionalist forces. By the 1830s the sense of crisis began to dissipate. The community no longer seemed in danger of dissolution at the hands of the forces of assimilation and conversion. It also no longer seemed the brilliant cultural and intellectual center that it had been. The story outlined above has been told frequently in studies on Jewish history. Some aspects of its unfolding have been the object of intense debate. Some debates concern factual matters—was the wave of baptisms really an epidemic? How many were converted and when was the peak of the conversion wave reached? Other debates are more ideological—did the Enlightenment and other forms of religious liberalism inevitably lead to assimilation and crisis? Was the role of the salons beneficial or immoral and dangerous? This study does not seek to answer the ideological questions underlying much of the debate over the Berlin Haskala. Its purpose, rather, is to give a clear picture of the nature of the events that took place among Berlin Jewry in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Unlike other monographs, this book does not concentrate on a single aspect of the changes but tries to look at the interrelationships among the various events and movements. Also unlike many other works, its main methodology is not the analysis of intellectual positions and their mutual influences. Instead, I have chosen to use the methods of social history to analyze the various aspects of the crisis of Berlin Jewry. Specifically, the study is based on a collective biography of the entire Jewish community of Berlin. It 1s not necessary to resort to small samples of the population as examples of the whole. It is feasible to cover the entire community because of a number of favorable circumstances. First, the Jewish community, with only 3,500 members, was relatively small. Second, the documentation on the community is so rich and varied that it is possible to trace all sorts of behavior, including the activities that help indicate ideological affiliation. Among the documentation that I have been able to use are the following: tax lists of the Jewish community for every three years from 1723 to 1789 as well as for the year 1809; subscription lists to a number of important Hebrew Enlightenment works;> a list of all Jewish inhabitants of Berlin in 1812 with their family relationships and their choice of

family names; address lists for Berlin Jews in 1744 and 1812; the kosher meat tax list for 1814; genealogical information on all Jewish marriages in the years 1759-1813; baptismal records of Jews converting to Christianity between 1770 and

8 BERLIN BEFORE MODERNITY 1830; the list of those affiliated with the Jacobson-Beer temple in 1818; and much more.®

The idea is to look for the connections between various aspects of change— economic change, participation in Enlightenment activities, conversion, marital and childbearing practices, pro- or antireform affiliations, and religious practice—and to see the personal relationships of those involved in the various activities. I have chosen not simply to compare aggregates of population (for instance, comparing bankers on the subscription lists with bankers in the baptismal records).’ Instead, relying on the very complete available genealogical records, I have traced family relationships as well as the activities of individuals.’ The behavior of whole family groups can be analyzed singly, but it is also susceptible to statistical analysis

in the aggregate. It seemed to me that family groups were crucial units for the transmission of cultural values and traditions. By comparing the activities and social

position of one generation with the activities of their descendants and collateral relatives, we could get an idea of the effects of the behavior of one generation on the behavior of the next. Using the techniques of collective biography, I was able to come to what I think are definitive conclusions about the nature of Berlin Jewry and the dimensions and general mechanisms of the crisis of Berlin Jewry. We can see approximately how the income structure of the Berlin Jewish community looked and how much of the community actively supported the Enlightenment or the movement for religious reform. We can settle once and for all the exact dates of the wave of baptisms, as well as the percentage of Berlin Jews affected by it, and can delineate changes in the nature of the conversion movement over time.’ Perhaps most important of all, the method of collective biography helps to answer the question of the connection between the “peaceful stage” of Enlightenment and the crisis that followed it. Many historians have built up a case based on such impressionistic evidence as the conversion of four of Mendelssohn’s six surviving children or the divorce, romantic liaison, and conversion of his daughter Dorothea von Schlegel. By tracing large numbers of families we can now tell whether such cases were typical or peculiar. We can compare the number of converts among the children of subscribers to Enlightenment works and the children of members of orthodox organizations. We can see what the personal connections were between the converts and those who chose the reform and orthodox sides around 1815. We can look at social and family characteristics of each of the groups and can compare the relative influence of wealth, Enlightenment affiliation, and occupation, among other aspects of lifestyle, on the religious behavior and likelihood of conversion of children. Much of the argument in this study is based on the statistical information arising from the collective biography. In many cases such information can be illustrated as well by citing the behavior of specific families that seemed typical or striking cases of general trends. The collective biography, because it relies almost exclusively on behavior rather than directly observable attitudes, can only indirectly acquaint us with the motivations that led individuals, families, and groups to act the way they did. The statistical material has been enriched wherever possible by use of memoirs of the period as well as by travel accounts and other

Introduction to the Problem 9 literature that acquaint us with the attitudes of the time. Also available were the printed minute book of the Jewish community and many other archival records of the organized community. This “qualitative” material is much less copious than the quantitative material, and it is not nearly as representative of the community as a whole, but it provides an essential supplement to the quantitative material. It enables us to test some of the implications of the statistical material. The end result of this method is a clearer picture of the process by which Berlin became the first major Jewish community to undergo massive “modernization.” The role of family relationships, the influence of the choices of one generation on

those of the next, the chronological divisions in, and social influences on, the changes and the crisis they produced can be delineated. Still, the results cannot resolve the ideological debates about the merits of the reform or orthodox party or about the success or failure of either as a bulwark against assimilation. As will be seen later, the newly discovered facts can be interpreted variously depending on the viewpoint of the observer. Though some of the debate on the magnitude of the crisis and on the influences that made it unfold as it did may be settled here, the debate of value judgments about the success or failure of the Berlin Haskala or the Berlin salons will undoubtedly continue.

A Traditional Jewish Community: Berlin Jewry Before the Changes

There was little in the life of Berlin Jewry during its early years, or even in the first third of the eighteenth century, to indicate that Berlin would be the first Ashkenazic Jewish community to break with tradition. Even in the 1740s and early 1750s, Berlin Jewry was still overwhelmingly traditional. In fact, the Berlin Jewish community of the first half of the eighteenth century may very well have been more traditional than many others. In any case, it would seem that “modernity,” however defined, came to Berlin Jewry suddenly rather than gradually. A number of historians, notably Azriel Shohat, have searched for precursors to the changes that took place in German Jewry in the second half of the eighteenth

century and thereafter. From their work, a picture has emerged of a traditional society already in the early stages of decay in the first half of the eighteenth century. There was a decline in otherworldliness and asceticism, a lack of respect for traditional authority, a laxity in observance of ritual law, and a growing interest in secular culture. Although some of the phenomena pointed out by Shohat are open to argument, many are undoubtedly true. The bulk of Shohat’s examples, how- , ever, do not come from Berlin but from such other cities as Hamburg-Altona or even from the countryside.! It would seem that the scenario of gradual decline in tradition and the gradual rise of a more modern lifestyle is less applicable to Berlin than to other parts of German Jewry. The conventional date for the founding of the modern Berlin Jewish community is 1671, the year in which Elector Friedrich Wilhelm (“the Great Elector’’) of Brandenburg permitted a group of fifty Jewish families who had been expelled from Vienna to settle in his territory. There had been Jewish communities in medieval Berlin, but they had been expelled on several occasions, the last time in 1573. The first eighty years of the new Berlin Jewish communities are marked by a

number of characteristics that differentiated that period from the years that followed. It was a time of rapid growth in numbers, of deteriorating legal status, of

Berlin Jewry Before the Changes 11 strong religious and cultural traditionalism, and of conflict within the Jewish elite.

The period beginning in the 1750s and 1760s would see a reversal of all these traits. It was only then that we can begin to see the characteristics that made Berlin a distinctively modernizing community. Earlier there were few hints of momentous change.

Increasingly Severe Governmental Restrictions The original decree of admission of 1671 foresaw a small Jewish community with relatively broad rights. Fifty Jewish families were to be admitted to the Kurmark (central Brandenburg) for a period of twenty years. They were to be permitted to buy or rent houses and to deal in cloth, clothing, and groceries in open shops and at fairs. They would each have to pay an annual protection tax (Schutzgeld) of 8 Taler and were freed from the humiliating Leibzoll (body toll). Although not permitted at first to build a public synagogue, they could worship in private homes and could slaughter kosher meat. The Jews were not the only “foreign colony” admitted to Brandenburg by the Great Elector. Bohemian, Dutch, and, especially, French Huguenot colonists were also admitted. Although the conditions for the admission of Jews were relatively generous compared with the conditions for Jews elsewhere, they were far less favorable than those of the French colony admitted by the decree of Potsdam of 1685. Like the Jews, the French colonists had their own places of worship, their own courts and organizations, and their own educational institutions. Unlike the Jews, they were not subject to special taxation and not limited in numbers, and they were eligible for all state offices. The French colony, which in the eighteenth century numbered about 5,000 in Berlin alone, helped to make Berlin a cosmopolitan city and presents a fascinating community to compare with the Jews.° The relatively favorable legal conditions of Brandenburg Jewry, and even more, the great economic opportunities to be found in the rapidly expanding city of Berlin, attracted a growing Jewish population. Although the Brandenburg* government

wished to have a Jewish colony in Berlin to help build up its economy, it was often disturbed by the growth of the community. Christian merchant guilds and other competitors of the Jews showered the government with demands for restric-

tion of both the size of the Jewish community and its economic activity. The periodic attempts by the Prussian government to limit Jewish population created an oppressive atmosphere for Prussian Jews, but, in the nature of things, these attempts were doomed to failure. In principle, the government wished to stick with the original limits on numbers of families. However, if the children of the original families married and took over their parents’ residency rights, the numbers would automatically grow. In addition, the government was often tempted to grant additional residence permits to newcomers who offered it financial inducements or who seemed likely to make a special contribution to the economy. Since Berlin was still an underpopulated town recovering from the devastations of the Thirty Years War in 1671, there was little attempt to limit population in the early years. By 1700 the city had three

12 BERLIN BEFORE MODERNITY times as many people as it had had in 1680.° There were about 1,000 Jews in Berlin alone, despite the supposed limit of fifty families in all of Brandenburg. Reluctantly the government agreed to increases in the set number of families to 100 and then to 120. It also attempted to put some limits on natural increase. The law of 1714 allowed Jews with residence permits to settle one son or daughter, and permitted a second child with 1,000 Taler in capital and a third child with

2,000 to marry and acquire residence rights on payment of a special tax. These

requirements were later tightened. : The periodic attempts to restrict the growth of the Berlin community from immigration and natural increase reached a head under King Friedrich Wilhelm I (1713-1740). His decree of 1737 ordered a reduction of the Jewish population from 180 to 120 families. The 1,761 Jewish residents of Berlin were to be reduced to 1,187, all of them to be registered in a government list. Three hundred eightyseven Jews seem actually to have been expelled from the city.® An earlier law (in 1730) had excluded third sons from residency and allowed daughters residency only if there were no sons. These restrictions were tightened even further in 1747 under Frederick II (“Frederick the Great’’). Only one child could be settled legally by each family. The infamous General-Privilegium of 1750 codified the restrictions in a particularly strict form. The government now distinguished between 203 families of

Ordinarii who could settle one child if they had 1,000 Taler in capital, and 63 families of Extraordinarii, none of whose children could inherit their rights. Even younger children of Ordinarii could live with their parents during their lifetime but could not acquire residence rights or marry.’ The increasingly efficient Prussian bureaucracy with its lists and records of changes in Jewish population was becoming better informed of goings on in the Jewish community and was therefore better able to enforce its regulations. The progressive tightening of residence laws had little success in controlling the growth of the Berlin community. Even the expulsions of 1737 seem to have had little effect. The tax lists of the Jewish community show a progressive and rapid growth, averaging between 1.4 and 2.9 percent annually (and usually above 2 percent) for the period 1733 to 1764. In those thirty-one years the number of Jewish taxpayers almost doubled (from 223 to 437) at a time when the general population of the city increased only about 60 percent.® Paradoxically, in the last third of the century, when legal restrictions began to be loosened, the increase in Jewish population virtually came to an end.? It was not only the rapidly growing Jewish population that came under ever stricter control; the economic life of the community, too, felt the heavy hand of

the Prussian state. This was felt both in the realm of special taxation and in regulations of economic activity. Originally Jews had to pay only 8 Taler per family Schutzgeld for their residence permits. As the Prussian government’s need for funds increased, the amount

of special taxation on the Jews was increased as well. In 1728 the 8 Taler per family was converted into a tax of 15,000 Taler on all Jews in Prussia, for which all the Jews were collectively responsible. It was calculated at the rate of 14% Taler per family, and Berlin Jews were responsible for 2,610 Taler of the total.!°

Berlin Jewry Before the Changes 13 The Schutzgeld was raised to 25,000 (20 Taler per family) in 1765. By 1773 the share paid by Berlin Jewry had increased to 8,210 Reichstaler.!! In addition to these regular taxes, additional “special taxes” were often extorted from the Jewish communities. When Friedrich Wilhelm I came to power in 1713, the Jews of Prussia had to pay 20,000 Taler for confirmation of their privileges. In 1714 they paid 8,000 Taler to prevent a law requiring all Jews to wear red hats. In 1720 they gave 20,000 Taler as a “free gift.” Under Frederick the Great these special

levies continued, culminating in a payment of 70,000 Reichstaler in 1764 in exchange for the right to settle a second child. The Prussian Jews were also required at various times to deliver silver to the government mint at below market prices.}* Especially annoying was the requirement, introduced in 1769, that Jews acquiring new residency or other rights purchase a large quantity of porcelain from the royal porcelain works and sell it outside the country.!° Even more oppressive than the special taxes were the growing restrictions on Jewish occupational rights. The Great Elector seemed to have been motivated by a procommercial, relatively free trade policy. His successors, especially Friedrich Wilhelm I and Frederick the Great, were influenced much more by a paternalistic, mercantilist philosophy. All the rulers were subject to the demands by the competitors of the Jews for restrictions in their activities. As early as the 1720s, Jews were forbidden to engage in the sale of groceries and spices. Attempts were made beginning in 1718 to limit the number of shops Jews could have in Berlin. In 1727 they were forbidden to buy wool for resale or to engage in rural peddling. By the 1740s they were excluded from all wool trading. All crafts except seal engraving and gold and silver working were forbidden to them. The general Jewry laws of 1730 and 1750 specified in bewildering detail the products that Jewish merchants could or could not sell.!4 Other laws limited the number of houses Jews could own in Berlin to forty. The Jews were held collectively responsible for the payment of taxes beginning in 1728, and for thefts, sale of stolen goods, and fraudulent bankruptcies in 1750. All Jews would have to pay the amount owed by the tax delinquent, thief, or fraudulent bankrupt.!> The General-Privilegium of 1750, which remained the basic law for Prussian Jewry until the Emancipation Law of 1812, was called by the French revolutionary Count Honoré de Mirabeau a “law worthy of cannibals.” By the middle of the eighteenth century the Jews of Prussia, especially those of Berlin, were living under a bureaucratic regime that controlled their most basic human rights—the rights to marry, buy property, or engage in business. The legal condition of the midcentury was much worse than it had been at the beginning of the century. Although, theoretically, little changed until the end of the century, changes in the Prussian economy after midcentury would help improve the position of at least a wealthy minority of the community.

Creation of a Traditional Communal Structure Despite the legal restrictions, the Jews of Berlin were able to create a thriving Jewish

community. As soon as they could, they created all the Jewish traditional institu-

14 BERLIN BEFORE MODERNITY tions. The first rabbi of the community was chosen as early as 1672. In the same year the community bought land for a cemetery on the corner of Grosser Hamburger and Oranienburgerstrasse. In 1676 the Burial Society (Chevra Kadisha deGomlei Chasadim) was founded and the first Jewish burial took place. In 1704 the society for the care for the sick (Bikur Cholim) came into existence. This society later acquired its own hospice and engaged the services of two physicians.!© Because of governmental restrictions and conflict within the community, however, it was not until 1714 that a community synagogue was dedicated on the Heidereutergasse.

The creation of traditional Jewish organizations continued well into the second quarter of the eighteenth century. By 1723 the community already had separate funds for Eretz Israel (land of Israel) and Talmud Torah (for poor students). In 1728 a fund for the poor of the city of Hebron was created separate from the Eretz Israel fund. Much more costly was the creation in 1743-1744 of a Beth Hamidrash (Talmud study house) in the city. The Beth Hamidrash was housed in its own building adjacent to the synagogue and chose three rabbis whose job it was to “occupy themselves day and night with the Torah.”!” The Jewish community of Berlin was governed by a group of elders (parnassim; five at first, later fewer), with their assistants (tovim and ikkurim). In addition there were four (later five) charity wardens (gabba’ei tzedaka) as well as a number of treasurers (govim) and auditors (ro’et cheshbonot). In important matters these officials consulted assemblies of community members (yechidei segula).'® The main communal officials were elected by a cumbersome combination of lot and ballot, which favored the wealthier members of the community. Seven electors were chosen by lot—three (later four) from the richest tax class, two from the middle class, and two (later one) from the poorest tax class. These seven then chose the main officials of the community. The rabbi and other communal employees (assistant rabbis [dayanim], cantors, beadles [shamashim]}, ritual slaughterers, butchers, doctors, grave diggers, etc.) were chosen by the officials, sometimes with the approval of larger assemblies, and were paid by the community. The community had a rabbinic court of three, which judged

disputes between community members and had the right to impose fines and excommunication, settle questions of inheritance, marriage, and divorce, and determine questions of religious law. Among the beadle’s jobs was to summon

community members to the rabbinic court.!? ,

The community raised its main revenues from several sources. Voluntary contributions from ritual honors (mitzvot) and other donations or legacies seem to have played a minor role. The main revenues came from communal taxes. All householders and widows were assessed every three years on their property (Erech) by a commission of members. These assessments were originally collected monthly but were soon increased to as many as forty-four times a year. A part of this tax On capital could be paid by a credit from the individual member’s payment to the

other main communal tax, the Pardon, which was a consumption tax assessed mainly on kosher meat.?° From the money raised from these sources a consider-

munal budget.?! |

able proportion was used to pay governmental taxes, and the rest went to the com-

Berlin Jewry Before the Changes 15 These traditional institutions continued in existence with little change until the Emancipation decree of 1812 and, to some extent, even beyond.

The Traditional Ethos of Berlin Jewry The Berlin Jewish community in the early eighteenth century was traditional not only in its institutions but also in its religious practice and ethos. Attendance at daily and weekly services was common. The main synagogue seems not to have sufficed. Despite recurring governmental and communal attempts to forbid private services, such private synagogues (minyanim) were usually to be found in considerable numbers. In 1774 the total number of such prayer meetings was no fewer than twenty-two.*? Such ascetic practices as the twice yearly fasts of Monday— Thursday—Monday seem to have been widely practiced, at least in the 1720s.*3 The half-holidays of Passover were days with enough synagogue attendance for communal election results to be announced after services. As for Sabbath services, they were held very early during the summer months (6:30 a.M.) so as to observe the traditional regulations on times of prayer.” In general, observance of traditional Jewish ritual in Berlin was strict. Regulations on kosher meat issued in 1729 show that only “glatt kosher’ meat was permitted in the city in contrast to more lenient practices in neighboring small towns.°

The observance of traditional Sabbath and family purity laws were taken for granted.”6

The traditional role of the rabbi was seen as that of heading the rabbinical court and caring for traditional learning. The contracts appointing new rabbis delight in

describing their traditional rabbinic talents. They praise the fact that they teach the law with “sharp pilpul” (bepilpulo charifto) and that they have great knowledge of “both revealed and secret knowledge” (benigloh uvenistero), i.e., both of Halacha and Kabbala.?’ In general Berlin was not a center of Talmudic learning like Prague, HamburgAltona, Frankfurt am Main, Fiirth, or Metz. Few of the rabbis of Berlin had the scholarly stature of Ezekiel Landau of Prague, Jonathan Eibeschiitz of Altona, or Jacob Emden of Altona. The two most distinguished rabbis of Berlin in the eighteenth century were Joshua Falk (author of P’nei Yehoshua), rabbi from 1731 to 1734, and David Fraenkel (author of Korban Ha’eda—a commentary on the Jerusalem Talmud), rabbi from 1743 to 1762. Fraenkel, who was Moses Mendelssohn’s teacher, was a man with many wealthy relatives in Berlin, including Veitel Heine Ephraim, the later communal elder. He had considerable influence in the community; the founding of the Beth Hamidrash occurred at the time of his appointment as rabbi. Traditional Messianic and Jewish national attitudes were often expressed by communal leaders throughout the first two-thirds of the eighteenth century. The

communal minute book on several occasions speaks of the Jews as a nation in exile—the last time in 1802. Other documents declare commitments that shall last “until the Messiah shall come.”*® Besides such examples of traditional language and stereotyped traditional concepts, there are even documents from the middle of

16 BERLIN BEFORE MODERNITY the eighteenth century that see the coming of the Messiah as a concrete possibility

for the near future, and include clauses in contracts on how to act in case the Messiah arrives.??

The widespread agreement on traditional religious practices and attitudes did not prevent the community from being riven by internal dissension. Disputes and factionalism among the leadership were common from the very beginning. In the

early years of the community, the descendants of the Viennese refugees and the rest of the community were sharply divided and could not even agree on the appointment of a rabbi. The building of the community synagogue was delayed for years by a division in the community, which resulted in the creation of two and later four private synagogues. Each of the two main court Jews of the period, Jost Liebmann and Markus Magnus, had his own party. After Liebmann’s death, his widow continued the dispute and refused to give up her own private synagogue even when a communal synagogue was built. Often these disputes deteriorated into insults and brawls in the synagogue, some of which came to the attention of the government.°° Such disputes within the Berlin Jewish elite continued throughout the first ninety

years of the community’s existence. They often interfered with communal business and resulted in numerous challenges to communal elections—in 1698, 1743, 1750, and 1759, to name the most obvious occasions.?! Often the disputes involved personal hatreds among the wealthiest members of the community.** Seemingly the last disputes occurred in 1762, after which date the elite that dominated the Jewish community seems to have lived in considerable harmony.*?

The Jewish Neighborhood The Jews of Berlin did not live in a closed ghetto or Judengasse.** The one attempt to ghettoize the Jews—in 1737—-seems to have been more a move to extort money from them than to enforce restricted residence.*° Originally Berlin was made up of two separate cities, Berlin north of the Spree

and Kolln on an island in the river. Later additional sections with their own municipal rights came into existence—Friedrichswerder, Neuk6lln, and Dorotheenstadt—which eventually were combined into a single city in 1709. For the first hundred years after the readmission of Jews to Berlin in 1671 (and even longer), virtually all Jews lived in the Berlin section (hereafter called Alt Berlin). Whether this was the result of a legal requirement has not been determined by historians.*° In this area, which housed people of all classes, the Jews lived among a mainly non-Jewish population. In 1777, for instance, the civil population of Alt Berlin was about 22,000, of whom between 3,000 and 3,500 were Jews.?’ The neighborhood was served by two parish churches, Nikolaikirche and Marienkirche, It was also the site of the Berlin city hall. The royal palace in K6lln was in easy walking distance from the neighborhood. Within Alt Berlin some Jews lived on the important main streets like Spandauerstrasse and Konigstrasse or on the market places Neuemarkt and Molkenmarkt. In the early eighteenth century, however, the bulk of Jews lived in the less desirable

se sO ; ; ON =” Woe

: fe /s/ ponacad [NS "5oy OL, © > SF

wr « | :—y Y/SS Q = —| =.8T39 y(~~ 3 Ca 7 OSUF em = 7 . sepa f JS fs -~% [7=8 f\ | ™ — S SS a iy a a. S/ 4

:) &aBi Ry a2 73/82] as, j/& i ) Ss oY aa Soy An 18 R a ls | fA PN ay

. 3] // fea [2 .

é & Peal o [2 x[2 & ~ov /Y/,‘if |/; =a ¥ z Ss 3) ys Y i Y dSSp . , a Ay fy SfO usdeg 8 By | a j}f})|oZz 7) S//FpY LF. \NTE: rsOf [5]OL o/ o//h AY! i

: ie ayo£ fe —
! The 1740s were also the period of the first modest linguistic changes within the community. Although communal records continued to be kept in a mixture of Yiddish and Hebrew, the Yiddish began to take on more characteristics of High

German.°? ,

A more significant cultural change in the decade or two before the Seven Years War was the emergence of small circles of Enlightened Jews, among whom were the teachers of Moses Mendelssohn and Mendelssohn himself. A small number of Jews had acquired a Western education, either formally by studying medicine at

German universities or informally by studying mathematics, German language, science, and philosophy. Such men as Dr. Abraham Kisch (1728-1803), Aron Salomon Gumpertz (1723-1769), and Israel Moses Samoscz (c. 1700-1772) helped acquaint Mendelssohn with the German language and with modern philosophy. It was also in the 1740s that Maimonides’s Guide to the Perplexed, which had not been published for many years, was republished in Germany in Hebrew. This work

22 BERLIN BEFORE MODERNITY introduced Mendelssohn, and undoubtedly many others, to the world of medieval Jewish rationalist philosophy. Gumpertz, who left behind few written works, was the first important Berlin Jew to live within the circle of the Enlightenment. He studied the philosophers John Locke, Shaftesbury, and Christian Wolff and became acquainted with Lessing, Nicolai, and Maupertuis. For a time he was a secretary to the Marquis d’ Argens and to Maupertuis, two leading figures in the Prussian Royal Academy.» When Moses Mendelssohn arrived in Berlin as a boy of fourteen, in 1743, his original intentions seem to have been to continue his Talmud studies with David Fraenkel, the newly appointed rabbi of Berlin. At the time Berlin’s Jewish community still seemed totally traditional. In the years that followed, among the most obscure in Mendelssohn’s life, he acquired a knowledge of literary German and several other languages, and he taught himself contemporary philosophy and literary criticism. He found employment in 1750 as a tutor in the home of the wealthy silk manufacturer Bernhard Isaac and, beginning in 1754, became a bookkeeper in

the family’s silk factory. His introduction to Lessing, Nicolai, and the Berlin Enlightenment circle dates to about 1754. Mendelssohn’s first published works in German also date from 1754 and the beginning of 1755.>4 In the years before the outbreak of the Seven Years War in 1756, the Enlightenment circle among the Jews was still extremely small. In fact, in almost all the literature on the Jewish Enlightenment in Berlin prior to the Seven Years War, the

four men noted above—Samoscz, Kisch, Gumpertz, and Mendelssohn—plus Dr. Marcus Elieser Bloch—are mentioned to the exclusion of virtually any other name. Although Mendelssohn and Gumpertz were good friends, there seems to have been little in the way of formal Enlightenment activity within the Jewish community at the time. Almost all of Mendelssohn’s literary work in the early years was addressed to a general non-Jewish audience, and the bulk of his intellectual fellowship was carried on with Christians. The days of his influence within the Jewish community were still several years in the future.

The overall picture of Berlin Jewry, even in the years around 1750 when a , small Enlightenment circle had begun to appear, still did not forecast the transformation of the community that would take place in the ensuing decades. Institutionally Berlin was a pious community ruled much as other Jewish communities were ruled. Economically, the cloth trade was still the dominant business of the wealthy. The future domination of coin suppliers and manufacturers was not yet noticeable. In lifestyle the community still leaned to tradition. Yiddish, even if somewhat affected by High German, was the spoken language of the community; only the mildest deviations from traditional dress and no deviations 1n ritual practice had appeared. All this would begin to change as the Seven Years War transformed the elite of Berlin Jewry.

The Stage of “Peaceful Modernization”

The Seven Years War (1756-1763)

and the Emergence of a New Economic Elite

The seven years of war between Prussia and its French, Austrian, and Russian | enemies (1756-1763) have long been recognized as playing an important role in the transformation of Berlin Jewry. Before the war began, the Berlin Jewish community had shown very few signs of being anything but a typical traditional Jewish community. By the end of the war, on the other hand, the conditions were clearly

in place for the first phase of the modernization process of Berlin Jewry. The new Jewish elite that emerged during the war would have a double effect on making possible the important cultural transformations of that first phase. First, they would live in a cultural style that had not hitherto been common even for wealthy Berlin Jews. Second, they would become the chief supporters and protectors of a Jewish Enlightenment movement, which came to prominence in the third , quarter of the eighteenth century in Berlin. Even though the official policies of Frederick II of Prussia changed little during the latter half of his reign, the emergence of a new acculturated elite induced the government to make increasing numbers of exceptions to its harsh policies. It was during the Seven Years War that the government and outside observers began to think in terms of a small number of “exceptional Jews.”

The Emergence of a New Elite The effect of the Seven Years War on the transformation of the upper echelons of Berlin Jewish society was both direct and indirect. Of the direct influences of the war the most important role is generally assigned to the not very edifying story of the Miinzjuden (the Jews involved in the Prussian mint).

26 THE STAGE OF “PEACEFUL MODERNIZATION” Essentially what happened was that three Jewish families—the Ephraims, the Itzigs, and the Isaac-Fliesses—acquired huge wealth during the war by helping Frederick the Great to debase the coinage of Prussia and many of the surrounding ~ countries. At the height of the coin debasement in 1761, these mint entrepreneurs were able to get at least 40 Taler out of a Mark of silver instead of the 14 Taler that had been the rate of coinage before the war. They did this by mixing in all kinds of baser metals and making the coins lighter. The flooding of the German economy with millions of these debased coins unleashed a huge inflation and caused economic upheaval. Public opinion of the time condemned the Jewish mintmasters as the villains of the story and derisively called the debased coins “Ephraimiten.”

Despite the frequent anti-Semitic interpretations of the coin debasement episode, however, it seems clear to modern historians that the one most responsible for the reduction in the silver content of the coins was none other than Ephraim’s employer, King Frederick the Great. Debasing the coinage of his conquered neigh-

bors, the Saxons, and paying government bills with debased coinage while requiring tax payments in good coins helped the Prussian government avoid bankruptcy. Estimates are that 20 percent to 25 percent of the costs of the war for Prussia were financed by this coin manipulation.! Whatever the ethical questions surrounding the operations of the mint entre-

preneurs, there can be little question that the war created a new type of Jewish elite. Before the war and even in the first years of the war, the mint entrepreneurs were divided into two hostile groups (despite the family relations between them)— one consisting of Hertz Moses Gumpertz, Daniel Itzig, and Moses Isaak, the other consisting of Veitel Heine Ephraim and his relatives in the Fraenkel family. After the death of Gumpertz in 1758, Ephraim and his former opponents went into business together. The result was not only unparalleled business success, but the healing of the chief rift within the Berlin Jewish elite. The Itzig—Ephraim—Isaac alliance was sealed with a group of “dynastic” marriages that made the unity of the group greater than ever.* Of the three families, only the Ephraims had been part of the Berlin Jewish elite before the war. Ephraim had already been a communal elder as early as 1747 and had been among the wealthiest Jews in Berlin since decades before that. Moses Isaac-Fliess had not even been born in Berlin. Daniel Itzig, who was a native of the city, came from a well-to-do but not elite family. Neither Isaac-Fliess nor Itzig had figured among the top taxpaying families in Berlin until the decade before the war.

Berlin, like most Jewish communities of the time, had always been dominated by the wealthy families of the community. But never was the domination as great as it was in the years immediately following the Seven Years War. In 1754, following a pattern similar to that throughout the first half of the eighteenth century,

the richest 5 percent of Berlin Jewish taxpayers paid about 21 percent of total communal taxes; by 1764, after the war, the top 5 percent were paying over twice as much (43 percent). The Ephraim, Isaac-Fliess, and Itzig families together paid no less than 26 percent of all Jewish communal taxes in 1764. Daniel Itzig’s periodic tax assessment rose from 2/2 Taler in 1754 to 47 Taler in 1764. His two partners’ taxes increased greatly, too, though not quite as much.’ The wealth of the three

The Emergence of a New Economic Elite 27 was probably greater than that of the court Jews of the early eighteenth century. No one in the prewar period had paid even a fifth the amount of communal taxes paid by Daniel Itzig, Moses Isaac-Fliess, and Veitel Ephraim after the war. For

the first time Berlin Jewry had men in its midst who were literally millionaires. A New Patrician Lifestyle The new coin millionaires initiated a lifestyle that differed considerably from the typical Jewish lifestyle of the pre-Seven Years War period. Although they continued to live in Alt Berlin like the rest of the community, the millionaires began to acquire land on the finest streets of the neighborhood and to build imposing mansions. Ephraim’s mansion built on the Molkenmarkt (Poststrasse 16) was purchased in 1761 for the substantial sum of 16,500 Taler and rebuilt over a period of five years. It was famous for its ten-foot-high statues and remained a Berlin monument until it was torn down in 1935.* It served more as a place of business than as a residence. In 1765 Itzig purchased his home on the Burgstrasse overlooking the river Spree from the Baron de Vernezobre for 20,000 Taler. It had been built by a Prussian general in 1724 on the model of the aristocratic Hétel de Soubize in Paris. Itzig expanded the house by purchasing five neighboring buildings to make the wings

of the house symmetrical.» Moses Isaac-Fliess’s three-story mansion on Spandauerstrasse at the corner of KGnigstrasse was later torn down to build the new Berlin city hall.© During the late eighteenth century the Ephraim and Itzig mansions flanked the two edges of the Alt Berlin neighborhood overlooking the Spree river. All three homes were included by Nicolai in his list of important sights in Berlin.’ The interiors and gardens of the houses reflected a desire to live like the Christian elite of the city. All were elegantly decorated. Daniel Itzig’s mansion had wall paintings, a private synagogue, and a bath. The gardens of all three houses had decorative fountains. Members of all three families acquired art collections, which included the works of such masters as Poussin, Rembrandt, and Rubens. Daniel Itzig’s collection included many landscapes, and such scenes from the Hebrew Bible

as Moses striking the rock, and Eli and Elkana with the prophet Samuel. It also contained scenes from Greek mythology and at least two items of Christian content (Saint Jerome in the desert and Mary Magdalene). Similar Christian as well as Old Testament scenes could be found in the Ephraim and Isaac-Fliess collections. Fliess’s son and Ephraim’s son-in-law were among the leading bibliophiles in the city with important private libraries.® Besides their main houses, each family acquired a number of other properties in and around the city. In 1769 Daniel Itzig purchased a house near the royal palace (outside the area where the Jews lived) built in 1749. This was later the home of his daughter, the saloniere Sara Levy. A nineteenth century description of this house, located at Hinter dem Neuen Packhof 5, mentions its many portraits, its elegant eighteenth century furniture, its large rooms, and its large garden stretching down to the river bank.? There was also a large garden on K6penickerstrasse

28 THE STAGE OF “PEACEFUL MODERNIZATION” (the Bartholdi Meierei [Bartholdi dairy], which had formerly belonged to a government official, bought by Itzig in 1771) in still another part of town. This garden near the city gate was landscaped for the Itzigs by the royal gardener. It had hedges, shady walks, and thousands of fruit trees. Its outdoor garden theater was adorned with statues.!° The Ephraims’ properties included a garden on the Schiffbauerdamm on the outskirts of the city, which included six statues of mythological subjects originally intended for the royal palace. On one side of this garden was the garden of Count von Reuss; on the other side was Ephraim’s silver refinery. All of the families also kept the houses they had owned previously. In the former home of Daniel Itzig, on the Geckhol, the Jiidische Freischule founded in the 1770s would have its first home.!!

| Jewish Manufacturing and Banking The coin millionaires differed from earlier wealthy Berlin Jews in other ways than their new elegant lifestyles. The king required them to invest their windfalls in manufacturing enterprises in Prussia. Although the king’s motivation was to enrich his state, he probably also helped the families preserve their gains. In any case, soon after the war, the families became deeply involved in the infant manufacturing sector of the Prussian economy. Daniel Itzig’s investments included the iron works in the Harz mountains (purchased 1763), and the English leather factory in Tornow (1767). His son Moses, who died young (in 1783), owned a silk factory. Moses Isaak set up a velvet factory in Potsdam together with his son-in-law Moses Bernhard (1765). The Ephraim manufacturing enterprises were more widespread. The first factory owned by Veitel Ephraim was a lace factory founded in 1745. In 1749 he

took over the production of lace, which employed 200 girls of the Potsdam orphanage who received very little payment.!? He also owned a gold and silver factory, which produced huge quantities of gold braid and the like (acquired 1762), and a silver refinery (acquired 1764). Although some of these businesses were a burden to the family that bought them, a few—like Ephraim’s gold and silver factory—were extremely profitable.'? The three families were far from the only Jews active in manufacturing. The Jewish role, especially in the silk industry, became quite important. Factories owned by members of wealthy Jewish families were among the chief producers of silk, velvet, and plush in Berlin. The largest factory making Halbseide (half-silk goods) was owned by the Jewish entrepreneur Israel Marcus. In 1783 it had 120 to 150 looms and employed 300 to 500 workers. Other families with leading roles as silk, silk stocking, or ribbon manufacturers were the Hirsch family, Moses Riess, a sonin-law of the Ephraims, and David Friedlander, a son-in-law of Daniel Itzig and a

later leader of the Berlin Jewish Enlightenment. Moses Mendelssohn was the employee of another silk manufacturing firm, that of Bernhard Isaac, which at its peak had 120 looms. He later became a full partner in the business.'*

The Emergence of a New Economic Elite 29 The heyday of the Jewish manufacturers of silk and other luxury goods was the twenty-year period after the Seven Years War. Beginning in the 1780s a crisis hit many of the silk manufacturers, which resulted in the reduction or closing of many of the silk factories. Those Jews who went into the production of lighter cotton goods, however, were able to prosper even in the later years. Isaac Benjamin Wulff (a relative of the Itzigs) was the most important cotton manufacturer in Berlin in 1785 with 110 looms, 100 cloth-printing employees, and goods worth 100,000 Taler produced annually. The rise of the Jewish manufacturers together with the rise of the mint millionaires, helped transform the Jewish community both internally and in its relationship to the government. Manufacturers were now prominent among the wealthiest Jewish families of the postwar decades, replacing some of the textile merchants. The relationship of the Prussian government to the Jewish textile manufacturers was sharply different from the way it had previously dealt with most Jewish traders. Despite the continued personal antipathy of Frederick the Great to Jews, the government, with its mercantilistic views, saw manufacturing as an indispensable aid to the Prussian balance of trade. It not only provided employment to Prussian citizens, but also helped to boost exports and cut down imports. The very same paternalistic policy that had led the Prussian government to protect its merchant

and craft guilds from the competition of Jewish merchants paid no heed to the voice of the competitors of Jewish factories. Quite the contrary——-the government rewarded a number of Jewish manufacturing entrepreneurs with bounties, subsidies, and grants of monopolies.!° Another change in the economic activities of Berlin Jews in the second half of the eighteenth century took place in the fields of credit and moneylending. Credit operations became more complex and the larger money-changing operations (Wechsel-

geschdfte) took on more and more of the characteristics of private banks. Pawnbrokers became less important and bankers became more important as sources of credit.!© As Berlin slowly developed into an important financial center, Jews became important as brokers. In 1765 eight Jews were sworn in as legally recognized brokers (Mdkler). The financial importance of Jews at the turn of the nineteenth century can be seen by the fact that the committee creating the Berlin stock exchange

in 1803 consisted of an equal number of Jewish and Christian representatives. !7

Exceptional Legal Status Without changing its generally negative attitude toward Jews and their economic activities, the Prussian government of Frederick the Great had seen great value in the activity of a small proportion of the Jewish elite. In its economic policies, the government favored the new manufacturing sector with subsidies, monopolies, and other economic privileges. It also gave these families an improved legal status that matched their enhanced economic importance. A new category of Prussian Jews was created—one treated far better than the bulk of the Jewish subjects. The category was entitled General Privilege. The term

30 THE STAGE OF “PEACEFUL MODERNIZATION’ Generalprivileg or Hauptprivileg had already existed in the early eighteenth century but its meaning was now changed. In the earlier period a small number of Jewish families had received General Privileges permitting them to settle all their children in Prussia without exception. The new General Privileges, the first one of which was given in 1761, included not only the right to settle all one’s children in Prussia, but in addition bestowed the “rights of Christian merchants and bankers” on its recipients. Although the General Privilege did not grant equal rights in all matters, it did suspend virtually all economic restrictions. !®

General Privileges were usually granted only to exceptionally wealthy individuals and were paid for by special contributions. The first recipient of such a privilege, the Mecklenburg court Jew Abraham Marcuse, paid 2,000 Taler to the royal treasury and agreed to supply the royal mint with precious metals.!” The second and third persons to receive General Privileges, also in 1761, were the mint entrepreneurs Veitel Ephraim and Daniel Itzig. Between 1761 and the death of Frederick the Great in 1786, fifteen Jewish families residing in Berlin received General Privilegien. In the five years after Frederick’s death, under a government somewhat more sympathetic to Jews, an additional ten Berlin families received such privileges.*° The recipients of the General Privileges seem almost

all to have been either bankers or manufacturers.?! ,

The complex gradations of different ranks of legal status, which were made even more extreme by the granting of full citizenship to the Itzig family in 1791, are usually cited as typical of Prussian policy toward the Jews. It would be more correct to see the gradations of rank as a progressively developing policy that became more and more pronounced in the course of the second half of the eighteenth century. Until the 1740s no one had thought of the distinction between Ordinarii and Extraordinarii, though Publique Bediente (communal employees) . had already had a different status from the listed Schutzjuden (protected Jews). The creation of the category of General Privilege heightened the legal distinctions based on economic function and status. It helped create the particularly exalted position of the Berlin Jewish elite in the late eighteenth century.

The New Leadership of the Jewish Community The new position of the Jewish elite soon became evident both within the Jewish community and to the outside world. The new elite soon controlled all the major offices in the Jewish community, so that its domination over the community was even greater than it had been before the war. Unlike the elite of the early eighteenth century, the new leadership was much less likely to get involved in unseemly and divisive bickering. The power of the new elite seemed greater than that held by the prewar elites. The changing of the guard in Jewish communal leadership came about in a number of ways. Until the war, the board of elders (parnassim) tended to remain in office for several terms and not to change composition very quickly.”? The election of 1762 changed all that. In that year the usual modes of voting were suspended and a special set of rules for choosing the officeholders was put into effect.

The Emergence of a New Economic Elite 31 One of the special rules was that none of the high officeholders (except the Oberéiltester Veitel Heine Ephraim) could be a person who was an incumbent in office.”° This was the exact reverse of the traditional rule that high officeholders must have held office before. Only one of the prewar elders ever held office again.** This set of rules was obviously intended to create a radical change in the leadership of the

community. Turnover in office was more common after 1762 than it had been before the war (at least in part because the government demanded it). Other rule changes after the war also tended toward a consolidation of the new elite. After 1768 the method of choosing the seven electors was revised to give more weight to wealthy electors.2° The election rules had generally specified that the high elected officials of the community not be closely related to each other, that they had previously held lower offices, and that they had been married residents of the community for a number of years. In the election of 1762 we hear for the first time of a property qualification of 4,000 Taler assessed capital for elders and 2,500 for tovim and ikkurim.?© Because the property qualifications restricted the number of available candidates, it became more difficult (especially after 1780) to find qualified persons to elect. Therefore some of the rules on nepotism were eased, By 1799 it had become permissible for two elders to be related as long as it was not in the first degree (for instance, father and son, two brothers).?’ The upshot of all these regulations was to make it possible for the high offices of the community to be controlled by a small group of wealthy families.*° The new rules did no more than codify a situation that had existed since the early eighteenth century. The postwar elders were about equally likely to come from the top 10 percent of communal taxpayers as had been elders before the war. A few of the new elders and assistant elders were relatives of those who had served before the war, but, in general, it was the new elite of manufacturers and bankers who dominated the leadership. Two families were especially dominant in postwar communal offices—those of the two coin millionaires Veitel Ephraim and Daniel Itzig. The Ephraim family was the main personal link between the prewar and postwar elite. Veitel Heine Ephraim (whose father had already served as an elder in the early eighteenth century) was an elder or Oberdiltester (government-appointed elder for life), from 1747 till his death in 1775. Veitel Ephraim’s son Joseph served as a communal treasurer (gova) from 1765 to 1777 and as an elder after his father death (from 1777 to 1780). Joseph’s brother Ephraim succeeded him as elder between 1780 and 1786. Ephraim’s son served as an assistant elder (tov) from 1789 to 1799 and then became an elder from 1799 to 1808. Daniel Itzig’s family played an even greater role in postwar Jewish affairs. Daniel Itzig himself served as an elder, or Oberdiltester, from 1762 until his death in 1799. His brother-in-law, the banker and factory owner Isaac Benjamin Wulff, served as a treasurer from 1765 till 1780, then as an assistant elder (tov) from 1780 to 1786, and finally as an elder from 1789 to 1794, Daniel Itzig’s son, Isaac Daniel Itzig, held a number of offices at the same time as his father, including treasurer (1780-1794, 1797-1803, and assistant elder (ikkur; 1794-1797). Daniel Itzig’s famous son-in-law David Friedlander served as a communal elder from 1808 to 1814.29

32 THE STAGE OF “PEACEFUL MODERNIZATION”

Other families with several members as top office holders included (1) the interrelated families of Juda Veit and his father-in-law, the silk manufacturer Hirsch David.*° Veit’s son was the first husband of Moses Mendelssohn’s daughter Brendel (later Dorothea Schlegel); (2) the members of the banking family Bendix;+! (3) the brothers Isaac Esaias Riess and David Esaias Riess and Isaac’s son Philipp.*2 Almost all these families later became prominent supporters of the Enlightenment and of early religious reform.

The leadership held by elite families was not only expressed through formal communal office. They also had influence in other more independent organizations. This 1s especially evident in the case of the Itzigs. Isaac Daniel Itzig and David Friedlander were cofounders of the first modern Jewish school in Berlin, the Jiidische Freischule, founded in the 1770s. They also were able to use their influence on Daniel Itzig to support their pro-Enlightenment points of view.*> Daniel Itzig and many of the others who served as communal elders in the late eighteenth

century were also members of the board of the Beth Hamidrash. A number were also on the boards of the burial society or the society for the care of the sick. The Seven Years War brought a new elite to the forefront in Berlin. They differed from the previous leadership of the Jewish community not only in their much greater wealth but also in their cultural orientation. The three mint entrepreneurs were the first to build mansions, collect art, and begin to adopt a new lifestyle. Soon other families began to imitate the new style of life, although perhaps not on such a grand scale. The Jewish families at the top of the social scale began to benefit from improved legal status and financial privileges from the government that separated them from the bulk of their coreligionists, Meanwhile their new status and wealth were being recognized by positions of authority in the Jewish community. With its increasing cultural sophistication, the new leadership was able to represent its community to the outside world more successfully than had its predeces-

sors. It would provide a model for other Jewish families trying to become more _ acculturated. It would support and protect the fledgling Jewish Enlightenment movement. Beginning with the small group of mint entrepreneurs and the bankers and silk manufacturers who soon joined them, a new style of life and a new cultural orientation began to spread to broad sections of the Berlin Jewish community.

The new cultural movement began with a group that was in every way the “Establishment” in Berlin. For the next two decades or so, the new cultural style would set the tone for much of Berlin Jewry. At least in its early stage it would not be the subject of very much controversy.

The Intellectuals of the Berlin Haskala

The Jewish elite created by the Seven Years War was certainly one of the vital ingredients for the spread of modernity among Berlin Jews. The wealthy coin entrepreneurs, silk manufacturers, and bankers who emerged in the 1760s helped create a new, more acculturated lifestyle that then spread to broad sections of the Berlin Jewish community. But what made developments in Berlin special were not merely external changes

that caused Jews to appear to fit in better with their non-Jewish surroundings. It was the fact that these modifications were accompanied by a new intellectual movement that set up acculturation, rationalism, and a reform of Jewish traditional life as an ideology that made the changes in style of life so important and so influential on other communities. This Jewish Enlightenment, or Haskala, expressed itself in theoretical statements, literary works, periodicals, and other publications that were read not only in Berlin but also in other Jewish communities. Its members used both the Hebrew and the German languages to express their views. They often explicitly rejected the Yiddish vernacular as a mode of expression, though a few used it for their own Enlightenment purposes. The relationship between the two groups most influential in furthering the new Jewish way of life—the wealthy elite and the Enlightenment intellectuals—was a complex and sometimes ambivalent one. Without the support and protection given by the wealthy Jewish Establishment of Berlin, the Haskala might have been suppressed or at least slowed in its spread. On the one hand, the existence of an , acculturated group of wealthy Jews in the city made it easier to put into practice some of the ideals of the Haskala—especially in the realms of education and cultural adaptation. On the other hand, the intellectuals generally came from a very different milieu than the elite. Although they were grateful for the protection and aid they received, they did not always feel that the conspicuous consumption and

34 THE STAGE OF “PEACEFUL MODERNIZATION” outward acculturation of the wealthy really embodied the intellectual ideals they wished to promote.

The Social Origins of the Haskala Intellectuals Berlin became the center of the Jewish Enlightenment in much the same way that it had earlier become the center of the German Enlightenment. The city became a magnet for intellectuals seeking a more rationalist way of understanding the world

: or understanding Judaism. The Haskala was soon so identified with the city that it is generally known as the “Berlin Haskala.” Even in the nineteenth century, East European Jewish intellectuals attracted to Enlightenment were derisively called Berlinchikes by their opponents. In most cases, the intellectuals were not themselves natives of Berlin but rather moved to the city, precisely because of its reputation as a center for scholarship. The pattern of migration of intellectuals to Berlin differed somewhat from that of overall Jewish migration to Berlin. As the Jewish Enlightenment gathered momentum in Berlin, it attracted intellectuals from other places. Many who began their intellectual careers elsewhere ended up in Berlin where they could exchange ideas

with their fellow Enlighteners face to face. , Among the Haskala intellectuals, individuals born in Eastern Europe were much more common than in the Berlin Jewish population as a whole. Two areas within Eastern Europe provided virtually all the East European intellectuals who came to

Berlin—Podolia (and neighboring areas in Galicia), and (to a lesser extent) Lithuania. Other parts of Eastern Europe were not represented at all. The Eastern European intellectuals were not always well integrated into the Berlin Jewish circle, and a number of them eventually left the city and sometimes even went back to their homelands. With the single exception of Salomon Maimon, the Eastern European Maskilim (Jewish Enlighteners) wrote in Hebrew. East European Maskilim include Salomon Dubno and Aron Jaroslaw, who participated in Mendelssohn’s project to translate the Bible and write a commentary on it. Dubno eventually broke with Mendelssohn, made common cause with traditionalists, and returned to Eastern Europe. Isaac Satanov, who was among the first of the Maskilim to arrive in Berlin, was extremely active in writing and publishing Hebrew works in Berlin. He settled permanently in the city, and his son, Dr. Sch6nemann, married in Berlin and wrote some Enlightenment works, mainly in German. Salomon Maimon, who never lost his thick Yiddish accent and his Eastern European mannerisms, was a highly original philosopher and a picturesque personality. His autobiography details incidents from his adventurous life and shows

him to be much less restrained by convention than most of the German-born Maskilim. Another Lithuanian Jew, Baruch of Sklov, a disciple of the Vilna Gaon, stopped in Berlin only briefly. He is chiefly known as a popularizer of science in Hebrew and as a man who tried to reconcile science and traditional Talmudic learning. His main influence was in his Eastern European homeland.!

Eastern Europeans were an important group but still a clear minority in the Berlin Haskala. Much more influential and numerous were intellectuals from var-

oe The Intellectuals of the Berlin Haskala 35 ious German-speaking lands. Their places of origin were scattered throughout Germany and its neighbors with no specific places, except perhaps Copenhagen and KGnigsberg, having any particularly great role.? The association of K6nigsberg

with the Berlin Haskala was especially great, not only because such influential leaders of the Enlightenment as David Friedlander and Isaac Euchel had lived there,

but also because Enlightenment institutions, especially the Hebrew periodical Hameassef, were founded there. The Berlin Jewish elite also had family ties to KGnigsberg.

Only a minority of Haskala authors were native to Berlin—among them Markus Herz, Lazarus Bendavid, Saul Ascher, and Wolff Davidson. All of them wrote almost exclusively in German. Herz had also been associated with K6nigsberg where he studied at the university and became a disciple and protégé of Immanuel Kant. The Haskala authors were not only heterogeneous in place of origin, they also came from very different social backgrounds. Most distinguished in background was David Friedlander, whose father was the richest Jew in K6nigsberg and one of the few with a modicum of Western culture.? Friedlinder married Bliimchen, the daughter of Daniel Itzig. He owned a silk factory and eventually became the

first Jewish city councillor of Berlin. He ranked in the top 5 percent of Jewish taxpayers in the city.‘ Others who came from well-to-do families were Lazarus Bendavid, Saul Ascher, and Baruch (Berthold) Lindau. None of these were nearly as wealthy as the Fried-

landers, however. Bendavid’s grandfather was the silk merchant and communal elder Hirsch David. Both Bendavid’s father and Ascher’s father were just rich enough to fit into the upper tax bracket of Berlin Jewry.” Lindau, who came from a small town near Berlin, became a banker, and eventually resided in the Itzig family mansion. In contrast, two of the most distinguished members of the Haskala circle began

life in poverty. Both Moses Mendelssohn and Markus Herz were the sons of impoverished Torah scribes. Both were able to become financially comfortable later

in life. Mendelssohn, after his initial years of struggle in Berlin, found employment as a bookkeeper in the silk business of Bernhard Isaac, and eventually, became a partner of the firm. His sons Joseph and Abraham became wealthy bankers after

his death. Markus Herz, after initial struggle, was able to complete his university degree and to gain employment as a physician for the Berlin Jewish community. He married Henriette, the daughter of his fellow physician Benjamin de Lemos, and later received an honorary professorship and the title of Hofrat.® The background of Enlightenment authors did not necessarily determine their means of livelihood later in life. Compared to literary men of Christian origin, the Jewish Maskilic writers had a very distinctive set of occupations. The typical Christian author’s professions of government service, the church, the nobility, or the law were, of course, all closed to Jews. Unlike most Christian writers, but like many of their fellow Jews, many Jewish writers, even the most distinguished, were active as businessmen. Some, like Friedlander and (in his later life) Mendelssohn, conducted their own businesses. In both cases their business affairs sometimes interfered with their intellectual work.’ Most Enlightenment authors, however, functioned as commercial employees, as managers, clerks, and bookkeepers.

36 THE STAGE OF “PEACEFUL MODERNIZATION” : Among other occupations, the two most commonly associated with Enlightenment activities were medicine and education. Jewish physicians were among the few Jews in the eighteenth century who had the opportunity to attend universities. Often Jewish medical students were exposed to more than merely medical studies. The association between medicine, science, and Jewish philosophy 1s a tradition already found in the medieval Islamic world. It was revived in the Berlin Jewish community where Dr. Marcus Herz was a distinguished Kantian philosopher. His older colleague Dr. Marcus Elieser Bloch was a leading ichthyologist. The families of Jewish physicians of Berlin often married among themselves and formed a miniature society of their own. Not only did a remarkably high percentage of the Jewish doctors in Berlin write works in the Enlightenment mode, but they were also leaders in the move away from tradition. Physicians’ opinions played a large part in one of the first attacks by Enlightened Jews on a traditional Jewish practice—the early burial of the dead. Physicians also seem to have been overrepresented among those who later converted to Christianity.® It is just as easy to understand why so many Enlightenment activists were involved in education as to explain why so many were physicians. Education was an important part of the Enlightenment prescription for the improvement of human society. The reform of Jewish education became one of the first projects of the Haskala. At the highest level, leaders of the Haskala were instrumental in founding schools that incorporated secular as well as religious Jewish studies. Several leading writers became directors of such schools, a function they took up with the utmost seriousness.’ Not all of the Maskilim were on such a high level in education, however. Quite a few, especially at the beginning of their careers, procured employment as private tutors (Hauslehrer) in the homes of wealthy Jews. Unlike the Berlin elite that supported and protected them, the Berlin Jewish intellectuals did not constitute a single social class; they were from many different places and many different backgrounds. Although some came from influential Berlin families, most did not. In fact, quite a few remained economically dependent on, and therefore socially far removed from, the Berlin elite that helped set a modernizing style in Berlin.

The Activities of the Berlin Jewish Intellectuals A complex question in the relationship between the roles of the intellectuals and the wealthy elite in bringing about a transformation of Berlin Jewry is the issue of chronological precedence. Was the creation of the new wealthy elite a precondition for the appearance of a Jewish Enlightenment, or was the Enlightenment already present before the coin entrepreneurs and manufacturers reached the height of their wealth? There certainly is some evidence for Enlightenment activity by Jews even before

the rise of Itzig, Ephraim, and Isaac-Fliess. Moses Mendelssohn’s first publica-

tions date from 1754 and 1755. By the time these early works were written, Mendelssohn had already come into contact with a small group of Jews who were

knowledgeable in the ideas of the non-Jewish world and had interest in the

The Intellectuals of the Berlin Haskala 37 Enlightenment—Kisch, Samoscz, and Gumpertz. By the early years of the Seven Years War, Mendelssohn was already on his way to becoming a well-known fig-

ure. He was mixing socially with leaders of the general Berlin Enlightenment, especially Lessing and Nicolai, and was writing for their publications. Members of the Berlin Jewish elite later claimed that by this ttme Mendelssohn was already a link between the general Enlightenment and young members of the elite pursuing their education.!° The activities of Mendelssohn and a small number of other Jewish intellectuals by the late 1750s do not prove the existence of a full-fledged Jewish Enlightenment in Berlin that early. In fact, there is considerable reason to feel that such a well-defined movement did not even exist in the 1760s. Mendelssohn’s intellectual activities in the 1760s, including his much acclaimed Phaedon on the immortality of the soul, were written in German for a chiefly non-Jewish audience. The bulk of his intellectual correspondents were also not Jewish. Few of his publications dealt with matters of specifically Jewish interest.!' It was not until Johann Caspar Lavater’s famous challenge to Mendelssohn, at the end of 1769, that he refute Charles Bonnet’s book proving the truth of Christianity that Mendelssohn turned explicitly to an intellectual consideration of Judaism and its relationship to the Enlightenment. To sum up we can say that there were Jewish Enlightenment activities in the 1750s and 1760s, but they were isolated and often did not deal with Jewish themes or look toward Jewish audiences. A Hebrew writer like Hartwig Wessely, later a partner of Mendelssohn in the leadership of the moderate Enlightenment, was living in Amsterdam in the 1760s and not writing explicitly Enlightenment works. Beginning around 1770, a Haskala circle rapidly developed in Berlin. In the

following decades it quickly went into progressively more activist and radical directions. Moses Mendelssohn’s scholarly biographer, Alexander Altmann, documents the arrival in Berlin of the chief members of the Mendelssohn Haskala circle in the 1770s. Among those who arrived in (or returned to) Berlin in the 1770s were Markus Herz, physician and Kantian philosopher (returned 1770); David Friedlander, Mendelssohn’s favorite disciple (arrived 1771); Isaac Satanov, Hebrew writer (arrived 1771~72), Salomon Dubno, Bible scholar (arrived 1772); Hartwig [Naphtali Hirz] Wessely, Hebrew poet (arrived 1774); Herz Homberg, educational

reformer (arrived 1770, left 1772, returned 1778-79); and Salomon Maimon, Kantian philosopher (arrived 1779).!4 Although there was a noticeable increase in Haskala activity even in the early 1770s, the most creative years of the Berlin Jewish Enlightenment were the excit-

ing years 1778-1783. In those six years a remarkable number of important Enlightenment works were published and institutions founded. It was also in those

years that the Maskilim experienced their first opposition from the rabbinic authorities of their day. A mere listing of the events of those few years gives an idea of the level of innovation of the period. The first Jewish school in which secular subjects were the core of the curriculum, the Jiidische Freischule, was founded in 1778 and opened its doors in 1781. The founders of the school published the first Jewish elementary textbook Lesebuch fiir jiidische Kinder in 1779. Mendelssohn’s

controversial translation of the Bible into High German (in Hebrew script) also

38 THE STAGE OF “PEACEFUL MODERNIZATION” appeared in those years. In 1782 Wessely published his Divre Shalom Ve’emet,

which called for a radical reform of Jewish education. In the following year Mendelssohn published his magnum opus, Jerusalem, which attempted to reconcile Jewish religious practice with the Enlightenment and with freedom of conscience. In the same year, in Konigsberg, a group of young Jews founded the first modern Hebrew periodical, Hameassef, which became the leading literary organ ,

of the Haskala and later moved to Berlin. ,

In the years after the death of Moses Mendelssohn, the Haskala writers, both in German and in Hebrew, began to take a much more openly critical stand on Jewish religious practice and traditions. The period from 1786 to the end of the eighteenth century was a period of great Enlightenment literary activity, most of it in a radical mode. It is significant that the chief years of Haskala publication ended before 1800.!3 Since the discussion here concentrates on the period of the peaceful spread of Jewish modernism, a detailed characterization of the radical phase of the Haskala will take place in a later chapter. To some extent the difference between the moderate and radical phases of the Haskala is related to a difference in the generation of the writers. In general we can distinguish three main generations of those active in Berlin Jewish affairs in the late eighteenth century. The oldest generation, born in the 1720s, tended to be moderate. It included such conservative individuals as Mendelssohn and Wessely, as well as Isaac Satarov and Markus Bloch, whose ideologies are harder to characterize.

The generation that followed that of Mendelssohn tended to be much more radical than his own generation.'* Many of the most forthright writers of the Berlin Jewish Enlightenment were born in the fifteen years from 1747 to 1762: Markus Herz (1747), Herz Homberg (1749), David Friedlander (1750), Salomon Maimon

(c.1753), Isaac Euchel (1756), Baruch Lindau (1758), and Lazarus Bendavid (1762).!> The generation born in the 1750s and 1760s was really the last to be directly active as Haskala writers. The generation that followed seems to have played a much smaller role in Enlightenment activities. Insofar as they were active in Jewish culture, it was as school directors and teachers or as leaders of the religious reform movement. In contrast to their lesser activity in the Enlightenment movement is the much greater role they played in the crisis of Berlin Jewry. They were far more likely to be involved in rejection of traditional Jewish family patterns and in conversion to Christianity than those who came before them.

The Relations between Intellectuals and Members of the Elite The two main leadership groups in the modernization process of Berlin Jewry— the intellectuals and the wealthy elite—were in most cases people of quite different backgrounds. They often cooperated in the work of spreading new ideas and new styles of life, but at times they clearly showed that their interests were not the same. Occasionally there were signs of tension between the two groups, but usually these were muted, since the intellectuals knew that they were dependent on the wealthy families that controlled the Jewish community.

The Intellectuals of the Berlin Haskala 39 The remarkable and overwhelming support the Berlin elite gave to the Haskala can be clearly documented. Virtually every wealthy Berlin Jew of the last quarter of the eighteenth century had some connection to the Berlin Haskala.

One way this support was shown was through subscription to works by Enlightenment writers. Presubscribers (Prenumeranten) helped to make the publication of literary works possible. Although there is no proof that subscribers actually read the works they subscribed to, it would seem likely that many of them did. The Berlin Jewish elite subscribed to numerous Haskala works.!® It was not merely that wealthy Jews subscribed to works far above their proportion in the population. That would be expected, since subscriptions could cost considerable sums. More remarkable was the fact that virtually all those in the upper tax brackets subscribed to something (see Table 1). Of seventy-six persons who were listed for amounts of 4 Reichstaler or above in the communal tax lists and who were alive after 1776, all but sixteen subscribed to at least one of a list of seven Haskala works.!’ Of the sixteen who did not’ subscribe, six were women (and women were rarely listed as subscribers to books in the period)!® and some of the others no longer lived in Berlin at the time of publication. Most of the wealthy

Berlin Jews subscribed to several Haskala works.'? Of those paying at least 2 Reichstaler (that is those eligible for the category of large taxpayers) well over half subscribed to at least one of the Haskala publications. Virtually all those who held high offices in the Jewish community were subscribers to one or more Haskala works.2° Of the six persons who subscribed to all seven works, four were members of the family of Daniel Itzig.?} The Haskala authors and the wealthy elite had many other points of contact besides merely buying the works of the Maskilim or furthering their work in other ways. Moses Mendelssohn, the most famous of the Enlightenment authors, had friendly contact with a number of members of the elite. The communal leadership showered Mendelssohn with honors. Entries in the communal minute book in flowery Hebrew granted Mendelssohn lifelong exemption from communal taxes in 1763, and in 1771 granted him eligibility for election as an assistant elder of the community by suspending the usual rules.2* On the more personal level, Mendelssohn traveled on business with at least two of the sons of the coin millionaire Veitel Heine Ephraim and wrote their families friendly letters.2? He spent happy days as a houseguest at Daniel Itzig’s brother-in-law’s country house outside Berlin.*4 The house he lived in was owned by Veitel Ephraim’s daughter, Résel Meyer. Except for David Friedlander, who was a member of the elite himself, few of the other Jewish intellectuals were on such intimate terms with the Berlin Jewish plutocracy. In fact a considerable number of the Maskilim were in much more dependent positions. Even Mendelssohn himself had begun as a tutor and bookkeeper for a silk manufacturer. His son Joseph followed in his footsteps by working as Daniel Itzig’s bookkeeper. Hartwig Wessely was a manager of the firm of Joseph Ephraim (son of Veitel). Isaac Euchel was a bookkeeper for the art dealer Meyer Warburg. Earlier in his career he had been a tutor of the children of David Friedlander’s brother in KG6nigsberg. Several other leading Maskilim began their careers as tutors, either in the homes of the Berlin elite or in the homes of other, more prosperous Maskilim.”°

: +. ema

ESlorw a =< % 7 ON i a}

=rPn~nn~ nn o

> i se) -_ - im . 8 le Me te OMAN oe

vB 4 & O

a0}

tN GQ

: 9 Sila aa nun S

i?) a, a 4] 2 , . 22g ea XD s SS oO © 3ce;gq—©= =X1@

=. ~ 2S oe ee oe woN on

= 5 cd & Bs os is a. 5 2 S = » » , 2 :O give) & ‘Fg XS go cm o 3 oO aia) Sad w a am) nae = n. 8w ov 3 3 i) : Bg wo vo 2; | * = esa

sIi“AlSX®lowwoner tf 43 a) Rj) & om , is a)

°S as |a

”n 3 EGin + ©me mn oe © o/|/ ta 8 QQ \o)4S 3

‘ nowasrn ™ = N QamM wv Oo 3 5WN

= 35 gz “| os ES a5

4a OO CO CO &2ay o 8mat~AN NAN oe ioe! ¥ oO

_-) |A

o cS go oe 3 2 9 we o £ & Oo = “a an | O mw 9a 2©0oa 6G34 O be|]= & 5Do ,a.“§6& ae ar a Tt fe wa OO eR := ct Ee me}, —-4>26 6 Oo

a

ao tb (* =a x 2 (OD

qa @ = § & YQ 2 = § o«Oo&- 6wo} £ 3~~OY Ss

*/ 2) e983 s/f2 Sage ee 6&Bales

The Intellectuals of the Berlin Haskala 4] Employment by the elite was not the only form of dependent relationship between the intellectuals and the wealthy. Several of the wealthy, especially Daniel

Itzig, Veitel Heine Ephraim, and David Friedlander, acted as patrons for young intellectuals of few means. Several of the budding Maskilim even lived in the homes

of their patrons while pursuing their studies. Others were helped by institutions | founded by the wealthy or were aided in finding positions by the wealthy.”° Despite the many ways in which members of the Berlin Jewish elite helped the Maskilim (or perhaps because of them), the intellectuals sometimes felt alienated from the elite and distrustful of them. Even Mendelssohn, who was on close terms with many of the elite families, often expressed his qualms about them. In the words of his biographer Alexander Altmann: “Moses was not insensitive to the defects he encountered among the rich. His sympathies were with the poor.” Despite his later friendships with members of the Ephraim family, he rejected overtures from Veitel Heine Ephraim to join in the coin operations during the Seven Years War; in a letter to his fiancée Fromet Gugenheim, Mendelssohn wrote: “Your way of thinking 1s too refined to be capable of correctly assessing a rich Berliner. . . . You will have to avoid associating with the local rich, because your character does not at all agree with their mentality.”’??

These negative remarks during the Seven Years War were repeated later in his life as well, especially in his reply to Johann David Michaelis’s criticism of Christian Wilhelm von Dohm’s proposal for the emancipation of the Jews (1783). At that time he said: “Among the Jews .. . I have found comparatively more virtue in the quarters of the poor than in the houses of the wealthy. 7° Mendelssohn was not the only one of the Haskala intellectuals to express reservations about the character of the Berlin Jewish elite. In his discussion of the history of the Enlightenment, Bendavid attributes to the wealthy both an acceleration in the growth of the Enlightenment and a deflection of its direction toward superficiality.2? An even stronger distrust of the wealthy was expressed in the Gesellschaft der Freunde, the club of unmarried pro-Enlightenment men founded in 1792. This might at first seem surprising because the club has generally been viewed as an organization of the elite. It 1s clear that one of the reasons that it did not accept married members in its early years was the fear that the wealthy would take over. In the words of an early club officer, Dr. Rintel: Of course it was expected that only that section of the Berlin fathers of families would want to join who were educated and free of religious prejudices; but first of all these were almost all rich people, full of pride in their wealth and reputation, and therefore little suited to enter into a relationship of equality and friendly dealings with those they considered beneath them. . .. And secondly a large number of younger persons including those who were interested in the society from its very beginning were in a subordinate relationship to these men in their private lives, namely as tutors, bookkeepers etc, for which reason the monied aristocracy . . . was doubly to be feared.>°

The sense of alienation felt by some of the Berlin intellectuals from their wealthy

protectors does not mean that they saw the elite as their enemies. Rather they felt

42 THE STAGE OF ““PEACEFUL MODERNIZATION”

a vague sense of unease and perhaps of moral or intellectual superiority. Such feelings are not unusual in the relationships between creative people and their patrons. Their private doubts about some of the qualities of the Berlin elite had to be balanced against their knowledge of the extent to which they depended on the elite for protection and support. Therefore, no matter what their personal reservations, they continued to cultivate their relationships with the elite and to remain

on amicable terms with them. |

What these minor tensions between intellectuals and patrons point out is that the leaders of modernization were not a single group but rather two groups. With the notable exception of David Friedlander, it would be difficult (and unfair) to claim, as some have, that the Berlin Maskilim were simply the spokesmen of a

plutocratic interest group. The relationship between the plutocrats and the intel- | lectuals was much more complex than that. Certainly the new acculturated lifestyle

of the rich and their general support for new cultural activities and ideas was a tremendous help to the Jewish intellectuals who gathered in Berlin. Had the elite been more hostile to change, they might have been able to crush the intellectual developments that arose in the city. The intellectuals depended on the good will of the elite, but they were not merely their puppets. Though their intellectual ideas might prove useful to the elite, they were not created for that purpose. Most of the Haskala writers came from backgrounds that differed greatly from those of their protectors. Their early backgrounds as struggling intellectuals and outsiders to the city must have given them a different outlook from that of the elite. The joining of forces between the elite and the intellectuals very much strengthened the forces of cultural change in Berlin. The example of the new lifestyle of the rich and the new theories of the intellectuals helped induce ever-larger circles of Berlin Jews to change their style of living and their cultural orientation. Mod-

ernizing trends did not remain confined either to the intellectual or to the elite milieus but, rather, spread to a large portion of Berlin Jewry.

The Lifestyle of Modernizing Berlin Jews

The new Jewish elite that emerged during the Seven Years War helped pioneer an acculturated way of life in Berlin. The new style of living also went far beyond conspicuous consumption and luxury. It involved changes in cultural values, ways of educating children, dress, language, and forms of sociability and culture. By the 1770s Berlin was home not only to an acculturating elite but also to a nucleus of Enlightened Jewish intellectuals. The combined influence of the style of the elite and the teachings of the new intellectuals began to affect the way of life of growing numbers of Berlin Jews. The cultural milieu of Berlin Jewry in the two decades or so after the Seven Years War had several characteristics that are worth exploring. First, although the modern lifestyle began at the very top of the Jewish social scale, it soon spread to a broad cross section of the city’s Jewish population. Second, the changes during this period occurred peacefully and with only sporadic opposition of any sort. The community was not split into opposing camps of modernists and traditionalists. This is not to say that all Berlin Jews adopted the new cultural attitudes and practices; rather, the traditionalist and modernist milieus seemed to have lived side by side in a kind of “peaceful coexistence.” This relatively peaceful situation would change in the last years of the eighteenth century. Just as we can speak of two different social groups that played leading roles in the growth of modernity in Berlin—the wealthy and the intellectuals—we can also speak of two main groups within Berlin Jewry and their responses to the modern-

izing leadership in the Berlin of the 1760s, 1770s, and 1780s. The first, to be explored here, is the broad group of Berlin Jews who began to change their external style of living and cultural attitudes to incorporate many of the characteristics of their Gentile surroundings.

But not all Berlin Jews were equally affected by the changes in lifestyle. Although scholars have often dealt with the large group that was acculturating,

44 THE STAGE OF “PEACEFUL MODERNIZATION”

they have generally paid little attention to those who did not modernize or who were not wealthy. The Jews least affected by the changes, whether because they were poor or because they remained traditionalists, are discussed in chapter 6. A look at both groups is needed to gain a picture of the scope of communal reac- ~

tions to the forces of rapid change that hit the community.

Changes in External Lifestyle Documenting changes in the private lives of an entire community of people is a difficult task. The evidence often consists either of information about the actions, appearance, or attitudes of an individual or small group of individuals, or it consists of generalized statements about the whole community or large sections of it. In either case, it is rarely possible to get a picture of how widespread a particular phenomenon is. Additionally, since the documentation is not systematic but depends on chance observations or the chance survival of a private document, it is difficult to give a precise chronology of most of the changes. Such a chronology would be difficult in any case, because most such change occurs gradually and at varying rates in different groups within a community. Despite these limitations it 1s possi-

ble to give at least a fragmentary picture of changes in many fields of private lifestyle in the Berlin Jewish community. Although it 1s often difficult to be precise about how widespread specific innovations were, it seems fair to assume that many of the changes affected a large proportion of Berlin Jewry—often more than half.

Costume

In most communities in Germany in the seventeenth century, Jews were easily recognizable by their clothing, speech, and general mannerisms. The costume of both men and women included large white ruffs or starched collars. Men generally wore flat hats called barretts and when attending synagogue also wore the Schulmantel or Sarbal—a sleeveless cloak. Married women covered their hair with

a head covering and often wore a viereckiger Schleier (a kind of huge hair ribbon). These forms of dress distinguished Jews from their non-Jewish contemporaries, and seemed to hark back to much earlier periods in general German costume. In most places, the old laws requiring Jews to wear special badges or marks had been allowed to lapse, although in many countries, including Prussia, Jewish men were forbidden to shave off their beards entirely.! By the early eighteenth century, distinctive Jewish costumes were in decline in many parts of Germany.” There is very little evidence to indicate that Berlin Jews wore the Jewish costume. One clear bit of evidence of Jewish costume in early eighteenth century Berlin is a communal regulation dated October 1728 (Cheshvan 5489), which ordered communal elders to wear a Sarbal when attending meetings of the communal board “so that they should show respect for the community and fear of heaven” (eimas hatzibur veyiras shomayim). Those who contravened this regulation would have to pay 6 Groschen as a fine. ,

The Lifestyle of Modernizing Berlin Jews 45 A distinctive part of Jewish costumes were head coverings for men and women.

There is no evidence concerning when the barrett disappeared as a man’s head covering, if it ever was worn in Berlin in the first place. There is much evidence, some of it visual, to indicate that, by the middle of the century, Jewish men were wearing three-cornered hats like their non-Jewish contemporaries. There are also portraits from the third quarter of the eighteenth century that depict leading Jews, including communal elders, bareheaded. This is true even of persons who seemed otherwise to have been traditional.4 Other portraits of Jews, both traditionalists and nontraditionalists, show them wearing large black skullcaps. It is not clear whether there was anything distinctly Jewish about such skullcaps or whether it was a general practice for men to wear such caps when lounging at home, in the same way that some seem to have worn dressing gowns.° Another aspect of men’s head covers was the use of wigs. The custom of wearing wigs became popular among well-dressed men in the seventeenth century, when

wigs were long and flowing. The powdered wig of the eighteenth century was generally shorter and featured either curls on the side of the head, or a queue at the back (Zopf). Wearing wigs was still a matter for controversy among Jews in the first half of the century,® but by the later eighteenth century, there seemed to be little opposition to the practice. In fact, wigs were widely worn among educated and well-to-do Jews. Mendelssohn is recorded as having begun to wear one around 1760.’ In general, by the third quarter of the eighteenth century, men seemed to be dressing like Christians. The oft-quoted traveler’s report of 1774, Bemerkungen eines Reisenden durch die koniglich preussischen Staaten, states that many Jews wore their hair just like the Christians and did not dress differently.’ It would seem that by the late eighteenth century, the only men wearing distinctive costumes were the communal rabbis (who are depicted wearing robes and Polish fur hats).

Another aspect of change in the appearance of Jewish men concerned the wearing of beards. In the eighteenth century a beard was a conspicuous sign of Jewishness, since virtually no Christian in Berlin wore one.? Although it had long been traditional for Jews to wear beards, there is evidence that German Jews slowly modified the practice. Documents of the late seventeenth century already speak of German Jews waiting till they married to grow beards and of married men trimming the full beard into a goatee or a thin strip.!° Still, most married Jewish men kept some remnant of a beard. The incidents in 1738 and 1747, mentioned in chap-

ter 3, show that the Jews’ shaving off of their beards was still controversial in Berlin.

By the last quarter of the eighteenth century, many married men were doing without beards altogether. The traveler’s report of 1774 states: “The reverential nature of the beard no longer appears to them as great as previously. At least it seems to those who have kept it not really to be necessary anymore; rather they grow it only because of what people might say.”!! Most of the surviving portraits of Berlin Jews from the 1770s and later show the men to be totally beardless. Included among those so portrayed are elders of the community and many of those active in the Berlin Enlightenment. Even some leaders of orthodox Jewry in Berlin around 1800 were beardless.!4

46 THE STAGE OF “PEACEFUL MODERNIZATION” The shaving of beards was not, however, universal. Those who had their portraits painted were not representative of the community at large, but were disproportionately wealthy and acculturated. Furthermore, even among those who have been depicted, there are some with beards, among them, Moses Mendelssohn! (whose beard was just a narrow strip) and Ephraim Marcus Ephraim (1716-1776; a nephew of Veitel Heine Ephraim). Mendelssohn’s beard was the subject of an anti-Jewish pamphlet, “Uber Mendelssohns Bart." It is of interest that both men, who seem to have retained their beards for religious reasons, are depicted as bareheaded. Beards were also to be found among rabbis and some of the orthodox. Among those who shaved off their beards entirely were some who were still traditionalists. Since the Bible’s prohibition on shaving one’s beard was interpreted by the rabbis as referring only to a razor but not to scissors, a new profession arose, that of Bartzwicker (literally “beard pincher’). The Bartzwicker removed the beards

of pious Jews by means of clippers or scissors. In 1812 there were three such Bartzwicker listed in Berlin.!> There is some pictorial evidence that some married Jewish women continued the religious practice of completely covering their hair even in the second half of the eighteenth century. A portrait of Fromet Mendelssohn, the wife of Moses, depicts her as a young woman whose hair is completely covered by a kind of turban. In her letters to Moses during their engagement, she refers specifically to such head coverings.!© Another picture, by Daniel Nicolaus Chodowiecki, from the second half of the eighteenth century, depicts an auction at which the jiidische Trédlerin (Jewish second-hand dealer) is recognizable by her head covering, which hides her hair.’ A number of portraits of married women of the Berlin elite from the last two decades of the eighteenth century show them wearing elegant hats and coifs that did not completely cover their natural hair.!* It seems evident that Jewish women outside of traditional circles were giving up the traditional coif by the last quarter of the eighteenth century. It is not entirely clear when this new style of dressing became common among Berlin Jewish women, but descriptions of Berlin Jewry from the third quarter of the century indicate that the new style was widespread.

Language Berlin Jews tried to resemble their non-Jewish neighbors not only in their clothing and hairstyles but also in their language. The transition from a Yiddish vernacular to a German one was even more complex than the changeover in outward appearance. Linguistic habits are much more difficult to change than sartorial habits. There were many intermediate stages, and language usage seems to have differed from person to person. There is naturally more evidence about changes in written language than for spoken language, but even the written record is complex and hard

to analyze. It is easy to distinguish Latin or German letter writings from Hebrew | letter writings, but among Hebrew letter writings in the vernacular there is a complex continuum from “pure” Yiddish through various intermediate stages to pure

High German in Hebrew script. , One relatively complete set of records that provides a picture of the written language patterns of at least a portion of the Berlin Jewish elite is the minute book

The Lifestyle of Modernizing Berlin Jews 47 of the Jewish community. Like the records of most Ashkenazic Jewish communities of the age, the minute book was written either in Hebrew or in a combination of Yiddish and Hebrew. The communal records from the 1720s show a Yiddish not much different from the Yiddish of other parts of North Germany. Although there are a certain number of High German words (for instance, ist instead of is, or werden for wern) and some influence of standard German spelling, there could be no mistaking the language for German.!? By the 1740s, there were a few changes in the Yiddish texts, all of them in the direction of German.° Even the documents of the 1740s are far from being High German, however, and changes continued gradually thereafter.2! Grammatical changes are first apparent in the 1750s.** The German subjunctive is introduced in some documents as early as the 1750s and becomes common in documents of the 1770s and thereafter. Also typical of the documents of the 1770s and later are the complex constructions of “Schachtel sentences,” with one clause within another.?? A steady change in vocabulary was also noticeable in the record book. The changes are often uneven and gradual. The Yiddish word for “[they] are,” seinen, is replaced by High German sind only after 1777, whereas niemand replaces keiner by the 1750s, and nicht replaces nit in the 1760s.24 The communal minute book

entries of the 1780s are generally in High German in Hebrew script. They are distinct from ordinary High German mainly in the frequent use of Hebrew vocabulary and in occasional grammatical lapses.”

Outside of the communal record books, language usage varied even more widely. The use of High German in Hebrew script was virtually unknown until about 1760. In that year the first High German—Hebrew glossary Milim Le’eloah by Yehuda Loeb Minden appeared.2© Moses Mendelssohn conducted his correspondence with his fiancee, Fromet, in High German (with a few Yiddishisms) in Hebrew script in 1761-62. The use of High German in Hebrew script was a phenomenon that continued for many decades. The most famous example was Mendelssohn’s Bible translation issued beginning in 1778. But there were a number of important Enlightenment works that used this medium, which could reach many Jews who could not yet read German script. Among such works are David Friedlinder’s “Sendschreiben an die deutsche Juden.”?' The minutes and correspondence of the Jewish community of Berlin continued to be kept almost exclusively in this form until the Emancipation Law of 1812 was passed. Aron Hirsch Heymann records that the financial records of the leading Jewish businesses 1n Berlin continued to be in Hebrew script even though they used up-to-date double entry bookkeeping.”® There had long been some Jews who could read and write High German, which they used for business or dealing with the government. In the middle of the eighteenth century and even later, there were still many Berlin Jews who were illiterate in German script.*? This was one of the reasons they objected to a government regulation requiring pawnbrokers to keep record books in German.%° Few Berlin Jews before the middle of the eighteenth century had much formal education in High German. Moses Mendelssohn’s acquisition of literary German in the 1740s and 1750s was accomplished almost totally by self-teaching. His ability to produce German literary works in the 1750s was considered a remarkable

48 THE STAGE OF “PEACEFUL MODERNIZATION”

and unusual phenomenon. The use of German script and High German became more widespread in the third and fourth quarters of the eighteenth century. With the growth of formal and informal secular education, more Berlin Jews read German books, corresponded in German, and kept their business records in German

script. It is impossible to date or measure these. changes precisely. It would seem, , however, that at the time of Mendelssohn’s Bible translation (1778-1783) there were still many Jews (perhaps even including Jews in Berlin) who could not read any script but Hebrew.?! By the 1790s, on the other hand, a growing number of literary works by Berlin Jews in High German were extant.3* By the 1780s and 1790s, too, we possess correspondence in German script between many Jews. The ability to read and write German fluently does not necessarily indicate the

ability to speak it equally well. Here, the evidence is even harder to find than concerning written German. Anti-Semites of the period around 1800 certainly claimed that even educated Jews spoke “im abscheulichsten Dialekte,’”>> but such judgments are of course suspect. Reference to Jewish peculiarities in speech are otherwise scattered and not very specific.*4 The fact that Jewish educators continued to fight against remnants of Jewish dialect would lead us to believe that such peculiarities still existed.* When Jews learned to speak like their neighbors, they did not necessarily speak High German. Writers on Berlin indicate that even upper-class Berliners of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century spoke Berlin dialect. Felix Eberty’s memoirs about the early decades of the nineteenth century depict some Jews from upper-class families speaking in thick Berlinerisch.*®

Socialization and Entertainment By the last quarter of the eighteenth century, Berlin Jews were participating actively in such informal institutions of culture and socialization as the theater and coffeehouses, both relatively new establishments in the city.

Jews were noticeable as an important group among the theater audience. The Bemerkungen eines Reisenden durch die kéniglich preussischen Staaten in the 1770s remarked: “Among all diversions, the Jews love plays the most. On Saturdays the

orchestra seats are mostly taken up by them.” Traditionally, the Jewish leadership, especially the rabbis, had frowned upon theater as frivolous and potentially immoral. A remnant of this early attitude still manifested itself in an incident reported by Henriette Herz from her early childhood (around 1772-1773). She had been permitted by her parents to participate in a musical play with a group of amateur players. All the performers were Jews and

| the play was to be given in the home of a wealthy Jewish woman. The communal elders forbade the play and only changed their minds at the personal request of the young Herz.°’ Later, she records attending the theater every year, but states that soldiers, ordered by the king to attend, filled the orchestra seats (Parterre).

Her family had their seats in a box (Parquet Loge).

By the late 1770s quite respectable people were regularly attending the theater. Fromet Mendelssohn records in a letter to her husband in 1777, about various social occasions. She had coffee with some Christian friends at which time

The Lifestyle of Modernizing Berlin Jews 49 they “gossiped about the French and German troupes. Every one maintained that he had no objection to enjoying such miserable actors. What do you think, dear Moshe, we did after coffee? We, the women, went to the French comedy, the men to the German. The best of the joke was that both parties enjoyed it.”38 Moses Mendelssohn himself is recorded as having attended the theater on several occasions.??

The conspicuous presence of Jews on the promenades of Berlin is also mentioned by several authors. The same traveler who reported that Jews filled the theater also stated that “in good weather you can see them in troops [Scharen] on that day [Saturday] in the Tiergarten and Unter den Linden.” The Saturday promenade seems to have been an old Jewish tradition, but the places where Jews took their walks in the 1770s were in the fashionable Western Berlin areas where no Jews lived. Literary works of the 1790s also speak of the promenades as places for Jewish women and Christian noblemen to meet.*° The life of the Jewish upper classes began to show the effect of cultural changes in other more subtle ways. A certain refined style was cultivated or imitated not only in the homes of the Itzigs and Ephraims but also in other affluent families. A number of wealthy Jewish families in the late eighteenth century had homes with gardens, shaded walks, and fountains. Many began to acquire country homes in Charlottenburg or other places near Berlin. They had fine furniture; their walls were decorated with paintings and sometimes with frescoes as well. The houses had Putzstuben (parlors) set aside for entertaining and dining with guests.* Many well-to-do Jews collected art or had substantial libraries. The libraries of Dr. Joseph Fliess and of Aaron Meyer, the first dedicated to medicine and the arts, the second to modern literature and history, were among the attractions of

Berlin described in Nicolai’s guide to the city in 1786. By that year, too, there were lectures by Markus Herz on science and Lazarus Bendavid on mathematics and mechanics, which attracted the attention of distinguished visitors. The scientific specimen collection of Dr. Marcus Elieser Bloch was considered another city attraction, as were the art collections of Dr. Fliess, Benjamin Veitel Ephraim, and Daniel Itzig as well as that of art dealer Meyer Warburg.*?

The elegant lifestyle of the Jewish elite is also demonstrated by the poetry albums of two women in the Itzig family. These little volumes contain autographs and short dedications in verse or prose written by friends and relatives. The entries in German, French, and English by both Jews and Christians are noteworthy for their elegance of expression and style. They show a considerable social circle of refinement and propriety. Many of the pages of Rebecca Ephraim’s poetry album are decorated with portraits and other miniatures.* Naturally this style of life required a considerable number of servants. It would seem that, at least in the eighteenth century, Jews had mainly Jewish servants. Such

servants made up over 5 percent of the Jewish population.** Some especially wealthy households had more than one servant. Felix Eberty’s memoirs speak of his grandfather’s coachman, his great-grandmother’s aged cook Dérte (seemingly not a Jewish name), and other aged servants. Some affluent Jews had their male servants wear uniforms. Elderly persons sometimes hired a companion (Gesellschafterin).*

SO THE STAGE OF “PEACEFUL MODERNIZATION” In addition to the class of Jewish maidservants there were a considerable number of persons officially registered as Knecht or Diener. Such persons, however,

were generally not actual servants but rather business employees such as bookkeepers, runners, and shop workers. Wealthy Jewish homes also often included a Hauslehrer. {n traditional homes these tutors taught religious subjects. In the late eighteenth century, they were more frequently teachers of secular subjects. On occasion wealthy Jewish children were also sent to dancing masters, French tutors, and other private teachers. The patterns of socialization of the Berlin Jewish elite were clearly changing in the last third of the eighteenth century. Previously, Jews and Christians had mixed generally for business only. Now purely social interaction became ever more com-

mon. As in so many other things, Moses Mendelssohn was a pioneer in this. Beginning with his friendship with Lessing and Nicolai in 1754-55, Mendelssohn gathered a considerable circle of non-Jewish friends and acquaintances. They met

in various places including Nicolai’s garden and intellectual clubs. Christians were frequent visitors at Mendelssohn’s home and place of business. Although Mendels-

sohn, who observed the Jewish dietary laws, did not dine at the homes of his Christian friends or at Christian clubs, this did not stand in the way of close personal friendships. Other Berlin Jews, too, entertained Christians in their homes; not only the women of the famous salons but also whole families entertained Christian guests.*®

Changes in Cultural Orientation Education Closely connected with the transition from Yiddish to German was the spread of secular education among Berlin Jews. Here, too, though there was never a period when secular education was totally absent, the late eighteenth century was very different from the earlier half of the century. Until the founding of the Jiidische Freischule in 1778, there were no Jewish institutions that officially taught secular subiects as part of their curriculum. The traditional cheder (Jewish private elementary school) concentrated on Hebrew reading and study of the Bible and (especially) of Talmud. The young boys studied from the original texts and there were no textbooks especially written for school children. Wealthy families would engage a private tutor, but traditionally such tutors specialized in Talmud as well. There is evidence from the late seventeenth century onward of well-to-do Jews giving their children (especially their daughters) private lessons in French, music, and dancing, but it is hard to determine if this was usual even among the upper

classes. Oo

Most general schools were of a Christian character and Jews rarely if ever

attended them before the middle of the eighteenth century. A small number of Jews

were admitted as students (chiefly medical students) to German universities beginning in about the 1670s. The total number of Jewish students in all German universities during the entire first half of the eighteenth century could not have

The Lifestyle of Modernizing Berlin Jews J] been more than a few hundred, generally scattered a few at a time. Berlin itself had no university, but it did have a school of medicine. A list of all Jewish students registered there (covering the years 1730-1797) shows that there was a considerable growth in the number of Jewish medical students during the Seven Years

War-—an increase that continued until about 1770, when the number reached a plateau many times higher than before the war.‘ Much of our information about the state of education for Berlin Jews in the second half of the eighteenth century comes from autobiographical remarks by Berlin Jews prominent in intellectual or commercial life. Moses Mendelssohn seems

to have received much of his secular knowledge by self-teaching. In an autobiographical note he stated, “I never attended a university nor have I ever in my life listened to a collegium [university lecture].’48 Benjamin Veitel Ephraim, born in 1742 to the coin millionaire Veitel Heine Ephraim and his wife Elkele, describes the very mixed nature of his early education. He had been taught Hebrew and Talmud by a tutor but had also received three months of instruction in reading and writing German by a soldier. The only German book his pious mother allowed him to read was Luther’s Bible translation. To this rather traditional education, he later added a more modern education, beginning around the time of the Seven Years War. He had private tutoring in French and then studied English and Latin. He read some important Enlighten| ment works and studied geometry and algebra with a Jewish teacher. Lessing helped

, to direct the younger Ephraim’s early studies.*? Ephraim later became a dilettante

writer and dabbled in political intrigue. |

More than twenty years after Benjamin Ephraim, Lazarus Bendavid also received an education compounded of a strange combination of traditional and modern elements. Bendavid, who was born in 1762, received instruction in the Hebrew Bible and simple arithmetic at the age of four. Beginning at age six he had a series of Polish Talmud teachers in a “Talmud school” till about age thirteen. Bendavid’s report on these teachers varies from complete aversion to deepest respect. His favorite Talmud teacher taught him not only Talmud and Bible but also Hebrew grammar and Maimonides’ Aristotelian logic. Bendavid’s secular education was uneven but extensive. His mother taught him to read German at the age of three. He later received private lessons in writing, arithmetic, and bookkeeping. He read the many books in his father’s library, including many Enlightenment works*° and taught himself Syriac and Arabic from a book in his grandfather’s house. In addition, his parents engaged a French tutor, who also introduced him to the Latin classics. Bendavid taught himself mathematics by reading Euclid and receiving private help from leading mathematicians. He later received supervised but private instruction in philosophy, and attended lectures in physics and chemistry. He did not attend a university until he was twenty-eight years old and then only as the companion of a wealthy Jewish medical student.*! A similar story of unsystematic acquisition of secular knowledge comes from the autobiography of Samuel Lippmann Loewen (born 1747) who learned Wissenschaften (branches of knowledge) and English privately. When he arrived in KOnigsberg in the late 1760s he was considered a wunderkind because he had secular learning.°* The memoirs of Henriette Herz (born 1764) also show the same

52 THE STAGE OF “PEACEFUL MODERNIZATION” , combination. She learned writing, arithmetic, geography, French, and especially Hebrew, at home. She could translate the Bible from Hebrew and knew several rabbinic commentaries. She also had a dancing teacher (“a little old Frenchman” with whom she danced a minuet at a ball) and briefly attended a (non-Jewish) boarding school.>? She read many novels from a lending library and attended a

sewing school. It would seem that virtually all those Berlin Jews who acquired Western education before the late 1770s did so through private tutoring or through guided or unguided reading outside of formal classes. Only the few medical students had attended any institution of formal secular learning. The only educational institutions catering to a Jewish clientele were the traditional cheder, with its emphasis on rote learning and Talmud, and the Beth Hamidrash (school of higher Talmudic learning). As elite groups within the Jewish community began to acquire Western education informally, they began to look for ways to spread such knowledge to the less fortunate in their communities by opening new schools or reforming the old ones. The first proposals for a school for poor Jewish children was made during the Seven Years War by Veitel Heine Ephraim and Daniel Itzig. In their petition to the gov-

ernment in 1761 they proposed to open a school for twelve poor Jewish children in which they would learn Hebrew as well as reading and writing German, arithmetic, languages, and various branches of knowledge (Wissenschaften).>> The pro-

posal seems never to have come to fruition.

Ten years later a much more radical proposal was put forward by the Potsdam Jewish teacher Levin Joseph. He wished the government to certify all Jewish teachers, who would have to pass a governmental test in Hebrew and German. Children should be taught Bible and German first, before they studied Talmud. Joseph also proposed that he be hired as the inspector of all Jewish schools. His proposal did not receive approval, and one year later he converted to Christianity.°°

The first modern Jewish school actually started in Central Europe was the Jiidische Freischule (Bet Sefer Chinuch Ne’arim). The Freischule was founded in 1778 by the son and son-in-law of Daniel Itzig—Isaac Daniel Itzig and David Friedlander—and opened its doors officially in 1781. The school had the support of other members of the Itzig and Ephraim families, as well as of Moses Mendelssohn. Mendelssohn and Friedlander were the chief authors of the first reader for Jewish children published by the school in 1779. At first only secular subjects were taught in the school, and the students attended the traditional cheder the rest of the day. In 1784, however, religious studies were introduced into the school cur-

riculum. Both Christian and Jewish teachers taught in the school, whose main subjects were German, French, Hebrew, religion and morals, geography, mathematics, weights and measures, bookkeeping, penmanship in Gothic, Latin, and Hebrew scripts, and drawing.*’ In 1786 there were eighty students, most of them poor. By 1803 the number of students had declined to sixty-five, of whom twenty-

three were from Berlin. The number of students does not seem ever to have exceeded eighty at any time thereafter, even though some Christian students were admitted. Only a small percentage of Berlin Jewish boys attended the school.

The Lifestyle of Modernizing Berlin Jews 53 In the following decades additional Jewish schools were opened, and there are records of Jewish children attending Christian schools, even boarding schools. By the early nineteenth century, Berlin was listed as having seventeen Jewish schools, several of them (generally the largest) concentrating on secular education. In the 1780s this development of modern Jewish schooling was still at its very beginning. The children in the Jiidische Freischule were a small minority of the Jewish children in Berlin. The school was intended for the poor, and many of the rich were probably still getting their education from private tutors. All this would change in later decades.

Religious Observance Another aspect of change in the daily life of the Enlightened and wealthy circles of Berlin Jewry was in religious observance. These changes seem to have occurred later than the changes in such externals as costume, language, and visits to the theater. Most of the members of the elite who were born in the 1720s continued to follow Jewish ritual throughout their lives. This was true both of Enlightenment intellectuals like Moses Mendelssohn and Hartwig Wessely, and of wealthy communal leaders like Daniel Itzig.°? For example, when Mendelssohn was summoned by Frederick the Great to his palace in Potsdam on a Jewish holiday in 1771, Mendelssohn consulted the communal rabbinate on how to obey the king while minimizing violation of Jewish law.°? Daniel Itzig’s mansion included a decorated room with a roof that could be opened to form a sukka.© There seems to be little evidence of widespread violation of Jewish ritual in Berlin until the 1780s. Then the evidence begins to multiply. A letter by the Christian portrait painter Chodowiecki in 1783 states: “It seems that where you live the Jews are still orthodox; here, with the exception of the lower classes, they are so by no means. They buy and sell on Saturdays, eat all forbidden foods, keep no fast days etc.”°! In Moses Mendelssohn’s Jerusalem, published in 1783, there is an appeal to Jews to continue to practice Jewish ceremonial law. Similarly Michaelis’s review of Christian von Dohm’s book on emancipating the Jews written in 1783 speaks of Jews who eat pork.® Certain members of Mendelssohn’s entourage in the 1780s, notably Herz Homberg and David Friedlander, were already suspect in the eyes of the traditionalists as violators of the Torah.®? In a letter from Mendelssohn to Homberg in 1783

discussing various aspects of Mendelssohn’s recently published Jerusalem, he mentioned the binding nature of the ceremonial law as one of the issues upon which he disagreed with Homberg.®* When it comes to matters of religious orientation and practice, a sharp distinction can be made between the period before and after the 1780s. In the 1780s we

find the first evidence of considerable numbers of people who were no longer observing basic Jewish ritual laws. During Mendelssohn’s lifetime such violations of Halacha seem to have been restricted to personal practice. It was not until after Mendelssohn’s death that ideological advocacy of abandonment of the ceremonial law was put into print. Thereafter the move away from tradition increased rapidly

, 54 THE STAGE OF “PEACEFUL MODERNIZATION” both in theoretical formulation and in practice. By the second decade of the nineteenth century, there is firm evidence that about one-half of all Berlin Jews had abandoned ritual practice—approximately the same percentage as affiliated with the reformed religious service at the same time.™ In general we can say that by the 1780s the change in outward Jewish style— clothing, headdress, theater attendance, language—was well under way. Many Berlin Jews were already living in a way that differed little from that of middleclass Berlin Christians. These gradual changes in outward style seem not to have occasioned much controversy in Berlin. Even advocacy of the Enlightenment was not necessarily seen as contradictory to traditional ritual observance or even active participation in orthodox organizations. Only after the death of Mendelssohn did the differences between modern-style Jews and traditionalists evolve into a welldefined split in the community.

Those Outside the Modernizing Groups: Poor Jews and Orthodox Jews in Berlin

The rapid changes in economic position, style of living, and cultural outlook that occurred during and after the Seven Years War did not affect all Berlin Jews equally. Not all the Jews of Berlin were wealthy or leaders of the Haskala. The changes that took place in the late eighteenth century, rather than creating a uniformly rich and modern Berlin Jewry, created an internal diversity in the community greater than anything that had existed previously. This chapter will explore two aspects of Jewish life in Berlin that might be skipped over if one concentrated solely on the affluent elite or the Haskala leadership—namely, the lives of those of modest means and the survival of the traditionalists. Although there was a certain overlap between these two groups, it is by no means true that all the poor were “orthodox” or all the orthodox, poor.

The Gradations of Wealth in Berlin Jewry Eighteenth century Berlin Jewry had the reputation of being a very wealthy community.! To a considerable extent this was the result of the restrictive Prussian laws that favored the rich and tried to restrict the influx of the poor. These laws applied to all of the Kingdom of Prussia, but they had an especially great effect on Berlin for two reasons, First, the laws were probably more strictly enforced in the capital than in outlying provincial towns. It is well-known, for instance, that Jews without obvious means were restricted from entrance to the city.2 Second, in a number of cases, government fees for certain privileges for Jews were higher in large cities than in small ones.?

56 THE STAGE OF “PEACEFUL MODERNIZATION” By the late eighteenth century, the Prussian government had devised a complex hierarchical system of legal statuses for Jews. In late eighteenth century Berlin the hierarchy ranged from the generally privileged at the top, through the regularly protected (Ordinarii), and specially protected (Extraordinarii). In addition there were a number of communal public servants (Publique Bediente) permitted to live in the community without being counted in the total number of individual families allowed to settle. Dependent persons, such as servants and commercial employees, who were generally unmarried, were permitted to live in the city as tolerated Jews providing they neither married nor carried on their own businesses. In 1750 there were 203 officially recognized families of regularly protected Jews and only 63 families of the lower ranking specially protected. An estimate made over fifty years later (in 1806) shows a similar weighting toward the top of the status ladder:4

Generally privileged 61 Regularly protected 249 Widows of Ordinarii 65

Specially protected 78°

Total 453°

Because the higher ranks outnumbered the lower legal rankings at least among listed heads of families, some historians have come to the conclusion that the Berlin Jewish social pyramid was top-heavy and that the wealthy were typical of Berlin Jewry as a whole.® However, as will be seen later, financial status and legal status cannot necessarily be equated.

The estimate of 1806 is not complete in any case. It excludes the Publique Bediente. These consisted not only of high ranking communal leaders like rabbis, cantors, and doctors of the Jewish hospital but also a much larger number of less prestigious beadles, ritual slaughterers, butchers, and gravediggers. Between 1759 and 1802, about 7 percent of all Jewish marriages in Berlin involved Publique Bediente. Besides these categories of Jews, all of whom had government-recognized legal status in the city, there were many merely tolerated Jews living in the households of the Schutzjuden. In 1812, for example, Jewish maids and cooks made up about 5 percent of the Jewish population of the city. There were an equally large number of unmarried male commercial servants (Handlungsdiener). The legal restrictions produced a considerable number of older unmarried Jews who never received legal status. In 1812 there were approximately 180 unmarried Jewish men and 85 unmarried Jewish women over the age of forty in Berlin. Some, though by no means

all, of these persons were poor.’ | The relationship between legal category and personal wealth, though close in many cases, was by no means absolute. Although the generally privileged were almost invariably in the wealthy tax brackets, and the extraordinarily protected and Publique Bediente were rarely wealthy, the regularly protected were found all along the income spectrum.® Unlike the status hierarchy, the income pyramid of Berlin Jewry was heaviest on the bottom. Those in the lowest of the three income categories (approximately

Poor Jews and Orthodox Jews in Berlin 57 below 1 Taler periodic taxes) were almost always a majority or near majority of Berlin Jews. The cutoff point for this lowest category was 7,200 Taler in total wealth.’ The middle category, from 7,200 to 16,000 Taler in property, was generally about 25 percent of the total number of taxpayers. The percentage of those in the upper income class with over 16,000 Taler in property varied from about 10 percent to about 20 percent of all Berlin heads of family. Even within this highest category, there was a huge difference between the very wealthy who could be assessed on hundreds of thousands of Taler of property and those who were only well-to-do with 20,000 Taler or so. The millionaires at the very top of the Jewish income scale were not typical of Berlin Jewry as a whole. The statistics for 1789 show, for instance, twenty-eight heads of family with wealth of over 50,000 Taler, eight with over 100,000, but 254 with 7,200 Taler or less. The richest forty-seven Jewish taxpayers in Berlin in that year paid more taxes than the 90 percent of other taxpayers combined. Of the 148 with less than 7,200 Taler who paid some taxes, more than half had property of less than 5,000 Taler. The gap in wealth in the last quarter of the eighteenth century was greater than it had been in midcentury, both because the small group of the fabulously wealthy was much richer and because of the growing number of those, especially in 1789, so poor that they paid no taxes at all. The typical Berlin Jewish taxpayer with his 5,000 to 10,000 Taler in capital would live a very different life from the elite possessor of 50,000 or 100,000 Taler. It is difficult to compare the income level of the small Jewish taxpayer of Berlin with the typical Christian resident of the city. Any estimate is highly speculative. The best one can do 1s to multiply the assessed wealth by the typical 5 percent interest rates of the period. A person possessing 5,000 to 10,000 Taler would then be estimated to have an income of 250 to 500 Taler a year. The median Jewish taxpayer would earn just under 360 Taler a year—approximately equal to the

TABLE 2. Income Levels within Berlin Jewry

Tax 1754 1764 1780 1789 More than 10 Taler* — ——«:9 (2.2%) «12. (2.6%) —=ss« 9.9%)

5-10 Taler 5 (1.5%) 13 (3.1%) 24 (5.1%) 22 (4.6%) 3 Taler—4 Taler, 23 Groschen 17 (3.2%) 17 (4.1%) 27 (5.7%) 33 (6.6%) 2 Taler—2 Taler, 23 Groschen 15 (4.6%) 29 (7.0%) 32 (6.8%) 27 (5.6%) 1 Taler-1 Taler, 23 Groschen 66 (20.1%) 89 (21.4%) 106 (22.6%) 85 (17.7%)

Less than 1 Taler 215 (65.6%) 245 (58.9%) 240 (51.1%) 197 (41.1%)

No taxes 10 (3.0%) 14 (3.4%) 30 (6.4%) 106 (22.1%)

Total 328 416 471 479 Top 5% of taxpayers paid 21.4% 42.7% 39.4% 37.7%

Top 10% paid 33.6% 54.5% 53.0% 53.2% Bottom 50% paid 15.7% 10.6% 11.0% 8.9%

*These amounts were paid by each taxpayer 42 or 44 times a year. |

58 THE STAGE OF “PEACEFUL MODERNIZATION’’

income of a medium government employee and about 50 percent higher than the income of a master craftsman. If this very rough calculation is even close to accurate, the income of Jews in the middle of the Jewish tax scale would be about three times higher than that of the average Berliner.!° The middle of the Jewish tax scale would thus be approximately equal to the top 10 percent of Berlin households. In 1780 87 (almost 20 percent) of 471 Jews on the tax list paid 9 Groschen taxes and 30 paid nothing. Nine Groschen taxes would mean the equivalent of 167 Taler a year in income,!! just above the average income of Berlin non-Jews. Quite possibly, however, Jewish income levels were more than 5 percent of capital and, consequently, Jewish incomes were even higher. This does not mean that the average Berlin Jew ranked in the top 10 percent of Berliners in income. So far we have been comparing Jewish taxpayers with all non-Jewish Berliners. But the small Jewish taxpayer was not the poorest Jew in the city. Besides the servant class already mentioned, there were the destitute, who lived on charity from the Jewish community. Despite the restrictive laws of the government, the destitute were never completely absent from Berlin Jewry. The | Berlin community, like others in the time, had an extensive charity system. This included not only the famous poorhouse at the Rosenthaler Tor but also a system of meal tickets for poor nonresidents passing through the city. There were also a | number of Berlin Jewish residents who needed the support of the Jewish charities. In the 1770s some 100 Berlin residents were listed as recipients of the dole.'?

The situation of the Jews at the bottom of the social scale in Berlin was often | quite desperate. Many of the poor were old or infirm and had no family that could support them. Quite a few files of individual cases of the poor asking for attestations of poverty are extant. They show a cluster of Berlin Jews who were unable to support themselves. On the narrow alleys between the Nikolaikirche and Klosterstrasse, the majority of Jewish inhabitants (in 1812) were on charity, unemployed, or employed as domestics. !? The elders of the community were often unhappy about the demands for support by the poor, especially the nonresident poor. They even complained to the government about the burden of the many nonresident beggars, men, women, and children. The elders complained that many of them were good-for-nothings (Taugenichtse) and that others engaged in illegal trade. In a few cases Jewish poverty was associated with other types of social pathology. The elders complained to the police that they were asked to put up one Jacob Moses of Strasburg/Uckermark in their hospice for the poor—a man they characterized as a “fremder Landstreicher’ (foreign vagabond) with an incurable disease. Another unfortunate case involved an insane woman in the Berlin workhouse who was described as “schwachsinnig und ganz entkrdftet [feeble-minded and completely exhausted].” The woman was said to have periods of lucidity and to require the aid of the Jewish community because she could not eat the nonkosher food of the workhouse. The most desperate case of all came to light in a police investigation in 1814. A Jewish woman gave birth to a child in the Jewish hospital of Berlin. She was a widow and had a four-year-old boy as well. The community paid for her transpor-

Poor Jews and Orthodox Jews in Berlin 59 tation out of the city and gave her a letter of recommendation. Approximately four weeks later, in desperation, she drowned her baby and was arrested.!4

Life at the bottom of the Jewish social scale was so different from the elite lifestyle that it is hard to imagine that the disparate groups were part of the same community. Despite the attention that has so frequently been given to the small number of elite families in Berlin, they were not typical of the community as a whole, and neither were the desperately poor. The largest proportion of Berlin Jews were, in fact, the small taxpayers. The unmarried, the dependent occupations (maid, bookkeeper, etc.), and those too poor to be listed certainly were far less than half, and probably less than a fourth of all communal residents.

Compared with the elite, who left behind many descriptions of their homes and style of life, and even of the desperately poor about whom we know a bit from requests for charity, police reports, or communal complaints, we know almost nothing about the lives of the vast majority of Jewish residents of Berlin. At most

we can say something about what they did for a living and about their places of residence. There are almost no descriptions to flesh out these bare-bones facts. We know from the address lists of the Jewish community that it was common for several Jewish families to live in the same house—a pattern also usual for nonJews. The members of the elite with their private mansions clearly were exceptional.!5 Most houses in the parts of Berlin where Jews lived were three or four stories tall and housed several families. It is likely that Jewish and non-Jewish families often lived in the same building. Often there was a Vorderhaus on the street itself whose inhabitants were usually better off than those in the Hinterhaus, which could be reached only through a courtyard.!© Often the wealthy, the modest, and the poor lived on the same street in adjoining buildings, or even in the same building. Still, there was a tendency for people of the same social group to

cluster on certain streets. The wide streets in Alt Berlin near the river Spree (Burgstrasse, Poststrasse, Heilige Geiststrasse) tended to be inhabited by the wealthy. Other streets, like Jiidenstrasse or Stralauerstrasse, had more modest inhabitants, while the poor were especially common on back streets off Jiidenstrasse in the second police district or near the synagogue on Heidereutergasse and Rosenstrasse 1n the first district (see Maps 1 and 2),

Sometimes. particular occupations were concentrated on certain streets. This was especially true of the dealers in old clothes who all resided in the second police

| district on Jiidenstrasse, Stralauerstrasse, or the narrow alleys nearby. Several of the city’s Jewish pawnbrokers also lived in the area. Some houses sheltered considerable numbers of students. Of those Jews who lived outside the main Jewish neighborhood in 1812, the most common occupations were merchant, banker, money changer, and Rentier (living off income from interest), while in the much less wealthy second and third police districts, the most common were maid, merchant, commercial employee, old clothes dealer, money changer, on charity, and Rentier. The occupations of the modest taxpayers seem to have changed somewhat between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Such categories as Handelsmann (dealer), pawnbroker, or (old) clothes dealer were fairly common in both periods.

vow scenes aegal ' goad ee gee eeeat oevead eeBeis sabesadapiqeae r nntiai Pg smn q 2Ekble is Je et Be ae cate a Pee plaboavy eSBes. Bg US_ ia as ee ia eet ;-Bee aoe Mage Selds ve aak‘pidge: 00ha wie oa Be 6 ye wily SsceSara Cote 5heal Le ge

1 es eee cide es oy ae Sg ER eee ae . a ee |

Bee: waaagtapene: a8ROR ve: -siege .zl ensen : es ,a— atesaSeS . ees ee % Lei Be ad tian || wleG ae 2ootee? eae eeetee oyaepee BS geen ; aa.ceee ica ae pee Sohn Big ascoi we % nated : ye! re: “ae eae pn a. eoALge kage Bee En Bae Cite eA a weed iheposse ee beBeaePORN Rata aor eA be Doers on eee a ae ree he eg EN sled Dette Cp 2aus ae ae ae fodivite ood Meee Ee aoe Boo!ae DVVhs lw sis Lee ggwe | eeEke Doysl Rae potVeh © de bhie 2:ey aepe oe Ne : ay«eeaejer Bees sie oeLPoo Big aoebee Mo ep abe LP eh ae bap eepestle egg eeop a het? ae cee i}Soo ee EPPS ep savage Bee Pee clk, het aeRe iyoe fey ke ey oegt LG aae ee - Be eo are Boake eae aos og poke Galoe' be dsop neh we aaye ee i aee eeAke nae wed oases eee me eee ae oe ae oe ae nee es 1oF Aaae aoo hs2We, pe we eeUerarer, cM 7OE oe Soae Poe ws E wee EES aerachee ee- penser “ais cee ge ee ad ON : :ae ee oat OMe Eo? feos weeyo ge ane oo oe.VAS wider hee Basre Skcs Aisye woRe BE Nieoe be& aeCee oe eat heieee ae. ey na oh aEe eae a beg’ Ae Sige daeave E ee arene eee lp ok bd4abia aut *a ee ee keacore eepeFEES nn E UA eee ace veda eles Bee es aBakes aeeee eee ae SN ie ee AMG SE ce .BOe ee 4ge Pe eo cra eges Bs ae ierebs. ¥ EE “a coo Bt rE on feibaa ene eeeee we yee Be Be fae He Ye Ay aeee a \.ON oa B=eeoa M -aot te : :a_an ca .AEe Me pA See ee gel eye ee ETE ES Ceee Bp es cate pee —Ae aes oe ae

B : “ , : . ‘ : : a Sa eS ie oe A oe a Ceae®y Ps Sto: ae ‘so 7? ae ee ee

a het “ee ie aaon gop eeaséeoieyeee- ee wee et re ct % Bes oe Ve ae eS oeseeEE ed onieoCe A inWe st cas } e ye y |ae : . ee : !-ens . : as Book aes ee hy: et eck ae BAe oeBBE ESSey -aeaNe rieeeae Bs . ’aes hoe caer ee oe pingatiyie PES ES pi Ls fart ve: rbd pete aoSa? ee ieS reCe ee ee aa.es te & Ue. a. ‘ais Pa : dl * |oe ah as.whe ee:oeog pee pee erMees Pao : Pe: ilog 3. 1 eee OC oe as Sf ve : ne , ore :| Sa }oe : Bele : :pays :eke : at - pe aaeaemr feeBers meES a . feo eee es ee7es Beaas ge eb: aoeget Lage eae Hees Sobel po Eee Set La gd Od Spice i ie es Pe cet eB ae an a." oe ie 7 * a Ay ae e:BAER m 2 ;ts,‘ / f arLes Laagy : 7gad igsoe oa ae Bees weeee BegSeg pote gh Be Mepees ee A eee ae2ey age rn neaeeae coon ‘aki ae: Bola ai Ce! : :aoe peiebeds CERES yecere. = poet A ae eo co eeEe a Be afaoe on s, é. en 'Z apeoe an Beate eee ee * oe -ee feo Ae ie 2.£ eee rr eee oeEeone ae e 4a aoee Le yCeA ‘ aoeue ‘s oo” ",

hoeone Payee cnet ceeeeebee oo Spee ghd? re OL a. ee eyo ores :ares Reeeee peace ara eae ae A Ne ok. i. sae es Me ie a .a>aie"ts s 78ae Lopes beded ow Ba, otsa.aee» + Polos) ee ee fat REA eS oe ere Beaoe. Sgn ES con agit® ‘i ftBye ae »eights gree ee bbee: f ghee te ee ae eeBP LE Ses Ls se mas ae :ree ae - 5sf :os iEa Bi eR eons Lay BAe pea oe ae AY PO : enar Coulee OR .cae ;po := eee L co mp estay areeAy ok Mee vied ee Es ame BehBERT Po ans Bye ae eee ae ‘ye 4cee. ae Bote FR Bee es eeok ae ee ea go et aeaee oc a oy a ae - aa} a«.ao ;se ||7 |eS :ria . !Be . el - Wn :Mee o do : | .& “. .ma Poe lta akhoe oe‘ey ee-Ree Bee, ie aeBEA aepeers slbrag MSnat PO naioe eeMyo oeLk Soe teAk ee ee

io ee gig sagtLE aceee es ea PO:eaae. oe pone Se yritepl2EE ogee Loa de ee ae LdCe eg an Ee ga pe oF re a — oeEe faeadgh a wee : 2.corSree mo care veh s ibe a Pees “eeageek oe_ceS *| "ce po vetad Oe ceo See ae on aere SeSaRe 2iae Baek 8as dao geks aCoa ae es: ee .rlwee Tesaefee oS an.eeaea a- 7nePr: ee i 8. ."i : :i. Se oe ae en BE a oa: ele Oe fe “4 foe ee ae es en Be S hee ee a ee, aa “on i,ee = an a a©oone oe ceed ree eae ae Ae, eyioC eopees ete ee ee eeMe sree at) oe pee Ss \oe edeeeen _aeae eit, ueinoS ot oe oe SBS See aoe cabare katWhigs ar 8isd ae22 Iino a ee aeaaoa eg tg See PoyBEL CY Eig ane nee Gar a6Ging \seNe >

a Ses: etki eS” Bt ee re et oS = Pe oes ay oe ge oa os \\ ee oo . oe 2 ) iim?" Gaee epee 2 ee -Ueieae aie | ae os Esta ye ieies Bey POEL ER Lee ee ee neaPac. eS Pe case aee ae neeeAe i SUS TS: eee! NG Soeucis ra Pe —ee2. oO OE Bas aE——— uaeCae i , aar Ea Jb kt ee ee Ds ae ie wk te 2 oe ine ees me ie Mo i, ee ee 2 = PBS as eoOS ge ; oe a eee: ee| eee Migs ape wig bt oe Be tS- aSo age —fF We geeGees gee Ee # eeeee fomea Dae, ne ee) a aeBye Sey hal eet Ciae ce Pees ee eeae Te|ee pean ee Wee oC oe |Bean faae£0 wp ow vipaay ed Ee cen “ORES ee BoE aiG=Sad Gl ete as eens aJEisroy iae. Bae aeeoe Pea aeNae Aa oeioe a Bee yee:an berg ee aTe coeeee whehag os oa pas aeoe alleance a WPae aere Pages wee an meea ee cre ot eeieorgs aeChe eee oe Wace ae |yet Pe ee re eee oe ES 5 eke ee oo oo eeeae oo oe 8 hetinte 1 oo LEME ee ae i a Pe a oe sesh! pee eee 2 De Bees ae bees pee! a an a cent eRe Se EY, CEILS eis: ae ara “RO GES ea eee wee a ae Pl ee Bos OG ig ge Ai a ioe Sa a ion inte ; one oo” Oe Pee. oars EAE Be eteBenes pelt ge &RECT Be ee 2 “~SES Me wre ee oe Tawi. or ge ge ee a aLee ie Behe a . Mefee OS aePs aeee oeooee alWece a ES, |7Seo. Lee: a. Ws oeood 7i @ chee eear "erone 4Nebay ae Ee otwo OSiy.Yas on RE Galo hee, aan ie iat “ee* pee ge:We ese ce ae vy, Paar ay. ply Sateane -_eeeg ys 42 ue — hhASN oeKe, Yin. i: Be boy coe See mee ae ie re ae vii! ss mee ee ae ae ae ee A a ee EEN: MG ed ish a ee Wo ee ae eae [ . Lo eae i, “ad e a |aoecS a sie ee eeOS VSS A So geshee Beeco . call a aed BeBe6om Bosoe a scael eae ee edge AR,aagi OSPaes eS 0 Coes ibe PgBo iG ahi re hs— ne:eu i e :caee| oeRe begot a ace cae a aHEE “afer Lhe Meas anag Pee Peaeoe es oz eheegeHeSee Me. ao oeMeeeae): ie ioe essoFNOG

4iae. ee eecrarel aaeMes as eepelae osSpe oy oes a.kyfeed oe Pere ~ aese:a ISS ae ee eek “ged 3A23 oeEaeo | ue NOON LeVy Ce. oe ig oe . Ee ace arePeee 7oePah RU ce: ae APeee aiE . Leet POSE Ope isaiyi | Bes ane rege eae eeAEN? ee ae2acia? NN ty3 Pts sree Es Paes oy “Bet . a. Se BS Lee Ph ne esee ae Legge nes i aeCie ad ty ase ltiNel on a ‘ :us £08 .Sooke eSs: le oeeek! eo oe oe joe aOG = ose .saaBS AS oe aan oeBag eSaSane ag otaear. me oe gee oe. re oe Me ce pe — ceDies pee oe 8 re, awee eee ge oeee aecae oo oeWs aa. eZ sett whee he cv : eae | oe: be Thge See eSyh Me Be SE ei & wee geele HY Er oad aigie erlaa ee Bee oegag Oeaes ig Jeeae. oe Ms ARETE ee ee eile >.«. “tt erg » om Se “i : 4:cpores Ere pe) : ak ee See eden Biae24 ae Vee igi hal fnne 7 _— | co, Ve Mo. ™/, NA — ‘ae(aee SN Beene Cpe WN gsJiD oete ae ee fu egos oe ee See leeee oees swe ia aMe As Seren ae re aaeae oee\ ae ve Me ‘We io Ayo ioge: -2 aeaae . .7.age ee eeele Seals Beote aa cae Bos (ee aeey Haca Sa ee. erga ie Ne& fas|Li esi Ve are- a aNY oa AO Bsn

’;'; ees, al Wee teos a©eee iae ahi Pee ae! ay Hibs aeeoeae Ue agit aeiio©a| *Coe, Lo leBS a0 iaoe a aae |:::::-:' eee Las :A ‘| :¥ta aehoped oe esCER on : see bee Cee eee) SAREE yees eeaae | eee oe ohe® ees Ng oeWy ae lige: a "4crete . athe eae 2oeoo fePene oe aeee PEt 1oeolPk Ne Eee ORs 8.28 Ce Moe fae ee eee ees ee ome edeee ob ies RpPeS ee =. a. Bes pee Cae a2ow ~ae7,Ae aeie>

le gh oe cele oe 4cue ae oe oe Lepaag nae Loe aPee oo ae el eA ae a ae

3 vo -Bea ee eoee f tyeS a ee Ad eee Oe celle f jee y Nee i‘ Oe oe ro ——— ogee” a if: cea t3oeateooie hy1 ae ot , Oe popAeees eae es es ee iaBe 8 aa ee reoo aehiielooo 2 A JeA" .oS os

be ee bide *ao!eee ehagt CE Seeg ee ee Aes Ce cae eeeibps geh ES are © ee cleeae teres ee,aeshea aieae | See oP ES ees BAe ey Shee ee A vor ye v Be sn XXae: el of ; iihoot hee oon gudek ie a: Pe es oe im eee iOaye Se as eg escee Bee ee esata esi Lege e.fb ea Me ee gone aeapoe ear te Ne es aape Pe Se4ige PELaN BE AES Eee “hg ENoct ee aSecs cecaOS eee Oe eae \acoae rs hte FERRE AEE lie Ose See ae dstee rr eseee NaePope ee Beae geeok eeene ee ee Rec ecd iA aE Se Te aeMe: bee eepact _ ae Cas) eee sae ee aces esas as a ee jatigd 2!ae ae fe ee ae ee es Gs BON Ne Ce eee le bush on Dog aed 4sets at oAe eee oe eee are ehh ted. ean esGai alae ae ee ESCates eee Eee Le eewe ae es ge iMSoegsets ¥oeoe od SN oN “me . : Ri fe eeues ee fg de aereges eee aa Hebe aban feo eee VAR Ae Beme: ae he eealew aEEE ee a8 here Nei ates aaees?abe ¥pee eAueteh eaeeR Bak eigeh oeees ee ab, afpees ee eae aoeeed fe ieeee agreeeee ae 2s ey ree ye oeeee aeh are Bea! ces ae ore Roe A Seeeae|aeaoo. ee ae Pyee tefeeeeee a cae HN ae PLB Lakia ice ONHig sy as we pad Agi=BER Bes Pe ae paleel gg ae oe oae Rial Pee eee aapoe er: aye va Neee Senne Seen. 5 ON eae Vee eee & bos reMee Bary 4pee See] a ge ge hyi ee bes aie Len SisBe, ee aaeA aSee Sg Ae +eae es Bepe 2Re aOR ey 4 el A piper Petge sche Lage | eae tA ee Wes ee ae © Sole ie ee aaa eo Nici pe ey ee a So ces i 1 ae MG oe she — a = bey ee eae eee a oo ee Poe Ceres ee ee le e a as ene ees ee. a Tv ay Pe 4 ce 7 oh oe \ or age Vg h a alee 7

a ie ak Cee BE Lee ee eee eyes ae Ye an on pga a Pes . « re 1 Co ae Hy pen Ng, x" FR

ye can ae BBE Oe Bove ABBE “eli 38 7 oe Bhs Ade Nea eS ae. ee ea lie meas igo Us ee ae aa: ee Bene Ae a oo regen ae le ae pop oN GG i mys is He \ ‘i . g a

Fs and bs, fee m es aeseeSee i feoaoo EEE % Etec ak3aes a 4 big ewsoo8 ae aeRear | ae owe ipee ae Eee leeUnc 23 ie 7 cu Ie Ee eye: ee ae i CY y‘ .te: x| @ Ps ee ee ey aeoe gy mate Sees agles Beek press a Bim ee ae eT oepe eek 3aee a ae aie sebTh is a y) Pot ps Seales @ a eeeesoe ae aaa eG | oe CREM AEE ee aoe AS Spots ee ee ae eee eee I AME eel e og Oe oisaeeeeeoa| aoY eeZeewe aA a Lv ne >“

ao es TS 2a ARS ee as eeees ese oe ipoenee Ns ee illlOG an Le oe ee i as Ke he ene .E eee Pees aeee esCeeoee ai ae - oe eePie Ee RTeRT ee pig Eee® Los eeme a2ai ae ae oe Oe co Par eee oe ee =o LM | pe :4ae ao ae oe Paes Roe oer ae ae : eee oe ee ae Pe Os ve a:1"ee ,ye, oe ee One ae oS ae gee, nite ae “ Ne Bass on ay: i© aie “ Ce bi e,ave ‘a;Noe Bs ‘aeaPL :ES?ve :ar | aigee x? an Fay .ae DAO Oe Ng gp APT Eg agga gg sage TT *Sa as Le a, fe eo te! fe (| seas: oe eg fee oe ge MIM ee re Sag ° Loy eee : Mae aa PL bed ee ee ee ee ee | ee ee ee ee ee Bg eg BE fe re ae. ene ek. A ere cB aa se ae “tig . . hg gE RAT . : 7 sec eee ees eee | fa ia eae | er ea eee a ae ee ee ee aa eee te oe ee : Beh eR CEN eo AN es — t AS Use Bet kg Moa: Buetesee on, an io bed GAR Ane Lar gee ADDL ge eeeee eee cee | es at Ba eee 2 Se ||sbmee Ce aa iwg By \ Ra 5 fae, % BLO hare: c.ee CR ee ae Se gue ae me Aga SE le pteeee) APES eA Welk eancot Boa Bsfg "ie rrwee oe SRR re reeee owOe. Poe gh:vtPo Pig ,LS pad, aE Jee||eeare » oe7.gtee1oeMEE a rere Mlb ae7PELE BEAN TL eee Gs oes eeehee eC ce Co ee BOL oe re ae

Ae ee eg ae Ae ee ee rs. ere rc: eee PCCRAS i. °°) ee ee” ee ee errr rre Chee

ee ee) eee ee RUN URNS SECS Me orRe Mami 825 Ce Le er arBG : ree 5a Se eeTA MMe aeUD SE ee : 4215 2 1104.04 asin sini Gali saROE 8 Se Fee EO se hl ee weeeeags UNOPS Eres 7A a BOE cecae sees Bes SSph gragt Be AE he OO Da DD IMO egee Boer Soe daa4wee 7SEMIS feoee 4 «eee) yy 2°08 ayee “452 bk UMMM Hage oy eaerr coe wigeg gica idee APA ON RR ED . WRRREEEAUAR, OEe OTe Aer eecae ns oecea eeeee ae | ae aeaieae ee OAIMIID: ee eee ee) ee eraAe .BY thee Re Me 2gI©EI eeeySoe eT BL 7 2we aglotne ee emery Ce eeMMM ee eseepe eB elyER hONwget pRE a ed ee Uaety Ge eeeagieiesceet as eee ee eeeFEM eeeaRD 4:Srey are ee ee er er ee teNELS. ee ee ee ee ee re SS ee fae hetoe gs Be AAI ateLae PC baya.heBEER CES OTS pettaie ee eeMee le we ote eCBee) Me Myee, a ges AEMCR LEER (AES «15070 DURREPESAT (OOMERUORESTIOTA CAStiyr Putte eSSie A Cee em uenspect MSe SES 06 kee ereIDICER Min WSIS CES | ah es .: ea, ee ee a Pe I I Set 3 ae eo a ri ee rr wen Bk very SBA ek BaP ek MM eos Ge ag RT BS ad, ee oe gk PERE OG BP pk Oe Sab Ye OE PLE berg be Be Be a Ee ar cr)

fer eeeeeeoe eeoeoor Wi hes akag eel LeEaces As eeMaMa! Oe ate eebo eetTee ergbee Ceeyeoe ne eebec Pcitak eeec ertCee ase7| a ee ae ae gape ie OICaN OSTee Pie 8 GU aARN eh eae eo ‘ gS re pee E8og Le aee eT Rom Pees Sere Cette eee Aepe eeAe ie aeee ED keane WAAC Mm SLAe ME eheMeet VPoot geophDg ee ket DAT Se eee Dy igs

iy oor eee es; 4oe 4)OE i. cee eo eeeSet eeCRs eee mn aAeeTENE eecreer ee eA eeBE ee ees le be aept ee |nee ee eeaohy eeLo eeioe eee gis eek”), eh oe AEE ae007 beeSue VE gevseee Edie tp Bag : on ae 2a ee 8 Ae ac Opfee ieraae Pe ree cee NE i UbRE gt aDa ebSg ge sl Bee eeao eeeeeeeseeUaelOE eee) eeee”6— «sec ee ee Bek gyaeSa sr aeh | a Geyeepec leoek alge ce rk. | a rrr, scr ee ee ee to aeyEA hah heeS Biacae: ihe BY METER sega S28 28 SSS OPN I ee egg os AS ag i. Reg pie AE eS cae he aa . * 24 2 Le BR ke By . iG : fa eA . het : pid Fas : 2 RE ag GAR aeo| eel ee |eeeeere) ‘sini ae ee = ee eyeseeaneerere Des. aor aeea Os ee aero i ee eee ee.ae” (eeeahoeae7.)aes een6oa. Po a, A Re at SE Oe| mo oweieegeee ko ue 0 ae ee ee ee. a silage: ee a” ees? ee Oe Coca ga ae ; coe wie eS sods © ON eo A UB SB. SY eee | Rae pee eae 8 cose ee ess ite ccc c So cin MMMM Pg AMS Te SM Mesa Og Bo GAs ag iii a | eae cs : alee ~ oa & ra . 44 aan i7 C.. @eee ee as) nh, ae eagc ae es|eee ieMe ee, «|e ergee err ee dd §ee ey ot :awo ; et ny eg te Ae re re Se [ie ok oo eeee a8okfoe ee eeeu5.aicoe hed ee” ee iseb |Ppt, ne De en| hr eee ee ii Ieee EAM Oe Bgeee PE er eT Rome ieeNN ine i.| eS esoe orn | rncme SRIES .' ae ba 63 a4ane se~ ‘ 3 -_ a eh >§O 35—- 2Sez ce cf A oe m1 & 06 dee fF §&S — ps A: nw ES 5 et bei 65 : | x> S Ad : _ S ae > = ~% ° —Yv5D 2 R > -xcha oo (3*{acS —— omizg Ols aw coRalEegie 5 00) &IN|Sieg an

‘ q B/E S a B B 82/28 ESBS - 15&x Ack . cc | S i E16 O¢

a + ose COee nS s3bb 0yee &NMN Sob < e— cave = Co —_ eY SR BeOe ti OAS : S ware a)

fF) :"or ao BRIE Pale aE | ey) 3g© gx ated: 8e*

BO oe : 3 fs a ZS s& oT en : Sa FS" aa . _ O sl9
The relationship over the generations is even more striking and significant. If we look at the descendants of followers of the Enlightenment and compare them to descendants of members of orthodox organizations in the 1770s we see a very great difference in tendency to convert. One of the subscribers to Mendelssohn’s Bible translation later converted, as did the children of at least thirty other of the ninety-two traceable subscribers in Berlin (32 percent).!© Among the members of the pro-Enlightenment Gesellschaft der Freunde, whose founding members were unmarried, the percentage of conversion was even higher.!’ By contrast only one member of the burial society of 1778 converted and five of sixty-eight had children who converted (7 percent).!® If one traces one generation further (those children of the burial society members and Mendelssohn subscribers who married in Berlin before 1813), one finds that the differences between the two groups continues with only a slight diminution. Of the children of Mendelssohn subscribers who married Jews in Berlin, ninety-

three had no converted children (56 percent), forty-nine had children who converted, and twenty-four (15 percent) later converted themselves. Of the children | of burial society members, 121 (80 percent) had no converted children and only 7 (5 percent) later converted themselves (Table 7).

| Not only did the Enlighteners produce more converted children and grandchil, dren, but the orthodox had many more descendants who married as Jews and had exclusively Jewish children. From ninety-two traceable Berlin subscribers to Mendelssohn’s Bible translation there came only ninety-three children who married other Jews and had no converted children. The smaller number of 68 ortho, dox produced 121 married children who did not have any converted children of their own. The evidence concerning the children of the Enlighteners and the traditionalists in the 1770s is overwhelming. In families that supported the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, the percentage of children and grandchildren who later converted far exceeded the figures for those in traditionalist organizations. This would

give the impression that there was something in the Enlightenment lifestyle or ideology that eased the transition to conversion. The tendency of certain families to have larger percentages of conversion than others was related not only to ideological tendency but also to wealth. As a group, affluent Jewish taxpayers had a tendency to have a disproportionately high rate of converted descendants quite similar to that of supporters of the Enlightenment. The

158 THE SOCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE CRISIS TABLE 7. Relative Rates of Conversion of Descendants by Ideology and Wealth Subscribers to Mendelssohn Burial Society

Bible Translation Members Wealthy

(1778-1783) (1778) Taxpayers*

First Generation

No conversion, no converted 61 (66%) 62 (91%) 54 (61%) children

Children converted 30 (32%) 5 (7%) 27 (31%)

Converted themselves 1 (1%) 11%) 5 (6%) Second Generationt

No conversion, no converted 93 (56%) 121 (80%) 90 (55%) children

Children converted 49 (29%) 24 (15%) 45 (27%) Converted themselves 24 (15%) 7 (5%) 28 (17%) *This represents all those who were assessed at 4 Taler or above at any time up to 1789. Children marrying in Berlin as Jews.

rate of conversion of descendants of those with tax assessments over 4 Taler was almost identical with rates for Mendelssohn Bible subscribers. The effect of wealth complicates matters, since subscribers to Mendelssohn’s Bible translation were much richer than the traditionalists in the burial society. Within each ideological grouping, too, wealthier families were more likely to have

converted descendants than less affluent ones. Wealthier subscribers to Mendelssohn’s Bible translation had a higher rate of children converting to Christianity (45 percent) than those who were less wealthy. Of the five members of the burial society who had children who later converted, three were in the over 4 Taler

tax bracket. In the case of one wealthy member of the burial society, Nathan Liepmann who died in 1791, virtually all his descendants, many of them married into distinguished Berlin families, were prominent among the early converts to Christianity (Genealogical Table 3).!? Orthodoxy of the parents alone did not prevent conversion of the children in every case. If we look at other types of affiliation with orthodox organizations in the late eighteenth century we also find that wealth played a role. Among the trustees of the Beth Hamidrash (Talmud study association), who were on average considerably richer than the burial society members, the percentage of those with converted children was much higher (20 percent), while among the even poorer wardens of traditional charities” the percentage was about the same as for the burial society (8 percent).”! This distinction between conversion rates of wealthy and poorer orthodox continued to be noticeable in the third generation as well.?? Although wealth did have an influence in addition to family ideology in determining the rate of conversion within families, ideology still had considerable impact when we control for wealth. Although the wealthiest group of burial society members have a similar conversion rate to the less wealthy subscribers to Mendelssohn’s

;ean:: no C aFES

7a #e £2 3 eSQ 82 S248 228 8 @ Et | - 227 ~UO es SN |S& = ma 3 FES amt et | —_ ) So go "

a oO ‘3 = {my E 1S 2 S : =: .:

{Tay “ 38 52 wv a SE ‘ESR 62 := :ENE F Be. Ea 13 8. 5 oS ao fe - -

. frs a> BBS 2 a) 243 ‘ ce £ Ale Boe a : Ooo cgi S gEES 5 ¥.—y > 0 _ Ly | | & 1 2 a= S S |S B|E BOIS & 3 [> |

Z = 885 " aA =g: : S |aEo

;if6D s 3 (2 : 5 . < : = of &

E5:

eo og”. OHb— 30/0ge™.2jom 2 a(Sal 8 :2 ry) . gage 8 lz

c ET s : 28 : eo aa

red 4 cS el s3g := ~ = SS Ta : = © > pen] Oo wm = ~ Z& 3 a ‘O < \ aces : Be §| & & ec re 2Teae S88 PE 8)aos 2 # sues] pisbel*2 cB cF a7 ol 3c so :ev) BES EB we oN s ° G0Snen as > 4 , @ — ¢t ok Kg ! g $85 a3 o EAE = g:= = wv RIQna] & £e)Slepas as em gAEES [8-

wl re Se Oo e : Se gts a : oz 8 é* 5 ) ya i ed i ™ : fo Sy a tee | 3 , oO s : 28 3 ont oS 6 4 §S Bs alesis os 3°SEES Zues g Ze eE ge 2 i 228 3 > Or le gece Es ~ ()‘aw 2Eodt > ea ED : fal a 3 oo ; ges a ;: o9 >t he |§ elaSEeT==n¢eo -3a7

_ iw od _feN2 go E s gS —— ww

| oO w|we = 00 3 Oo Ml: Ag |S 2A

‘Oo-to [8 aS322t 8|éS12 g2 s2e ch&—

5 Evr) Bo-Seen 37 ed

\@)

160 THE SOCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE CRISIS Bible translation, the rate of conversions in the same income range still differs considerably.??

Organizational affiliation is not the only indication of the ideology or atmosphere of a home. Religious practice is at least as important an indication of the

type of upbringing being given. The children of those who paid the kosher meat tax were much more likely to remain Jewish than the children of those whose parents did not pay the kosher meat tax. (In this case wealth is not a factor, since those paying the tax were no poorer than those who did not.) Among Jews who attended the reformed service and also paid the kosher meat tax, one later converted and about 25 percent had children who converted. Among those reform Jews who did not buy kosher meat, almost half had children who converted.*4 Although the degree of observance within the reform families was an extremely important differentiating factor in the proportion of conversion among their children, there was still a difference that can be attributed to the ideological factor alone. The conversion rate of children of reformed service attenders who kept kosher (27 percent) was still over three times that of orthodox persons who paid the kosher meat tax (8 percent). In summary we can see that the three factors of wealth, ideological commitment, and home religious practice had a cumulative effect on the tendency to leave the Jewish community. Wealth in itself was a contributing factor, but, among those with equal wealth, those committed to the Enlightenment or religious reform had a higher percentage of conversion among their descendants than those committed to orthodoxy. Even among those affiliated with the modernist ideological trends, those who retained traditional religious practice were less susceptible to apostasy than those who abandoned such rituals.

Conversion of Children and Desires of Their Parents The statistical correlations are all in the nature of circumstantial evidence, which shows that the children of the orthodox were less likely to convert than the children of reformers but does not tell us anything about motivation. In the case of |

those children of reformers who were baptized before the age of eighteen, it is | clear that the parents influenced the decision. In quite a few cases in which the parents did not themselves convert, they decided that their children’s lives would be easier if they were brought up as Christians.*° In such cases it is clear that the reform parents were quite content with their child’s conversion. In the case of children converting after they reached independence, however, the attitudes of the parents are not as clear. Perhaps we can assume that although most reform parents probably opposed conversion, they were less adamant in their opposition than were orthodox parents. This is difficult to verify in the absence of direct evidence. The only indirect evidence we have is information about whether the children waited until after their parents’ death before taking the step of conversion. This 1s a common motif in the literature on the Taufepidemie. In the cases of both Henriette Herz and Rahel Varnhagen, they are said to have waited until after the death of

Family, Ideology, and Crisis 161 their “still orthodox mother” until they converted.*® In any case an analysis of the

comparative baptismal dates of those on the 1812 Berlin Jewish list who later converted and the death dates of their parents shows there were more converts with both parents deceased than with both parents alive. In about one-third of the cases one parent was alive at the time of the child’s baptism and the other was deceased.?’ Children of reformers who converted were somewhat more likely to have parents alive at the time of conversion than did children of the orthodox who converted.”®

There are only a small number of cases in which the conversion took place within a year of the death of a parent. Only those few cases are indications that persons avoided baptism out of respect for parents. Of these cases only one involves a parent affiliated with the orthodox leadership. Among the others was the son of

the archreformer David Friedlander who was baptized within two months of his , father’s death.7°

The evidence based on whether individuals waited till their parents died to , convert is less clear than the statistical differences in conversion among the children of modernists and traditionalists. There was a slightly greater tendency for converts from reformist families to change their religion while their parents were alive than was true among converts from traditionalist families. This pattern is, however, by no means absolute. Although we can gather that there may have been a slightly decreased tendency to oppose violently the conversion of children in reform families, this tendency is not very obvious or consistent. Perhaps the general upbringing the children in “liberal” families received had more influence on their later tendency to convert than any difference in the attitudes toward conversion of their parents compared to anticonversion feelings among the orthodox. In the absence of abundant personal accounts the motivations that explain why those | in liberal families were much more likely to convert will remain elusive. The overall pattern found from an analysis of the family relationships between the followers of ideological trends in Judaism and the later converts, despite the qualifications stated previously, still seems clear. The reformers and Enlighteners were much more likely to have converts among their descendants and other relatives than the orthodox. Even after looking at other contributing factors like gender and

wealth, this pattern seems to hold. |

The discovery of a definite and clear-cut distinction between the way the children of traditionalists and modernizers reacted to pressures for conversion would seem on the surface to support those opponents of Enlightenment and reform who blame these movements for assimilation. A closer analysis of the phenomenon will show that this simplistic explanation is far from the only possible one. Other possible explanations, including the absence of a meaningful alternative to tradition,

| and a generational progression from orthodoxy through liberalism to apostasy, will be considered in detail in the concluding chapter of this study. Although the difference in patterns of conversion between traditionalists and modernizers is extremely clear, the interpretation of these facts remains open to conflicting views —views that parallel the ideological distinctions between the two parties.

Was the Experience of Women Different from Men’s Experience?

Besides differences in conversion patterns based on wealth and on ideological affiliations of the various families, gender differences played a vital and frequently noticed part in the unfolding of the revolutionary changes affecting Berlin Jewry. The role of women in the salons and in the wave of conversions has been a frequent theme in the writings of Jewish historians.! This is in marked contrast to the rarity of concentration by historians on women’s roles in most other crucial episodes in Jewish history. The analysis of the role played by women in the various aspects of the crisis of Berlin Jewry requires attention to two main issues. First, were women really noticeably different in their behavior from men? Second, if there are noticeable differences, what were the factors that caused women and men to react dissimilarly

to the challenges of the age? Women’s and Men’s Behavior During the Crisis: The Salons and Romanticism

Women’s role in the salons was a clear case of female predominance. Jewish men not only were fewer in number than Jewish women in salon society, but they also had less influence on the atmosphere at the salon gatherings. The main participants in the salons were Jewish women and Christian men. Among elite, modernizing Jewish men and women, there seemed to be a kind

of unspoken division of activities. Jewish women with intellectual interests gravitated toward the informal salons and toward the Romantic movement, while Jewish men joined formal organizations and movements and adhered, in the main, to the Enlightenment, even after it began to go out of fashion among leading Christian thinkers. The contrast between males adhering to the Enlightenment and women being

The Experience of Women 163 attracted to Romanticism is frequently mentioned in descriptions of events in Jewish intellectual circles. The contrast between the tone in the circles of Markus Herz and his wife, Henriette, has already been mentioned. On several occasions, Markus joked about his wife’s interest in Romantic or Sturm und Drang literature, which he found simply incomprehensible.” Henriette Herz’s memoirs state in several places that Jewish men were more attracted to philosophy, while women were more attracted to literature.’ A letter by Sara von Grotthuss (née Meyer) to Goethe in 1797 likewise contrasts the rationalist man and the Romanticist woman. In the letter she relates how Moses Mendelssohn had caught her with a copy of Goethe’s Sturm und Drang novel The Sorrows of Young Werther and had thrown the offending volume out

the window.* Although there were a few Jewish men in the Romanticist salon _ groups,’ they were certainly far less numerous than the many Berlin Jewish men who wrote works in the rationalist mode. All our evidence of this dichotomy between pro-Enlightenment males and proRomanticist females comes from the small elite circle of Jewish intellectuals. The extent to which this division played a part in the actions or thoughts of ordinary Berlin Jews is impossible to determine. The seeming preference of women for the emotional power of the Romantic movement while men remained stolid Enlighteners may be related to the difference in their overall activities.° Especially among the Berlin Jewish elite (though

less so among the Jewish rank and file), women were not actively involved in economic activity. This gave them more time for leisure pursuits including the | arts and literature. Jewish men, on the other hand, including those in the elite, were generally involved in commerce. The talents needed for success in commercial fields included the rational weighing of alternatives, keeping careful records, and maintaining a sense of realism and practicality. The training and daily activities of commerce may have been factors that restrained Jewish men from involvement in the Romantic movement. If this explanation is accurate, then the difference is not one between traditionalist men and modernizing women, but between men who modernized through rationalism and women (at least elite women) who modernized through Romanticism. This would lead us to expect women’s break from tradition to come 1n more personalistic ways, whereas men’s split from tradition came in an institutional way. That may be the reason why historians’ treatments of men’s activities in the period center on the Enlightenment, religious reform, and the creation of new institutions, while those dealing with women concentrate on the salons, love affairs, and conversion to Christianity. Because the activities of women were not susceptible to

institutionalization they seemed more anarchic and more of a threat to Jewish continuity.

Women’s and Men’s Behavior during the Crisis: Illegitimacy In descriptions of the crisis of Berlin Jewry, Jewish women are often said to have had a disproportionate role, not only in the salons and support for Romanticism,

164 THE SOCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE CRISIS but also in the tendency to engage in extramarital affairs and to convert to Christianity. Many historians have extrapolated from the well-known cases: of conversion and love affairs among the women of the salons to assume that Jewish women

in general were especially prone to such activities. ) A closer look at the personal choices of women and men shows that even in the two fields where women’s activities seem most obvious—romance and conversion—their predominance has been exaggerated. Only in the salons and in the Romantic movement is the predominance of women obvious and uncontradicted. When it comes to love affairs out of marriage and to conversion, women’s share in the phenomenon is certainly very important, but quantitative data show it to be far less overwhelming than some historical treatments have tended to claim. The general image given by the literature portrays a passionate Jewish woman, perhaps already married and unhappy with a dull Jewish husband, engaged in a romantic affair with a Christian, perhaps a nobleman.’ Such cases certainly were common enough, but it is inaccurate to imagine that Jewish women were so very much more likely to have affairs than men. An analysis of the data on illegitimate children both of mixed couples and of purely Jewish ones does not show a pattern of predominance of Jewish women among those involved in extramarital affairs—quite the contrary. In fact, a look at the peak period of illegitimate births to mixed couples (1780 to 1805) shows that the number of illegitimate children born to Jewish men and Christian women (ninety) far outnumbers the fifty-three born to Christian men and Jewish women.°

Although the number of out-of-wedlock children born to Jewish men far exceeded those born to Jewish women, these figures somewhat exaggerate the Jewish male role in interreligious affairs. First of all, illegitimate children of Jewish fathers are the majority only during the peak years of illegitimacy. In later years Jewish women outnumber Jewish men among such parents.’ In the case of illegit-

imacy, therefore, men seem to have been the pioneers, followed by the women (the opposite of what we will see in regard to conversion). Second, the patterns of the relationships that produced illegitimate children differed between men and women. Jewish men were more likely to have larger numbers of out-of-wedlock children and to delay marrying their mistresses until after all their children were born. Thus we have examples of Jewish men and Christian women with five, seven, and even eleven children out of wedlock.!° Jewish women, on the other hand, were much more likely to convert and marry their lovers after only a few children; often they had further children after their conversion.!! Because

of this, the number of Jewish fathers of illegitimate children was much smaller than the number of children they fathered out of wedlock. Twenty-one couples of Jewish men and Christian women who eventually married had fifty children before marriage, while fifteen similar couples of Christian men and Jewish women had only twenty-two children before marriage.!* Among those who never married the parents of their illegitimate children, men outnumber women only by seventy-four

to fifty in the period before 1806. In addition to this, there were a number of Jewish children born out of wedlock to Jewish women who were never baptized. This could legally happen only if the father was also Jewish or if his identity was unreported. The number of such

-On iiee Re ee‘. ie ... SRN es ee a os oe .aCEC ae ee CO ieee, ,rtsts*ststs . . . .. . . |... oe LOE RO a a OO Ce ay ae :L>.OT a es a a Oe ee oes Ce oe sek. nes OO oe OG G, oO |. Ire ea|OO | CN es: OO CA CaN .....}. §}§}|©.|.. | eee ee See TaoS: ER Ne, NN OE) OCG AIRC NSE OEE CR aNat UO HnLCUeee te ON EUS ORE NECA a OCA ECU ERNGEE Rag aamitrranetliad AATH anh, Got OI Os TUNG SU ADO AMA GasNON OO HST AIiste ane

i a Oe es ee .| iI Oe ae es ee PO ROU EN UO VES aE ASO ORIEL a I ee a AC SUN OU SIN ORGIES UNA GUIN ROY SG SUAS ECA SE CED UOT ED HONEA g Uae MWR Une aS Se Musee INOS Aco

RCSONU SS NN PO COE SOTA Sea OO ARD SH GUS AU UU AMI GRE Camnc KnSGC § COMM aH SAE AGS NA TSOGCIS ONO SON Ro iSUNN OO SOE Nn:EAMG CES AG OO AesHON iti me

Ca Nis POGUE OE GONE ON, DSO TL DO ces On SG MO RU CEMA LIE May hy

TO OEE a) Fa a ICR aANUS FA ECU Seine eek -PN LO TC ESE OE OU NG MOR DEO CIE GIN ZBSEEE ee til a OT EM ee Oe ee EEUU NGONE NIHRCEU GRO NCR DS MRT SU EG ONO OR UCT CG) SONA KG COSI. DION GUhey OTE SCM HON IN HRS scaA Res . eiCNS LU i eke OECE OUANSO EN TES Uy ON ULV UL OSG OCIS AD HORS Ana oR RE ROASTS SENSOR AGED OURGU MAG UIST GATES US EAVIROS SONNVA UIG HSE a USGION AOAC DE AVR OL NG EA OCIA RICGe ANE AIUD RT BO ON CI CUNGHOT AR HO IALHT OTS SO UN aI Ca) OS OSAGRO SR GUC ENGR MEU CE. PCR Cnt cata

ih EEN TU OUR SEOSRUANO RAC Cy ORCC ae NiUSGI ERCaDUS TaU nN COO EK RUS NCEA C au STAM G:O er OE ON NN a CRO CONE E UOROR RONEN AN GUNN SCTE i EIENTIC ERI cn FN OE URE ng: EO ay ee OO NEG) BO ON URNA SUA ae HE COUSIN ICG Gd CO HE SU a Ce OG eae oe

ae ee ee Te aeOR POE UCU RTS Fe IES Gr SOS UUae NE OO OO OURG CERCA Su VENICE latinaas EO OE ORG ee Oe UIE SE : EOay CONOR GORING DOO COU EOE Us SONU NTSURN aie PDE eC NGOeG eletataoaata oo OO ECO UR GC Gs CO PN NS SCLC OSOat ATCO NU NENG GINGSEE AG Ce ROS CaNSS . PARRA HRI OER NG RU A EIA INEGI ENGI CN) ROE UTNE SS ESIC SE SUTRAS URE CREIAA SUE ACI URS RG OEMS CUS ALE) SO BOS AEE NN ay Gain

Co SUN ONE OS AR GC SG) OO ON OU SHAN Ga) ON COT ONC SN OOO Ee Cee Ee a as Ca te Re CO ROSS SUS USAC HERGSINC FSCO ENR eMe ana eva nCCiegs COON TNO ORES NNCOacy EMR B oe Ce eG DS US GDaeeNERS ER NS POR a DE GN ONE ND CUO OCU OSA SAO CAES UHINS KG eal OO HARE Naas 1Gmi. ° LE DI BOS SUD AUSS EOTESST UR BO OU ON sane FO A GA ILOOMING USACRES AOSSOUSA ONO a,a UG Gy ie) RMR anne SSN HRN ayRUE CG CECE SGN ORR U UGS AUN EURO ERNE URGON ASSN IER PRE ENIRUSSC ORGANS GNI OO DOES A CMCC s . es LOO Cay TOU OUR CSUN ROB Ga CRUE SC SHEN BOO UID ERE MAL GURCN: OOOO GU MVR a . IRS oo eeUU OCONEE COS a EOI ONGaRNY COUa OU SESS ae EROS ISR OOO CASAS CDN teh |. :Os UIE TES SUNS) NGS SOON A SCE ON CN UGG OE HONG UE OLR NO MANE OCR AGM enn Se Ste eae:

. - OE i . NOS IUD UUE UIEGO NU ONG) OSE Cane ORO aees. USN SO NE TIN HUGO | FoCONG ri SCaAOC OCNAMEN OO CN SEN Gn CO SC RIN A es ON ea Ee aaa eat ; i OE a CES ae OC eeES UU GR RaeSONG RECee ORUOMSE AIG OCey DEON SING OM sahara : as DEO OE OLS ON OR RG EONS NU CA Ue OCR OOOO, EOE SS OR COI EOD CERCA ONE OO RSC On a : -—IN |. Oe OR BOA OO RU CURR OEE CU ROU OC UE aa EU ERNE OR ONGC aA SUEDGTI, USAC SONNE la eatCU LO AMO A CGS A oo bt ON CNaS SEE AOACRER SN a USING FS ON UO NOU LOSara OO ROCs Oo

SPOT LA ROSES OSD NAS PREC ERED CO) SUL SS LAINE aS AN IOS OSSETIA EO EOASOnA NUON, EON NC ON NG NONE a ae oo UN CT ERUREONG CORON Gr es RU SEEM OR AO CO GOST GRGNC BO UC RO AU NUON OAM ae TaKtn a Us _ ; [SOE EeeDRE MatVEC REACO SSRUAN ONGORES S HENS AERC ICUS RUE Ra RO RUA ODN UCGO ERE EN SUR Ca . : a - oe CC aCUI SUMO COCA RIAA Uaioe ROE NEC NORECRS AyaRNG: ACRUTOS UENG EOC PSOE SE NOUN Ok RON SEGA oo aeNGG ON Ee SC: RES ESM CU ONION AACA EVANS URE UAWRSV UNS) TIMUR OCODA UNGAR EONaS ANOS LR GEOG TSAO ENGNG SN INGA NCARNECN DSN DMot NUH ANE ARON RNAI SHB AER CURE NIECES OSS CEE AG NGS TRI EAN CR MEDS CREO ESN UAC OCIS USAR AAS TOS a RE POROUS CIN GA SSRN SEES OICT ANG UU INN NRE EI OEE SOON O Ca SU ACCU IN AOR OCH NT YORU G GSH ata

ao . OS es isa: DESCENDS SES UCONN AGRI COS OUI CU OCCU GU VIN SE OC NO CMT CaS NINE oa UiA OU UE ae Nine

a a voy pee OE ea, ON OE OS OGM CE IC SS Am GH Ho

a SGAPO eae ODOR UNOS, Ae SOIYe NORTE GOA i ROTH een te NII hae Secoeticya tae UneMO INN CSOAR ONcu OOO EATON DCL AF OVEN OAS UO GOL CADIS ENR NON ROUGTA UORNG an . |. |EEE SHON RUMOR TONES CSE ATS e sty OO EOS OSORNO IAS RC SON EOS EON EGAN OSORNO NRO DCNCSCS ERR iolUCI ,r,r,”r”””:~w™””CSC;S OOOO Abn nus BN SSE ON SSTSRCA EC OU AS SAU OCU SIGN COSTAE NORA SCHOLES Vy GENIN ERE Bes tea ueNE IU SHON NOON CUMIN EOIN Baas :AOE fi peste mo POET th CN AU STNER NOOR AGING ER SON CU AR ROU UTSUU GC GC MINNA GIG Sr i a di

|... |... . ke :ee: See ieee OO aE Gh Ga UR min A a UNE OO CO ss A CEE US VAN VERE ARO NOS : : Pe, ee CO en SOCe IN IG etna’, Ra EU REGIE SECC IZ SS DEES UES TERN SOS ANAC ages ws POA i IESOS GESTS ROR US AUS a BGR ERIN a NEL SAIN LORNA ORS ROUTAN a RU RANG _hrrr”:CCSCssz«Cidsiac OSU agIA SCO AUN UNae MA Canaan a SON RO OSU OT Ema USEING GN) ORO NOS UNee: TG NSE US CUA eeCNTR : SOMEUSA INU SCOR MeN Cua ROSCOE eaIU RU ERE) POU UNO EIS CPM Hany enheet a SCIRUS a TOROS SO UI EO), .:PEE 8ECE SeUG) SORE ARUN taa SPUN Sue ene UNIAN MSDS esas RSIS) SO 0 SNS lla . Ne ey OA RRC ARONA CNea UIA Gy OE CE OU SSR NE ;BoaEe aNeaORANG aEULER OT RS isENNIO ia . SV .CaN .ACRES OU Oa SEAS SS a NY,Ce MGR AEE EO SO UR AO RG NU ESE RO ENN See eaSR BONA .Sy . : peekre NG eae RO CONOR POON SACU ESSACRES CUO CSG LON ACERS aaee LOU iiease ale nesta LON UNOS RSD IU AGGRO OSCAR Geet Poot en Weare ‘ OE WEAN MECC SRG CAC CUNUAI SN SOIGHOOAN NON RUNNY SUA OUR RO MUON ation Cal) RI GUNS aN th

ON SOU A OMS EROS SUNG UG PO ORCC AUDI SS iaeiae Re MA EU CE One Gta FO OG USI MILI CS NO SIGNS OO VE RCT Gat Sista ig

.eell aoo .ESS oo. Le EO ING VI) CONG ei ae Ne ag I TERT OO USN ARE VOLPI SEERA ORG ee eee. SES RING OU OREO GRAES EN SUCRE LEG, VACUA ASN ANU MIG RR aa ese OO AISETaOaeea GS NG . CO .aS Oe LOR UO SS Oe aEON ane ice:Ce .: NG .3a SL oeee POO OS IO OCSSO SONS Ui), USS CARO UU VUE MSS) SiC 1h . Be cin, ess ST SO BRO aOe EN SIE SRO NU eg ESI ES ar Gs atic ESSE SOE COS CMON CUS CHAE UE VS ON OU OC GK Ss A ee |.aOG .OSE .ee [SEES OUTS iyaiGAS ANC Eao FORCS AEN ONG OOS ON, Ce LOE SST SSG SCs CO RA Nae: Br ey OR a OO MS RG nie ee OU CNS OSES MARR. OS Cea OO UG OSU NCO UA TA HERR HA ESO TAD UH A ae , AOS CN NC EE aaa, CRS Te NCU NCH “ pee Re NCO OOM CUNEO Cay eiu y mane a RRO GING GUA ee ECO NEA IN Gy ine COUSINS UNG Seu SC Ui : ef ST UM Nae ON SOONG STC OCI AN DOE HOT aa oo a a Ss . ee Oe FO OCOD RCE ie esi.

ee ON esa : SSO CCS NG a aay lithe: ay Se nsec: .. :EN FON INENN a OC a eos a NOU ee: : ee OO OE eae, >ea |. |... | a 1k Sasa re OI OO Oe UNC I IS Ane ee DU CUH US 00 ce reer ee Pr areata cm ih nit mmnecucen Se ce Fe OT SU OT SES CCUG! Ua EON OME NER: SCS eta TEESE St MOUSE SSSA SMC a ES ISAO ECAR CRG UNAS Gr SSC NGS UTE USEROUR UR UATE PR tit Ohm

ee . 4 . . SO Ce Os ee r,t”: eo. ee oe ee . | . |e ae ON RU iipsscsiiy: Doman eS ZS ee SO | |... ooHea ONC eeOEOu ERROR GE AN OUO UT Mes . GIN SUA CO NEE ANS! ARRANS ESSAOU ENGA USCASAS eSONS NA SIANaa iG gitNy Pees ee) AUSTSO SOS SI HOE ROU ACCC ee RaaSoU ON SO GEG) ORES NG ONRS ERGY OUee bene: a. >OCU ; GRO EE aOC an UU OES SNS EINES RUN ONY NEE OOCO ea BO GTEC eeeCOR EEN GUaay ANGE RE URN Oe Oe OGURA ES OO USAR CIEN USN cits ii a..a Oe SO a us aaeee |ceOER ISON Ga SSO SEN ECO SEG ER IG OC OPN ey eaaaae -— aUOC PONE CAN eeLEU SSO EO GnSE Oe OSE ING 2) ONAN ORNS UN SORES PCOS e ee ANE UN, OO SOEUR SES Mii) _ oo | oo oo | ERE SN SOTO CRUG KNU RE ASRS Ce NEO BV NICS AT POOR NI PN ICRC AIAN HENNA Pieris.

é Oe TONES EOI AS URE UNS CA DATE ARUN NIGH NU ERG A Ree . F ae he ROO RR UIE US SAG MRIS RSE EIN TAY ROE OR ne ANOS RO SRO SuSE EGAN Siac

ro Oe Oe CUR a OS Nag “eee . sonia RN OOO ANG UN Sed CON as SIGE RO NCSU AY OO GNS S nCRe

FN GNC GEEshies Ce SEIN SII REC Sac DOR NUE 3057 pice este: Re StCeeEO | EONS icedOO LOO CES ON CRIN ENMORTON UN LE UI NCEE ONO BOOLIAN NCU ONENGC OCA NORGE SO a CCeaee a cs + EERE GgCEC OSS Sof SNM SHOUTS OES INO MALE aia a PO aiRGU Gs On aaeD SETS da caliicne ol oe ee ee IONE RUE ENOS NC ATONE Ca ee Me OUT GSER RU) SS SUSU Ue OUTAGE PG ee GO EU TAHT aE ROA AMSG Nay.

OC oe OS I OO A ON) ca Ce 7 oe a oe Se ean of a a oe OU OS SUN an a eis . |OOO coe eeeUna Bits Die ena: NO OaES FOO en ere a: Oe ALSTON PO OAee are er atOia ean re oe is st aH SSN ERaayFO COORG ERATOR ACEO nC oiey tC CO CGE OnS ag a. Cts SE a esaleSIR GCM IOPRIN astROO SECUO CONE GHGBana aa ae AER EERE eR SAU SUN ONT Nae UT SIU ACI CE OC UY BU REINS ENCE Sano 0 Ue Bere Ain eC CREE GS ite tate ely sa ale Rialeatael OUR GH A UCU NR RAN SOU TN INGH SORA SOLANA AR Sa TEES GS CRORES OO SONI SUN MUO OSA SENOS UATE

OTGO SNOS CecHOSE ees Se AeRG iat Raine TAHARI IE fh SSPaisisstih. 22 RENO OC AE Oninttats MG sen Heeese Oe rmsEMG OC GEC ACRSACU WACO TUN ERS SONS NU OUND BENI NINH SRRON Riau ASS Gf CO SOS cos cial CUES SS Se SSO NIAISU EONS ONGUS SOOO SRGACLS SONOSATEN NON, NG FREUD OES UNNI SN aineati Le OU SS NRO Sings FOEENE COE RAN ERENOR GOR OO NUR GUS Mi Hee Se SRC x EEeee. SGARN SURade NaISEight Paseo oa aSeeRO UR OSahGay ROO Oe SUSE US UOSD TE VNU ENERO SS MG aNEi AM AOU SOUR CGS ceaHEA erg POD SOAS URE ck CE ORG TSG2NEN Msnieek see eS MUM Oe ROUCi ACA SU AURIS Ry ON NIECES OEEIOU EU SAO DUE RSH aN uh . PUTO a ESMGC ROGUE ENT) GEN ES ONES UNMESS UREA NO nieee oteIO Seto eS ae eee ave Ses eee atost anRU ueMtKN UNO TORUS LUSCAIU OED UNSESE UGE SONAL SNE cen a

.. a|.er: LO SNCe oaOG ne Dg Bic ae SON Satay ROU SUUS SOS SNORE CES age ERcane OO CRU OLCRRA ee VAAN SRE RIN NO COO SATA ACU MI ARH aggep -— Co CO POU ee”SOI OPS EEO GOR Gd SSCe AON SEARS GOON NSAAA EES ONO NSOO STUER ON ONCE SOU aee MEE EO OUST CONES USE CN SGC OO NC USO: ee.UR JES oe aeANE NON CRM UCR UCN UNE NID OMNES alii. i... ..OO .ee eee, Seah AONE LEN BUEN ANG AU NOLO) RCONAN BOAO SATURN AUD RM AOE AEA OTsScho) tataee Eat SESH ES ON CSA IN ECCI OU TI UeSONU ES Ge aa SAG :RSE Sees GA ON RN ON) Be EONS SONORAN HSS GSI ANIM .EO ooOO |.oe ee HEM ARRAS RUAN BOSTON SOMOOI IRONS NN PSO EMU ANAUNTRERSNA AHER ; a). UE A SO ae LBS ES GN SAN CUE NY a NA GRU SUH aD SiaGO iGOOS OU ONSEN) VOU ON G RCL NDNE is ieTM SEES . SOO OI UNC, NNO ESNO OUNCE ONEROUS ON) eC UE OU RNR Gave ORARI ee PO OU SRC, OOO ORO Ca OMINOUS ies. * eee . as Os an AE OOS NB ENS SRG GOOG EATEN CRON RU ee OER A COS RU AUN STU CO aD |. aoo DG Cans getsOE . | SS SGT ASRS EAS OSCu INGUIN ae SOSA NG CK SERN EyRONG UIE OETA NaI oa AON iesnea Fe OU ty ee . Benes atesSSE o eeNER er CNCO UCU UAE SO AUNBNSS EI UR OREN OSCR USUE ECONO ROMO OR A en Ue

oo NON UE UC ee Mea BEARS ee OC Oe a Ue Oa

. . . sic oo 7 ee an Oe OU Oe ae ay ee.

ooaeSo|Reas oa .EG eee eeeOEE ae EEA ORAS HATA OIUN ICO Se RUSTE SUCROSE MUA SUG IGT i OI OOOO Nie Nes le SONU OREGON ORC aN CaNa.rt~—sSCi‘ ee Gs NINO: Oe arianaes CHOU anager SOSAN OUNG EN ON EIS NO ASSO CEU LEMOS A ERAN POU GA CCECONO SONOMA oo .. .. oo. NCE POTe ARG aASARIN DUNO CSRC NANA: INDOCENO I aN: CURETASS T DES ONOANN ae

ee GM ee i... | oe ..|.a | |... > . . |. |... || .. } . } }. | . . . . . . . |. | |... |... |..}.§=§ OO a Oe a es |... ee CO CC . . . . . } — Oe ee ee Ce a ae ee COS TUee Oa | .3G | oe

OAS a| ON COSCOE CEG Cais SOE IR OSE NCCU FUN SRA ECOG RU A URSIN ANAS NONIRGN a UIUC RUSHES OREU OU SOE UAC UN REC US OO SUI COE OA BOOS SAO GCS ON OU CC SU ANCE NORE ASN Us I USCS ONCOMING oo a ee) VGH SRG. FO CEMA SOOO SECON TOE SEOSUNS, NE SUI EES NEE UU OOS EU GEER OG: OI RIR ON SA ..” oo. Oe Ones SO a US EE ENING COU UES OOAON NCIS GS GRY EOS OE ROU Cn UCN aONGH aURNS, ON ENE aN OC UU UR GC CU Ou nse: .ee Co ee OOCOOSA ON ANAND BES NCD SIONS RECa OS OSE ONGCca ERS SSONANO NEG ONS AAS OES OCU UNNI ESN US OSESSH CONe USOea NSORR OE NOUR SUNT Ae GGA ae cl CONES SUNG ee CaRRA ENON SOGOU COOUTS I GR OU ON POS Re GTI ONCE CSTRNEE TINGSON SOU ae EAE OS OUTS EEE: EO URC ROO MUN GANSU ANI IR ies: PISO SOOE ORISA OO CO TR eco aU Can ak SUE LAC OR CUS UNE SAOCG ISRO esha SNe

TIN EON EOS MCG DOO LOS GUI ae ASS OOO AT I TNE TSC UENO SAIS) OSS TG AUN OES ES TCE . ...... |... = ATS CU CU SU ICAU OD GOO EG aN LS a CUS CRU GRRE TUSSI RAN CMTEDA SERS EU RUSS ONIN EASES AOR ROSIE SOAS CAO OUND ENMU NERO SE TSO SIO CNS USL OTR SOU NO Na US DUAN RCN

TO CSG NOaN OS Va GCEgage MT MCSA EAC ERAS CONGO ARN UD UU CSG US VU ees ENE Ui II NOS OSSOSCE ESSN MOS ONO an TUNA NNSSG NEG) ES ARAN EAE SGA CO OSCR SO UO NCNM eee TENA _ ...TOU SONUN aySSOGIO aoeGSPAUSINI POU NN CUCU AY Raia UO GsNLC) OOO PseaEG SCO NIRS ONOER ECU Ct ONES ANERNs SGN Hee gC a

eI I ONS) CO FROG NGOa NERO SERN RONIC ETD PSOne OO OG OUR a UNA s uyaNGS ERIS SN ORSeT OO SI COUN CORA _a. ..| Ry . ee LOIN POG eaeGEG SEENROL OOUNS EG OA TR a CORES ee FRO Ag Ses a SCM SCN

eeNO is en aOy Cae ig esOS TEORRan eeOD aNISas OSE CE COO aoeSGU SOG ReAeNOR SEayEO OURO CO RAN OG Ocaaa aDN CON, a OES DEAGRE RNG es Oe a Coa OE UNOS SESE CR eetUNSSGN a PON aRAN OS OSCR ay, ONE OCA MAAC COR GRySUG ca COO OeGE ieee US SOUS SCAR RU OIL OES OE USN SN ESSE UMS SOR SOU SOMES OaNOG OUEST aa aSRA a DSOOOS SERIE ORCS ARIE ASV Del GOR SENESCENCE RRA ERASSONU ASO NN: UU IO ROLE ONIN NED ar US ONSND NO EENoO SRI U OH ALECNEN, SS NNR ) SOC ) SAN A SOR CL a aneeT ag aEOee ee LOO NOC ACCRA UNCC SEG) 00 FO OU TESORO OSU NG ICN AN PE EUG aa CS RES UN Ca GM ory eMC ER ACER ety Oe. POU SNCS UU LSC: DS SOE SY Uae SOS ON SCN Oe ON RNERS So OS GURU OUR a GH

RATES SE USN MRR Gy Pat OG ORCA IE EE SOS ONO GREE LRI CEN A ei con UE OO ONE RCN SUG UAC D NAG TOI SOG SIA UG OSI OVC Ey ROY RAEN LOUIS ASSN RNR NvEGU ER FSO SE ORS AHH

OSE ORCAS ER) GOH) ENO NUS SSSUUGHGGT MG KGGRI OaSUA SeAN OOO GO ase: SUAVE MAES BUS SNa A ae! COO > |.HRT |. |.Gtoe PEN ONOE OROERS GUs NL) DAS Ty ISSSOE SCONCE OHH, OG NH UU RUA LOS GOIN EUG UE UU EON UIUC AIASELL VIN SECURING SUE AURAIEG, ZUR AUG UR AON OIGaUSE UUCEES A AAS IISENSURE Se iy COURS ON CEA CUR SSE ET RESRUS IU ORGAO SARS SAS GEN

OR es CU a ITAR EO Sun OROG CE OOS CG:CRU CEO CNN SSIES COND OURO OaOO USGS URE SUR) NG Oy= |.CG Oe SASS YS SUeS ZS ROCA SRO UCN SCENE RUSS RSIS EN SEUVEU) NAN OARS PONE NATE OG CIOOU SOS ECU UUMOU Oak’ Fr SO O NCTA GG Gs, I TO SCR UGEUC SES a UI TAS LOIN GER CROs CO MN OO GE LO Rae OAK OMIA |.r,t|... ISSCC SIAC a)BOURGAS eeCUAANNU CANS US) CO ee SIR OR SOUR Rt ESOS UESD EROSOAR CA OOieseen era ORS AAR OO |. | fl _. oo _ eeUNS NG, DUIS SNESE UNGEe A OSU NayIGG OIE OO TEI IIAOI CIR GT NS RONEN OSG S OOS e OO OIA ENSAN GUNN EO MASONS

ORE UEMURA ONO SG) CUS NUE NAUSEA IOC CICS CO EO MCU CEL CE AS OUULLOSN ESR TSR ONISHI SHRUG POEUN CASO NUE EOS RANMA RING A ERE EASON SACU EEG NEU IRONS INESSC AN NOES SA SUSAR AK GEIS ELENA EIA EAN DANG AIESSONOS EONAR C RUD VALUE VANE MB Soa NC HS SCO an ae ta

EGOS IG GOONS CURSES ULMER a CEI SESS SUMO OMNI UNE UGE PU OI ECHO STEUER AICN NORM IGG FRU EG EMER EME EU ADR OMRON NG CONUR TAO ny BOS UREN OO USUAL COLGAN IONE CG ESN ECS AGLI Matias

|. ee es ON Vs eeNCE ee ASN Cine: CR ETO a ERO Sa UAT QO ORY SEU DAIS ASO ae Bre Ceoo..... OO GON COORG eC Oa as OS OOO NC OMA UGG, OEUC I aI NO TENS

Nec CO NR SECO Ga SU NOS CUE GOVAN a ENCOUN SINT EC ON SITES ONO ON ING ROEM OIRO MOG ENG GS ACS Cag ON ORIENT SU IIE ASUS ae Ce OURAN GSeR IKE ACUMEN DO SNCS AGE RUUO CO GIN ao OOS ETC AGL RO: SOU NEUORUSII ICNeee Sing. ag :aaRU COR Se EtSUED Oe ES CEN CONSODI WaNEUSE AURIS NG OOORES OO MONO a ERO ORI ICC OCR CiaePEDO OO SIN OICONGO NO OMS

CC |.OoON DT ONO MG Ns UNI INttaay OE || ... OR UO: UEMIO NSCEO SI Oe OEE ae eas CO MU ae ..Se SS INEee AC Ca UR SO OU OeOO A a GSEs aey ENee OAR East OR Oe Ue he Ra es . . . }— 2——r—eS a CSIR OOO ON OO ea ESO ON eRe Run .ooOe .. .| . |...OO . a—....)..rDmrrrt”:”:~—Cststi‘COCOS i... =. |. ON RG aa ee CUA CN UGS Ene ae na PRE RE Sia NO ICN SNA NS CeFSSyiIOCaIO INES, hh SOO~©=——r—r—“ CCC i ,,,,r,r,”,”r”C:~”.tit~«~«~«:CS:S:”:”:””:C—“U |. | OAR .trtt:t:«i‘“‘COéiCOCOC:C*; i ey SO COIR OO ENOO MEISONNE U NG US NG Oe aa — SS: . — a . | |. SO a SU A NEU SOE GUIS) SN UE ROGERS UR OO ne ON RCN CATON Ce TNNEG CC ANI UNS COOOL .: FE os co Ce a OG RNHURs OA UO a OE Es OU a Cia gan |a. |. ee| ee IG OURO CANS Si OG EC OURSOM CRONEON aa) RO OLE UGGUN CI SiOCOD GUND GCN HIG CT NS

ee re . . . a. .||.|... } | oe F :aCL ee Oe . OG :—oo|...ee a aa, Oe ae OO ee Ce . — LLC ee a OER ua os OSG ae — OCU a A Ue a Oe CO Sue oo Ce I oa aea BOCe ON OCts NGCaal OOO CO OOS Gea COLI ON Oe . .= Z2@ . .OS OO Oe a CO Ee _2a CO) Oe . or a i r,,,”,”:—,CtC tC 9»| =

.EE.ATS ..SV .SOS| OU — GE AGATE AGG AGES SIOZ ORS GAOSUD So GENTE SASS ORR SIND SGDA UECUNG SE OS NISC UE CNG Gay GISNy URL PCS VECORSE SE ASENE aSENOS TORS aR GASES OS AOS MSU S ESEON SOS Cu As PERIRUT EEOCOROT RECS SEA UCTS RG BEGIN OU OVO ONG Net : Oe STONE ONE ZU Cy eCUAEON USUAUGE SUG aS CUS SNENES OGG OFSRGUe UW OS UNOS ON US OS NON ANS RORE DS NS OER DSSS GAUGE ck UR OMe AMES COMMUN Sean et SEIN ESE C OMICS UE OS ERE MGV SONG EN OOS CY MRO CUNO HES URUN RU SHS GH ORS SOUS SCI IO URI GSO SAUCE OS AOE SAV RU oct CSG ey

oo ay DSU NS aSCU I NECN a A AONE AS PEE COENEN ULE NSS ECU aa DOCS INGE Ga: ONE MARU ACEO CALS CANOSA OSES DOCS Sh TORO EIU Aue SS SUE CORES SEONG OO OS SUEDE NN OU NS aun LS a

SETS a Oe ee OS SO ISG COT Ng. ONS EGY CUS SIAN SU OE UN a CON COS EI MIN SME SEU) Ua CN ORC OG NN IE) RUE G EDT

a CO Oa CIN DERE CU ays SEROTEC OURS OICO GUEON: Ay Se RON HD a,ESE RE OO ONION RO ISISRU RAGGA Gar RR STUNG RO EO RO ENG ug ; hh oo .,trttt:t:”s:«w:i‘“COéOSOSOSOs*:*:*:*S*S*CSCS SSNa NEOR ORR: COE HOURS UNOS A NCURG Oe SOONER Gy HOS Ma aeNOTE OS SOS . Os POR OO E E EN POISE NUON RESON NGS GU ON OSA CNG ERS SEO UG Ie ORG VANS SNE SINUEe ENGNG SUE OS ORIN I ASAE RRs ROO ON San GO EN CORN EON RNR: PRU SGNOUN CICSREO SUN CNSERS BUDOLORES OOM ISSN CU RUMEN SUAS RU CU NHSINN Ce SUM ONGUSO RED SSR GSS ON OURS ROE ee Oe .ae .. FORE .RENNES OO CNS SRSA CAEN CONE DEE RSA ORI RRS NASUC) SVU SOU SES OREM UNACA Io IRIE ESO RUN EEURS NU IN)|.Oe ORESONU DTES USING NEMS UNE ZU EasGAO ROSES O HES AROUND aC Gi RSCO UIC ES SR NU ISH) AGPANS SUNG UU UG SEQUEL O NII EO MOCO OGG EGU tL B

SSIS GN CON Ra ONO ERGUTES SESE ONE SSAA SURE OCU Ee OTeSHOUD NG PEO OU AS We SU RC ON ORE RICO OG AU IN ASN RECN OE IER Ia ts : | . HGR OO TOE ORAS IG)ASS SUNSETS UoA OuREUINS BO CUO UAW Oe EI) SOC ROME ._— SUES SS Ne SU SSS GCS AOe EU NE LIAR) SO UO ENR OE ENS BONS SENATORS EN UNI etORAS AONA ON OOM URN ONG OeRAM Ce s

: ee OE MU ANCA Gs ee OA OO OU ROU Sd Oa |. .oe }.SULO }}§Oh . .Oe . |.ACKER | . NG .. .}.}§©}.2}4§.——hlC SO ESOS TROD DO.Oe.}. ae ORI COA UNS UIC SAOSIN SU TRUONG ee OOOO Oi s -|... ‘ll Ea OG caeNINSa TUN ime |.UeCO reROMO Gena, eeCe OEOOO OG EO aaa : OS ae Ce TO ISOU OR COE US a Cy a FOO OOO NOTIN (iy Nh ORs Un a ol .. oo ee SOS UN CRAG RUS Oe CG) OA ENGUINESINAL AUD WON Oa NC) OC Gs EIR na Gay PERU a ao CaN BESSA OE HERA =

RA OC OSU OARO TOE UE aU CUA UCR NOS ASA OO EG ORME GMI UES DU UCN GRE U INO Me VSS SURO ON He GN SRG CACC MSIE US A FOO URI ORCI

: SUA COUNT EC e Oa Oe OC ee a EAE SOUS A SG SO TUN ONSSTUE POON NANG SOS AONE NU SND BOOS ONCE SCOR IHS ROO SO POC INI -

Bl OODUR AONUO ECS SOON OOSUA NOV CNOA ATs CAE DEVS UGS OUCH aS MINE SOAR INCI NS CI CGO ASTON SRSA SN a) ANE eM anu . . ll |. ee VeRO EIOCR ANEURIN OS BNC OG AUER OSL TRV CO OSCE ZOU OOSSUES OR Dente liasCie |. ee I URONIC) SEGA) DAS GURUS OOS SPE OARS TORSO RUE OTSA PSS EIS ARS YAN AUER RA aS SN CI,AR CO NT MSG: EGGS aCONC OO IRAN SS RGSS SUN TOOISSR ORSON UA CiaDANSON ns LO AG POONES eine BURNS ICSU NOD AMEN AS NEGR ORG Oe ay a anne . .

OO a | : OO oe ee Oe ae a a ee” Se Oe ner ; : ti‘! a CO a ;

OA SO ECOSUN) ICON ECHO SOHO GUO OOS SOO Gn FON ME CNC MINA EOC UCR UOC CCAR NESE IOS ORO SUR AE SONI ON Mai

. BE Ry IS ANS FAIS SI SGC OS CIE PO Gag BOI OCU NOONE ANGIOCU NOOR a URNS Ga SRO ERG UG UEC Gy 8 RUE ae UGG NGR NRC ASE USING . OTE ISS NSH CONOR CnENNn OI NOSE oe CINE UD ENUM SSUSUNAG —..... . | OS a ai SOOM . Oa ReSU SCIEN AE UGS) NUTONE a LENS TOO NOOO OO AGS a OO MORO SCE I Rus CGO AO UNC ceO SEIN

— |. . CO RON NUS ROU CANE CS CO CONE ONIN: - NN RU RON INTC MVS NG Cale BR CONS OSA RCS RERUN LEG NING TPES USO BOE RS DIESE OSIRIS BES HONE NGO SEA LOIS AE

SIS ee us Lh Re AOS GO AGE NSOANE SU AtFORSCOM VO AAR) ANEURIN CRUE UAC RIIOUATO MURINE: EUAN HENAN NO Cae NEU SO STRFCN UNG SRO UO SUN i aNCa AUS EOCe ec BUNS ROSESUD ERRSSNUCH BRRGUIS Sa SEI Sia a EOS EUS OSI OR GUNG A AI i Loe GON ONO OTSONI UENO OO CE ICCOARSE GSE GAN - |.... GO a CO a.LD SUOE ONG a aiaSIRO UES SOLENS SARE UeHONG DY ARN OEEPONE Foe Nola aaa

_5Bea| ..RO }aeNEA |.OONOOR | AS) .,mr,r,tr::”:”,,Ct”:—“‘(‘“C“‘C‘(‘(‘(‘(‘(‘(‘C‘C‘; ae Pee ae anae eee a on i ae yet: iaritaree Pathe aa Ba ES nae Bsoe teoe meee ceiae ysBias tetntye Oo gee ne oe ree ease ee “ele ee Dees law oove OG Oa ee BOR eeoo ee %a A, aee Bi,ore Tea oor es”"7 aoe ieee ae es pe Sea aoe LE ieee eee — ee ee To en ce 0s oe me : :De ‘3izgeK oeDs SeueBs coe ;esoe ;aeres aout ee“sore cisihes oe. we ees eees oe ae— eeas EAs eiheset ee peeeny Bos seks LOes aysettee eee ee en ye ye Ce eeieoe siae He ee oo ie coe oe oe oe ae aBanc oe Gace Pies ee ee Ge — a te es esis Pees ee ers eS on ae eos age ee oe ers ow oS ees ue Sak a oo a ce ae oe. re Ce oe Ns oe oes ae sae ;aaaoeSeieds oe cee oy eo os ak as ees oS ee fa Se se eG HS ee vere DEES og oo . : fe oF Voy a ee oo oe Lo a oe oe eee Se Sens i eee ae eeWie es Mei uy ah) ihees Ne eke ameEEE on eee ohh at ea Sots: reabind& fastee oes Saleh eee es. oeBN ies RoeOe are aAG PONSNS i EREON eo Se ARR‘ ED ZN ae: us BG : fae POR Se %as 2 BS obBoe fouls aion ates)oe 1a Lo —neSoe aoe setae os eres eee soe ome ae eg eee oo Gs - aBae Ose oe ee ca os —Ge 3esLaaeaeaeaeCesaeaoe ee oh ayoisaeoe ee ees ee oe eS =SEE,oe ee Des ones Doea asaaoo .(oeaoeaeoeaaoo of oeeoeieBe eee. a.aeeAis oS oo 7= Tat=es 3oreenhPeoeat oo ae ee aesea neeoe cee ee HEE eeoe OES seee ee ee oeof — See ooe eeae : ne, ee Soe Ce eeoe:neoe eas Se eGa ye ues oe ees 4 oe aap eee peeSeen en HESS ogee stata eeeSe cae mee COs ee ie:4oe ceRe oeos ey ei xaoy es i A Me & Eststat poten OS Ss esaos Perae a oe oe esoeae Oa eeoe ee5oe oe oe Oe aWe ae Mee a.aooCe ieo oo oe aeae i ie —2ceON oer aeay 8 sete oeee anaee ee see ee oo oeere aN apee a oe Lo. Tee osfoe —4oe ee oo os a ae i Ras Me ce es 8 ee eeesIoe on oes ae Be we ee as ee | oy a oe ee . ane oS a . ces yee oe vee aeee ot eke reTOR. aSS a ue se eeateeee —. es:oa.ces £areeset wees . ee. ee NG AEN Ree eeoe: Ane ee Hes oe ek : Seam Be De ee Ss oe ee eae Sseee oe aEe oo tee ie oa oe ee cae oe ay oe oo oe a 3 oe;

; |e ae cos a8 e a Le a a _ ee ee oo a Oo oe i a a , _ _ 8 . oe a 8. i oe — ce A. ee Ble anee ie ee oe oe ee ee eecee hy oe ie oeCe ae Rene oe i e0 mooe ee ns faseaSs. a. ig i ne ey a aeaosco Os ae ey ee e ee yyoe oy ‘oF oe es Beoe Seeae " eeoe Pesgip: a eeee ae CS ee fee oe coe OE eeDsits ykea G on oo oeeS 2fetes oF Si» LOA eSee 1 amt es ee fh ee We ae les- eens aes ee aaa ereeee eee es bem: Sia POSS ROS DONE BNTas . oe RGfo aNae oOoe ie oe a, ee i Ceae oooe eo aeeGONG a ee) we oF a3 oe. oa. Od Be yeae hes Pe conan SES poeta Boas eee ieeeoea Se aeUe OsORY : ae ey ge ee ee oefonts AS ee a Coe oea oe ; ae Deoe:esaeeeA ee Se Sas eg bis, oo. Gee ee ae eeee ay

eg sh soe ee ee meets oe aes nee oo. ae a Be © NG oo ee eres oe a a ae ican Sn ae Ss 7 ee oF oo aos oe ey ee x a Se ae ay oe Oy Ne OG oe _ AN Be oe cones

Be Sea w Say a jee eet $ Jets Meee fei. aH aie 2, Sa eee wipes Fe. Pe aM yes ya CS FOR EE RAS SIRS: BS aes ni eS eae Ue ie Feat: oe BLN: Bie ISG aw) Ay SF ae SRA CAE O57 Se, %8 AAS SS SRO Be Sey SERAINS es 4; WEN Sea 3 i SA See FN Ss re ae SOs “ah ONE e Bae i Be Tin Set wy ee piesa eo eee a

oo ee Base? eseenh see ia oes De ee pee oe hepee 7 a.Hats HEROS ROK as Bk ES oe ef fe ae : ey aK Re o _ ES oe RGSS ee ae hieae CORES OS ON: : Kx a eeae 7HO . —Pee: fla we Sy aeNe % oe ONBe ieee SoM Se esr? a Noe ots oeeses saa ileie ane Meo a8ee ae ayMise ere oS oe Beoss oeyei ee oNSs oe oS yegs eiee Lsoe Q oe OS ON a oe aA it Bee Oy) eet es ee Se eee iycee oeeeeeeaahe oF pelape as i OM om 5eea: ee oo ene Bees :TSoo. eas oe aM oo Pee oe aeGis oy oe osOeNe Ms oo ayybtoe oe aeae2ae Se a ae: 2Gaesoe es oe 28 ane nfees eee sates ee eats ee SRR ein, 8 Eee ie A aNGa seeeOs Sib“iRe ayyON oe eo WAAR esesCOR OM aSae ro ee ieas ye oo peo teesee OeoS ESS oe, ooCoe pase: Bo is os Soe eeGa co cs ee aBon as3oo OS Aeoe oe BES .GON ae :ee ae‘iBe aASell ey abeoo ee eeoe oe )BESS Rs ieee oe oS ee aoo ge os icon ys aoy LeSS oe oe aereanes bi oe # es eee Noy assific: Ske 4hg eeee wines See, Sst iees areBets isrs eee!oe, a ‘ ee Baer ie) ut Se Jase ie ee cha pax us neeg Pere certs ee ide oy SAS ssee ffA aeae Ay 52at — heee aae Rone Me sUys iis noeBe xoESO oR Ses eeee i)Mae 5s One 033es Re ms NE ssDae iF eeaMe een oe %: ya ete en coe ate eiiye oeoo oe igi Mecca 8aevist tes ee ees oe Me ro es peste On oe atKe oe Onn Bi Ga ae iae ee ae Cee eae aOR ae oe an Braet ae ee ae cit i3 eae oe sae PhS ieee “ee aee ee Bo ane Se oe site Bee oe Sah cof oe ee ee oe % OE ee oS Uae >|Be ce ek so ae os oy on aes ¥esfe oe Heo ee es oe oe ee coe ioe pect! ee fe OS SGN aas Se ae oe Se aa ee Me Gy, CO Reo Tee om ee ea oo ee ae as WOE NG oH ie ae oN os ee Ye ai ok. eo ee Ses «aee Sa ae Soy ei.oe ee esuss tete ee ee aaae Cogs oe Ay iee iseR Beet es Ls ee S) OS a-teee oe oe Sue as! me ND Sone Oe tee abees Se Mae ioe Rh ae es oe eh SR os ene es He ou ee ee ie Oe pen PRES oe Bt iced ae RN ay re OS oo oN Bee ee SG PSK ve oe ey ROR so Oo See Re co eee pees Ba oe ae as ae ne pes ean cn ee es es oe coe ae aee aBOG aa cu i oes ee xGo Es oe ae OE) Sie RS PSs ae me ‘Se ee z«ES ak Ee sa xes uk eS Ae sees eiate ons aoS pes aoe ues aN oS Bo as + 8ee es pe eS pee — oe cee eee Oy, oe Baek Cea CONE a‘a oe CS aDes be Re ee ee 2oe ee See on aOS oi Seee ee ae aan as oe aTON oo en ae aoy ie au ae NN ea ee Oa) ep eee ie oe an Ker aRw oe Aes Ce et rs asoe S oe Ce — Bea ae eG ce ee et pee Jaa .aS eeu oe as Lee aas ee ih So’ te nt ce oe poe noes es ee oO Hook cee ae oe ‘ie ee Bos, es ae Pa We es oS oe. ee OR ee oo ig cook ee oom eS oe aR vo on 28 oe ik sk ae oe Ge ee Le oi -oo Ses See ae Hees ae ee Nea es, ae oe ee Oe oS ee, Oy me oe ee is ge oe aee. Ca oe ne Sie ite Ris Ieee see Lae ae aos Pe ie RH ii|ae ein SN oe Sis aoo eit sy oe ges SD iSie ie pee v3 wee mes ane . Dee IKash aoo ik aee BSD as ONE Be Oe os fe beBG ye SS Cy Fe ees BRIS Likes as. ce oC oe ee dye ic i oo oe a) a os x ee ee pe ee ol oe os ce hy Co Re ae oo Oa Oo oe ee oe Ck ee ete eon Cay : oe Ne ae Ke oe * oe ae oe a a a Se ee he ae ore ae ie poe oe co oN oe ne oe eee a. oe ee aes ON oe CG ee oe ee Re ee Ce es Bact | oereae OS meoO. 7 oo coKe BIN eei > eeBEES eeON See2s ROY Satae UNoe ceTe SUH cs eGoe PhO AK SyeS BEN) Sige Ee 8We a Se aOe AS ae poeeeoe oeStES MS ges aeAS hs NRE ie vane ay eaOe (bs: yyRONG SR aaoe oS oo ey BN BN SA aK ee AY OAs CON ueOe ueCae eoesEROS Oe BG SAN eepo vee eeOe is,Con y De eeay Ki es eel ata . pcoiroe HG tee ee Ma: xpeo aeShe ee Pan, ooo. ny oe aeoe oo ee ox ye ae Bey aaee as ne Las asoeieee ah ee_TO he: ee ee oe ae Asse Noe aK Nae ae eee ee aie aN Ok Ay HOY s BAN GO De ye ee Ne ete Loe ee Ca aes ee WG Oe. eeOe uA ES ee i sSe es RS, Seat ie eeae Se oo. Wi os ee oe ys ee oe SOG ey Bo sO as Hoe oe isWe oeee Boe BN eeoS ee ais Bie: Se oe ¥i es . ee : : oe Si ee ie. oe Cat oo aLes oo Oo ee iCe sae oe ne oe cone ba oe Bone Oe ae ee oe oS De — oo ee oo Oey ae ® oe Gia 5HOS ee ae DOM ON Poo kg Woe iS or gAN oo Se ‘oe aoe io oe oS og oo .OR aLO nN ee! :ans Ko oe | NaN Bie ia ee Pes cae Ge aaBRS oe oe aee Oo Soine Sa Des ee BRO ne ue oe SaN ok Pr Oe a Oe Gaoe . Pe Dane |UN Pe oe es Ce eae Oe RR aCe iaaS Ose ee ss oe ak er xCe xAS ee ule oe eo aWs ie e&Se |. eeCS Co oe .oe.oeaCae acok SN ce es ie oe Ses aR eaeee KG eyWe ee aSe Ee»oe aae BS pe Ho aot Reo a5) a.FG co Maio Sate eens Sy oP; Oar oe ps Bie: ee aoe.aoe eR OY Se fIePoe oe WEN BN ave Ge eh nee wees sa "oA OS oe PG aSale SeSUS WX : Oe Seoe Rife uae oe .Sa ONG eS me aSon Neal Ay oo bye eswe 7.ee:ue, oe yo OK ae isoe ae Wer: .oe Le & ee me Oe) aayZS aWe me A oy eas ae ey my se BS oo oO aS Bo as Ck Oi oe oe cae Vee o Gs : eee . ens ae cae Keoe oo Pan ae :eo BONG LAK Bi oe. sie cn bee BU SePe SIRES ee ae aehet ua etre awaits Oeoesos ae oF WO at cs Bes aeoy aa,oo ee Se ee oe eaoeee aSer cs ORG ahs oo. oeaS aBo ee 8CX On oF oe ios oy ae sy es ae oO Dn ee ey oe en ae 0Co as eo 2INag aPe \Cy oe oo oe BOS ee eS oe Sy Oa esyes Bene! SOR aes hae oe | ves SOs fit SN ne ARN Peet Cu PY ee GN oR ae OS TEN yy Ua EN athe petitions Bae a: :EO aeiee:aR aS ae oe -ROARS 4es Ae oe ae oe ce 7aa ee co 2. OF Coe his om

a” aeae2iei,oar Ore BS eua ae we oe ie . ae oeRee ee Lea‘=oooe | a—see eee kd. oe sho one ee ee oO = ee ce oe eae ae aeSoD a eece oR. foe fe oe i oeSe esoo Oe xee oeCoe oo i Boe os peor Seo Tne — Se oeoe a eS oeoes eseel aeoeoe be oeeens os ee a oe Co oo a :—Ae eyaeoe ieeoo aa ;Os ee tea

ue a iCe ee as Ce a. oeec Ne — es ee 3 ie ee i) US a ae Cl ae Le ae oe 4 aee o aoe OS——cei os 7oo o oe we r 3 a GC oe Oe eeSect eeNK onas2. eee oS i a aoe oe|é % ai; We aNee Tee yeeeoe ‘ia aaoe ie aioe iee “os Oaoe y Wi eecD po a i. a Co oe . oo -oeOS Of Lo SoG oe Po oo Oe. Veoots Uaeos. :: . ee. Lee oe co CQoe ee. oaeeeenesre aRUS Coe oe. aHES aoeoo a, :y:. aeecK oe [|aeBe aCaN aoneaes Lo yen Co oe OS ioe oe ee ee oe Oe aoa leonse ba Se ioo a aaos ee7 -:ae mous ae ee.fee Hee oe Tae CRE ON ae BS ee OR aN As ss eeoe oeON BON BEN BS Ry PRS oy eK oee RN BESS NOR ess ie :OG ‘ue e) Oe oe ey oo Co Oe ey RS aea ee, ak :Xe i ‘iey aoe ce CoA ee Ds oe iexUY aON foayoe ah ee ooa) oeooe onoe ioe SoU ueDk LAS ey iF Paek BSee Ses aae eoue ae oede pos ON Cyee = :ee :a OMe ce ak ae eee ay oe coe oe cite ENG ees e : ees Co ae ~Oe La NG osee Vecoe LONG

;

2ae e eene Se ie me Ve oe Ge ee Pee iyoo ean NGSe aes ae: Cues Ee nine eeatity ayy cone A Beas aeoo - . Ae 8teos afee ooo é-ae oGs vo : a:aoe oe to oe xg OD vy _ou oe Meet hea + oe ee oseS aae -BO os ee ae ee aoe ayoe aeyoe ee ve aPe ws :Ms oshy aayGg oo ERS ee ree Te hee oscoue oo sekae ; ces aaeaSN iaaFlPo ons 0aSe .oe aoaxee a8.cooe aoe oe «Se eX og os —« aoo, oR ae aPN oe me a. . oe aeie cy Laue LO oF oooS oS oe a:oe a;- co oe oewe Lee oe"ve ee Oe nee os ON

eee nee oo oo S Ce A ek Sa OOS aoe oo — nl sears ee OO a ee ° : .

Biiipeste hae akee oSyevecee ee aooa A — oeaeoeeeon SSaoe . ONS oe =eeaee a: :Gg oe Nis ; . ; ee ee ee oo a ee ce i.= aoe.. Lee. oS‘ ee « a. oe whe

ft ae oe > oo oo. : one . oo oS oo : os o =, Me oe : : RAED ears a m oe oe xe as BK es ye eS, ON a i aes Ses a RN pe Ne \ Neey Dee Be oR COE iS ONS Be we Ny TS LU oe .

ee ft . : oe S co oe ee eo ee ante oe oF oe Sea . eae

a oe i o _ eo 2 — se Ca AC _

se ey Aee oo ae Sou ee “ine hae us ee ees SN Se oe ieses aspen SEED pene ex1we Peta oo ose he ee eeoe LS RE iiehy ee shAnde oe oS aes OG Wes ae "ines : . cee ..:pete is Oe ee Cae Os oO Tos er ORS SN Wes cea ee ee stone ws neti ee ren Seas ae ne of aea ASA Le oe A aoe oe aa .oe ee ilie ae oo Visca ARR es :Oe a. Se oe Don Oh AR Ro RA ane ine Se eae ee a aae ee Oe ke Aas :fee .:Sa Wale aUe ‘ i es. NG es a4 oh a ee i sss apt ce os hoe : : : nee hoes 8aie i me ie a e Os Oe iG Ce ee Sess ps a Re es 2 “: oe a ae oe on ee He bain Se a : : : 4 a ie aoe uN oe oe ey ee Ce es im, oot . , eae ss.

“ae es 58 BESaCOANE oe oe Oe moe if enh Ne staeh ise oe.aeee ll ce a oy i RENO Se Me ae oeBX anCEG co Sea Bote aa ae vaoo eat otealgee oSpaAe oa :dite. :is.veseg he

Saas aN ae sos oSYee BOWS SN oo yo ce Raed 2S states: ga . -ate oe. hats! Oe ee ees iecee eee an RA 2eee te Ses ae Ge .eee ee ee csaye sat oe :ine .ae ceeas ne ee Ree oe ass a— aN aeae as aes ae ae co eswee ye be oe? iDe sone: oar tees ala ae peat aeie eee ne aCay ee cee nee oN ce aGet ee Lees Rae ee : FoS cee ee one ee eae es oPosy tis eeNote, cee A soa athe sage ced ey osOs Weng Bae as iret abs 3.= nee ee“« ON ae eeBAS iseee cae ng fe ae el aeae BASa Ce “se PSS ee eee seh Ns Pe .egichik aicet aoe ee ees ee Seat es ee «Pe ee ee Ne ee ae oe bors ee ae Pere :.Ae pet Bee atid ee ea ee Re fee ore me eee Daas I es ns ee one a ue ae as Ba ee ee oe Os eee hie iS foes Sone oo Cie oN act ere suite ns 8 Hae Ie HS eee ie oe . es ee os esis ae Kees ee aie ae ioe ee reece gion Lear oe . Pe ean iris a Neo UN oe Oe : : eat ae iat eee renin a erie es es pie es oes ae OG a ee ace ae DOK ye Ok eae x ee aan ee oh Be est Paci eS sma oe OSS ite io aee ee i Se SOE anne ue Sn ie . . eae ee Ge re oe a eae ah ne ue noe ane oe ee -.eaters | oe Tee cae oa os ea me oe ees . sia Se Ae Se soe es eas oes ie ees ure Sal eee . SSE te ae aoS ey fs eae .eee i ee oe ex ke Soe ee ee ne ee ak ons es aAe ee aes a ed oe oe «i (ee Ona ea ee ei ae ae os Se ene thik ee ie EN aes NUS see oe es a ny a ee he yee ae eh ete ae ne ae os eee 7 ae as aaa GS Soe Le Se : . Se on ee ee oe ae ee Ae Sete ee iat me ts tes es ae UST a a oe a ms . westeesiie a See a Boe. ee Re as oe oe iste Cie oe au See eg oe re Rates oe eae ee ce ee ane reo ee Re ee Ste ee me en Saree Bs oo. ee oe EC See oe AN asin ee Co ees ek oe ee ee aan ee ones eee 6 oe oe Cee oe oe oe hie NO nee oe AO te ee : nantes one coe oes ital ental ee oe ers oi See eee Sous oe ee Core oe Sees fy ae oeeeos ae SE bis oe .oe sisi Ss oPte ee eo. fe yous oes as ie ee os eePera neaeaefe ot ae Das oeas ee vue oe CHES :Pe ease eeee pital fee uteoe stain iee ots Bn AV tai oe ata ee a ms rae tea eeoy ve ae ne ae as es See oe ee es oe rs sa ee ae ee ee Peron ee aBes oe ..Aten cee ae Sear oy Bias etmy NSS oe eesate meets fatal ebiabek es oe eore Pe eee ae is Se a ioe CO oe aoe aks an es es ae on Bee eee ois ee ee re ates . ae ug eee cts sa ones ee Pe Does ans ee es Si ee ae Sebstats notes eeSes eee . .ie vita iat oo isene ap ae oe soi ‘i corte ea asSt ere ore os oa ee aan en,soho Ne acsOOCGe ee es se Bio ay ea eee ee CEOS ee eee ee eae .mee aeoe is erst oso Soe ooo ys ee ye 4ate oe ea os es osh ee meals ay ashe Shes ee :bene osae ene fee Soe oe we ee Sa ata ee cones ee nee aae: eon .pee en fe oe ee oe eas coon Ds Loe ee eecs es ttPeees xce eeee oO an..me sexydih Soe etn eee fee ae ales ee ere eae Soko ee ee aece ee as AEN Peete es ;ee ee Oo ee ne ee ee ei oee eae esoe retest icen ee oe ead : oe, aati oe eeeefoe oe poe ne a oe Se ee ueee ehSten RS ne Sees me oe Bae ee es

. wk ee ~ ae | Ps 2) ee ae

: x nes een ee ees _ ee See Ree ae ie ee oe Sits ee he tee ns ee c rs ee ke oe ee ee ee oN eee ee oe peed ae mee Oe ere oe

: cig eonlinee ents ies om Lees oe ee oY eee oe oe ear ie co cee ee ee ae oe hits Sie ca en Hane ne pee eee

MSOs Ou Rone iSette eekae aistfers é aes ‘es:Si oes Bat oe . rack Se peter rue a oe ee eee ee it es Heat Rete Me tat ttniatat ie re es oe ae oe Sis Daten Bee aesoye ee oe HS aeSeeees ie see real ciateSe a eeaha oN ee Oeoa EAcons eeLe oe eeme ay ire Sarnee ae one ahNeat eeney neeOs Roe ee Se se eeos . . Pee ne ee a bes ee ee ee ae oon ibe Cone eat eas =aiAsehioh Pe ae on oe atec oe non he eee oe Soe aFS rele Behe oe oe eesoul ee oe oe es ee are o ie sy eeKe aeoN eres rot Ate ee coe pate ree ee . noe i oe Pat oe oe Somes ess eS agit roe asoaie ee aaee Se aN ae Pah soe ey ae aevee Sin I, he Bee oe neiSe : “eit eeee) ees oe eae ee oy ae See ae Oe oe oe oe eSotae ee os sae ee co ee eed ASS crate es aalt pe Se men Bhae ace ee ee neh ie Ma ose oe oe oe ate ine acai eeren Hee ane neta en acon ¥g mi ee ate ae Se oe oe oeoeoe esoo ue ee oe ee ees ee ats cae ene odeaate Bee tttnie ein ee oe See 2S igimeee shat ity Hs coe eeae Rene ceily? Pree ae oe cba A os ees pe ee eee oeoats cee te: sensi ines cate ane tsa nee ce Eth CRON, ae aye fies poke oe ntsOS vill aShare oh ig aeoe ees eefot ti ee Son ns one Bhd eaeSole Tene ee AK ee . . aa. oe fetal ol ee Oe eee :Ree te sane eee keee ee oy) Loree S ees aoe ithe ey bce is Ble snoeoy ate ieSie teoecoe seee oe: seta aan nee ener cee ne ae eee Ses eee ROS ny5as aSee oo 3ioee ee Weics -ara tds aeaes fee Poe! eee eae oe oes : i bes oe: hues Hees Beee nenSee sees oy 2S Pigiit cee a ce, Pat eit sary Scie’ jteeRiot hae ee aah hae Pan Sree tees thce ee itee eeaed eSoe onos SH oo, inet See se ri ak aeae i Ses CR stot oeah aNae ‘aee: ge aoe eh aly atate Roe en ee. teBeate ene Sewae ee en ean ifoeee eeeee eit rie ee ni 2nes Cs ere Re oisi?Nes os See ane Se fahaks see eee aeii)Senay men Suey! ee he Bos Beni pees Pe eisoeces eeeeise oes Cee sere et deta ctae eeeases seat eae ene ne ston oe os cae eeos ees ne oe See & one aris aiee ates es fakes ROR ae estan eas oe te eeotihat ses hat oeoe ie te

: ee. :nee See ee oroaeoe ee. Oe Pees Soha are as Soe ane a sees ro ee Gite ee ee ce ae ee eeay aCue ree oeieanne Se oe eeonshite) te ne Sb oy oe ee ee aa : oeSeaeheooeeoues tee oe Os eeAfewee Ce«pag sone oe Pooh eeeeeeecoo oe aeeeeee ees oe ee ee eee ee ane us eee oe th cet pone oe ee eae eeeehe ee acae pinlaseh i etee Beste eexSeige ae eece oeBitte ea ieoe ee ee oewe Se ee Sah cee teAo pens oo im eee teee eteoe oi wat ae Se se : . eye ee ite Ss as pee ak ae ee AepieShes Makepees cose oe reas dha nan hnAone hees seeee rereoe peti mates 6of eee oes ee ith ee eitete ee oatoe an ee aeie eaSs Pie Oe. ae tet ~aeoe SiGtah yee a, frPeoe ate Pee cee esue clea re < ieee oeoe necioety ait OI ee feSe ie ee aeyee ieee Sos itesoe eecee NS ae oe SON poe 2s ee ee oe. Bee as ce oe ee ee oy ee data Soe oe eee Kae motos “eecre eae oe oe oe ee oe oe ae ae et co ee os ee oe os ee ee: : ee oe re oe oe ere ee AOS een Jee ee oeane ie eS Se eee 4hoe ee ner ee ee ee ee. nee my ms ee See aN ee ee oe oo oe oe ie has see eos cee oe ee ee aaae ee boone ee coh ae ae Pao eee oe ee ee on ae en cele . ssBee asae ee:es tote eS oe ee ee oooe eeEe ee ee Ss is ee oe sere oe oe one aoe oe eee Ces pee ous oO coe ae ee ee Soe .COG bia ss nee oe .oe et ep Ss oon ree ee eve ee Se apate al See ee ieee soeOe Sphere Rene ee tapiece eae ee ON aN Oey. ee Pee eres oe ae eee oe ee os oe eeoe eet Meee ieee SO me ee ae pet ind ee eeeoe ice Pee Se oe pete ie eee ete aan aah ore oe i— ON es es aWests aoe ee ee i. Cee eS aeeoh aves meer ete oenaeOS os ee oe oe Hehe co ais esae :es a— ee Aue oeSes EON oe aie iy pS de eis Sone aecoe OR =ao ee: Ne eee ee ey Me See iy : si ee a ree ae Sete ite he ks oe feat eereDates eee nsena ee eePee ee BAe Bot bene Koes ve es aie ae aeee ee OOo! We oeeee oR es 4eset ee or pee oe2oe es esen Nata aoe onan es iece eehe eeot we hs eeeG Cie isoeeee ee ee Done eteSete oenee Ben Dien aoN aeeee eeieee ey ms ne ee ae ee oe os aetete oe On ie ~ oe ne oe ee cy ieee Mote naa A Seenaue ce ooe oe po ee oeOe oe Re ae ieae ee esove ee en nea Ce meen ineae 5aeete setae Hake se ae Cee oe ee eeie ee aes aoe eae tere ieHaba ie Site ee eats oe My ee eS OR one Se oes pirate Rs th any OR ee ee oe oe se Be ‘ oes arate rece hefsce ent ee! Se rene ee if ee Se Eke ANS oe en ei Sas i! aoe imme ae oe ore ne fe pone atinoe le et me we EN ps tate Peat ee Re Cue ee ese esmeee oeaene site, om athe Nee oyret ee Fee sate oe ae ieee ee nee eotee coor es ce ee een es Oe Oe ee ee ete aah. sos eee oe eee si ps ee ne . berate3hts Ke nets oe nee ie iyeeee eas Dae ey oe Rte ee hewn aea ene note Daren at-mena on Pecos a Sane sates Dates ee See Ome RISK ee aetna etn oe nities

Cees ne mnpees ees Pee ee" ee eon isae eeehata ensoe Ceo ane peo mee cesarey aeSe seee ie aeeteh eee ee pean eeate ee nes oe ae es Nein Ps oP ceon Soe ee oe See itoes anAL fe neeee tae ee aeeoe pai Oe ten cere ve ey aetae oh ate te ener Aeeee eners arsee. esros ooee oeoe ees Hee Ace SS Seyese pote Ses as eS eee eeseehis a ee ee rate xia hes ene ooSe teSehee oh reree ese Soon Oe hel oe ae hens ke ne Pyne mae aeoe siat Boe i ieee * oe ei Pee pean cM ies aeoe oenee ee ea aepore Rei ee tats ae es eek oewie oe Ste geo ei ees ee esaOe Scene nate noes re ,cee ee ee nee ee ee ee erie ee ee oe ee iyoe Pee osee ahaosee ee ele oeee mee oe Se oe es os Se oe ee oe eeee pte noe ee ones ee eee ran ee es oe . ues. eeoeas Ree ne eee fet See lanes a cn ae one co bee fe tsee Loe Ne eeoeee ieee evee a xt ee oe oe AS ites Oe Insse is ate oeede ins ee ie ee ey ey ae of es eioe eiOe cae wee ene os iPai oerite ee ee ie oe ree Poe Soe oe eeoe Sue tots aea ee eee issae %oe ee ae Shae of oe oe ee oieoes ee eee ne aieee see eefs pena eseeee oe es oe ee eee aeon sone Sais iia peon ieues on as oe eeeee gt ite So SE feos) ee eee oe eeoe Me oe Sees esanes oe sa *y! ees ate Bey oe oe ae ae Stat ee Ses ce Pa sat See . Sadi Bie ne ooae Pesan es eeee ogre Sch oe aot eek ae iarPorease ee,cA ettap Oe ree aoe itSEE aS cD, oe ee ee ee Meee Ce Bae ee GN ya aeoe Le ere eesalutes oe ea eee Bh Ps Wide at Bieta poate aae ne ceass sa Eaaan Sane Ge ases peeos eeSie os ne , Gh fore is isi ieer co re See Cee sk Ase oNene ors peas ieoe ne Coes ae oe eter ee Pee eyCoe so oeioe saiPe ne a nt Sit een etal Soe pital aOre Behe ce oes ies ee ae oN lee ities en ori oeees conte oy oe ee oeiPei he Sn ee ne cain Rice i Seal esCee rteoe riepoe %So Mee ene ee eeee ie Bee sat Genin ce pte eeSen oevanes hee Se se ee tife aeate! ohfat cna “iae petite se ne ee AS neSH, ne He eeane. ee eon ee ay oe Se eerN Silo i Ser eete ey eae oe et seus ee ers Sete : sii oe siartot Gs tere ve ee ve ee fo ee SuCran aeeos oe eee aes ee es os ee sie ih Citas = ee ee one ‘ene Bre 2one eee eee pas ses aGas Sune oe aesaoan aeee nee cate eeee pee ohHoes oe cone esRad ate ee! oo. Reece oe oSlass eeeoe eae ceOe Oe oF “oe ee poe isoe Rebate OS: eee oeee oeie gee — ONhahes es ee oe nuee ise eteeeeenyee ii eee ee eee eeeG) ienat ee a8 ae Peel See os ee peEats ee aesaan Seen . see oe pee noe oe SySceege ato ressek OES ee cene oehide SeeMe eneesaes ‘ ee =prs eeeeihe State feeon es its Se Pre ienese Oe pes Beene res pores fies ene onees He aehesete i ee peeeOe oneeGe eeeseee eeaire ne Aen eee aes eee oparen ee Hato eh ee

ee oe ee Rake pee me ooaieeeee oeEO es we ls oe oo. yey eos tat ee ee is acoe aeee ooaseeSone oe Aeres oooe nee &sta 8 Be re oe aeoo oo .ae Soo eeeoeooeos oe ee oe ee Sy

ees — pete ats eeeSe ie) Cee aeeae eee oe oe poe POS ee nate ee aeee: oe chine oe ieeee es ree eds oe Renee CO oeSG aees one estas ee Seetree pees ee eee fet eGae eee es eile A oe eine eee ey 0 ce esae no WiGioe Ne sno Pons satel oe oo ay es as cee Ronn oo ane ce eeoees ee oe on Boos meay Lone eee LG oe oeOs eons oe Sset, ot : Sebi tahee os rate avale) So etal a on Louies meee Deaiis mS eepia ae ein ee ied ese fate nee Ss oe fe ie Bos ie eeme ah orien se ee ae ios ahi EONS aA ee ore xue eon: : : ” See foe oo aearata eee ane a. aX US ISoe ae Bei ee Os eener oes cies be ee oe fees ae 0aeepee Seite ies fee Oe ee eh oy ese oes ee eee ee Se iitetes, esresn teh oes es eee po ee es wail Can oe crate on Boat eee aee ne ee mi en ts Gs ee oece Sei Ste eee ee ene ine es Baro eaoe oat oe soa aacalets nee oe ee ieotek Cosn eee os :oe ce oo Bak! oe oe aeee ae ce ee!‘es Boe sae Ch aeeae eenee Oe oe een aie aoN Se se aa Pa Dee ieee ee ‘esSie Pee eeGree aafuhs eeSe oe eas oe ous eee eee ee oe ee ee! iKone es issaee Nin HO ee Co. ile peace Bae orate ais . oe oe oe oo ee ep ee ee sei Rae eee oe eee es feeee neStPoe tee cso Recon i ae cee oy ee ee eC oe Se ee ee ee on ose - Bee eee. eee ee oes con Oe ieee nok ae Conte ae oe gta oe ees ie ee aeesce ssote ae Ce MO OF ey eR poet eecoo Oe oe ee he con eee re oe ae eee ae foe ee Lo ue eee Re es oe noe ienese eae ae. Ree ees ion or es Laeataees eee eee pe eeee ee .ne onon ee an eeNN OG oo oo. tee. ees at oe ee oehs eeHone ee oeee een fee fe at oe oe oe oe eoee ee ee ae an es Sok oe oe See ote one . an Sg3s oe See oe aes ee eeee siee ay, ee TOR Se ROH AS WOK aBU KG AN an NES -.Me Palak ‘is Ee‘iae ts Delyiae na se ae ee: ae oe tlie ors sets any, ys Loe ee es ae poe "s es we ne Nee eee moat eeSNS, Ronee ste oe sie etna ise oo one os nee og oe ee CS .. acoe ee oe oo ee Coen Aeoe ie one cee Paes are see ee tee none eee teas ioe Bere pee et en aie es Sees i oot Shs on . eeikon ie mo seMeee ee are ee, siee es une coe oe A Wa ee Oe ae ee oean Ge on ee ene oe Sats ie Oe sy) ee ne ee heer! ee Oe aos oe 0s oe oe ae oo ee os ee ieee aeBeSe

: eee sage aes noe ee Soe Seen ae aeaon rsoS oe ae O. ee Oe ay oo AapAoes oe nee ne ee Os oe one ao) oe oeee ae ee oemee oe ees ote Mooene sae aeee bare aeeae ee oe ee ens oe NG COONS Do, SNS co hae: usNY en Ran 5Sif Cees ores sar = fare ee reileee ee Ree aene ee as ne ae teoe ‘aee ee eepa Eemeee eeoe an Ss ee Sees raneice ed oes nexea os 2ee an Se PGs aSG ON Oe ane 7Sie Ie co ae Coe eeSee ea Fes os eo etic oe ee Naess Sones nee ee eeee eee on age Seine ai oe cS ae es at ofoe ‘ue oy AN ASe Os ae aew nie ee aosee as ee rote .i ihe on ee on os eS. ne ees oeee ht ree ee rannate es, Sonne eaeSoe ae iese ne oie oN ne fyee an ay! aM acSay ee we oe ae mS yLae oeme ‘Ohi Bes, ee escee eee eel ae oe nee eees.asta es distant Aook ee ee aeee Sey yoo ee es tes oe ote oe eae oe foe eh re sumo ON Ok Oe Se eeneoe RRO, Bee aee eyoe es oe oe i:Jsi es eam ne ee “A ee es Be ee &ieice coeeus ee oe ome ee aS NR ne ON DONG at oe .aia Ee ee oe Enh tscoke Pes ee fees SNe oe eae cs ae oe aN eee one eee eeSe Se pe ee ash ne ee Boe nee gst Snes WY See ao uyAS aR oy COUR oe oe ee iee es aeoe as ee ataene An es eins os ih ee stat ean Ge eeoy ws ok ae oD ee sagehys cone Pete hae ie hah ee ee Si asoe Gata sat Drs. OG Le DD oe ae RR ne iy eyo ce ey re ON See ieeeese es eek ae ore i oon. ao Bt es en Pee ali stone: ince ee soe Sto ate ee Soe ce cee oeeee oe eae pons eeey ‘: oo Ce xee Bes Wo Ce ASK Cs Ae ieoeen eee eeee ogee ne hoo Boke eae oes mite oS ii oe ee eae Sede oe noes AN ee aeoe ‘a eenotes oe Se ue oh ee tone afe iSen LG. ee Do a. (OG 7Ra Oy eee ase aa ee ee eee ee oe an vee ee ee es ote See ne aoS ee oe cen eis nec oe us oe ee sata og one Lo aee :CN RD ‘ee So aBanee eae Bee ios oe te — eee oe ee se oe mee es Ne ee teen — ee f eee Rennes Kee on oe Bee oees ees setts AiG! cae ee oe oe> ane oer ee ealaiat SN, aO eees Bo ae Roe Soan eRe Noe ay oesae Sse es oeMass ee mie ea) ee Heae “iSoho es fs oe IGG tee Rie ida rat eel one ike yes he cat COs atesEos oeee es ee Dee see ah al Ce IRR oo SNS es aoo oy ee ke Oe ei rae es es Ce ae see ee me oe ce ee ae eae Ssos Tieoe one eee ote poeeeee ihe ee ine oe pes es ee Oe uN A Ce oe SN Ses Se oecoe aeS aeoo eG aeee ee cet GR oecoon eeOS eee Eee es esee ee fete ek ae cies eeoy eeve ee vean es! ias oeee oe .seek Aone oe ee ores UR oo a oe DRO : ee OC Lo a OG, ey BOs ee oe aN eee ee oon: re Se ae oe ae is a Ss Soe ee — ee ok e eee acta poate ee ues oe ee NG ee Shy Ba ; es Foo as oes Me Ra Se on ee Coy oe oo oe ee eee es oe eee oes ee ae tne Sets re ee oe oe Re oe ane x eeoo Aes Rae So aSe ee j oo aS 2a aek oecone aeOS ZOes ee ooe She) Re Ace eeeee oe cae osay oes oe Ce Ce ae oe oeee ee siete Bee ieee Teee me ee oon oe grate es wnon iesonSe ee eee ee s es ee eee tee ae ee Soke Sas Me oS ; UO R ee Re ce ee a ates ak S ee oe eee one Sy re ee oor rates ss ae oe ee re Oe sei se ee oes _ ee wo oe ae oo oe fo . _ oo oo oe oe ; fe eee ne ee ee 2 ee oy BOG. rs ce Dee ee te oe es ale ee oe POO, ek a eos Rk BO RUGS on Oe Dee ee co a oe i ae ee ee es he oe ee ee ee es, Pes RO ws ae se ce ee eae oon esee nee LeSee Ce OGHS aees ooMe. soas‘ aaeCO Us ae vo Ca aBO Beoe aeaePhe oe esaaSis nen ots oe eeeeees cou oe eeaeee ee akRSs onees ieee oe ae ie Se ees ee—aee ee Sasi ON eeaX ‘oe aaEN co Mae SOOKE Dee ; i ae eoes ee ee leee aN esaes mas PEGA es eeee see Sita oo ee oe ORG pete oe NA oh »BS Se:oo. aN CGR US eee .ae eeee cn ee ?ee Hoes ne nase esSee ee me Gene! nt os zo Rae ee oeeDOS ps ee ae Ce Qe oS CA Le oc aOe De oN CA Bene ae ieoe ee nee es eeose es es eee ae one ata ee escoe es 8oStien sae odes meses heen eeaoe on ee esPa oN BU Co ae SyOe ao ee aN On Re a oo : oo eas : Co De — Ae a.marae ee ee ae ae — et oe eens oe ieeR waite 8aes aai lhad nee . sia oe Ieor US RO oe SoOS oe ee NY, eioe LOR ONO BERG aeaN ORK oo REECE we coe oe Oe a— ree mes Pena Se one Se Se i oO oe oe ee iSes sens oe oe pee ee Cees oe ce a Su Ce CG ne RO) TG oe OS ee a&os ae Oy oOee eee ee ES pee eee Rd ON : Se ee eae nha oe ae iee oeWs ie oe Oe :AO Oi Dee aoy Reoo AN ge oo Le oe . lee LOG ieeBee

Ou si Le Cees OS oe SS ee 0 ae oy aos US a Le Oe ie one ree eee ae, Se ee So ee oe Se AN Re es se : se ere nee pea Beeee eene.eearee Se oe a oo Ro By ‘anas Ca ee io oe Ha Le ae oo seoes Os eeeee oo SN oeaes aeoe ones oS ne ie oe neee ee oe oe: DN ae oe oe oo asy yeSeats oes SBS Ds re Es esHeat oC(OO REG ee bala neoe aaoe aoe UES oe oy3eeoe aeuo Soe one Bo i.age eeay.eae ye Oy oa ee oe ee \: Le oe co. ikeaee ya OS e-— sone ie 6ee GOK oe. ON, a Oe aee Ce ae oeee eae CY ee oe oeoe :os aren ate (en : A -eee ao Co Ss ie eoeeae an oo oe oe ee le ee Le eas co ee oe ee — cee ee coe ee oe OS oeny Ghee RO SAS :Oe ys Noe oe oo on oe oeco BK OX wee e es css ai oe aHines DG Oe oo Ge eG) Shon Ane Ca Oe eens onon oe F ee nn ee Pe Ce CONG Ca Se aoeteoe ce se oes ft%set oe ps aRn osON me a ee oe : ee a en i.aesae hee. oeoe ae oe aYES ex ue oe a Gee oe Se se eo) oe reae aia oe eee. ee on ponies oeoo oeNN a ae Sy EUS OK oeesee ee ee Res aeoae aeieoo. EAU aa ae oe BO aS ‘ Ae ee Cee see seat eeme iis WY oe Re nee ) ‘ aN Ce Bus Ps ieoo ae.yPes ve a) 4aAaa .hoe oeae ee! neCSN ce iets ee ee coe eine i TES BESS KG PN OS oe ee ie es Fee ee ee Oy os SS Eee Me eA Sean As Poe ey DRS AK Roa ON he i ete oe Re SOO: es eis Peas Ga ‘s e: es nee Se, oe ea ee a SERS eS ay ES oe , cee oe Soe By Lo. ae Ps a y Pee eo be ep ins ‘ OURS RN NON iy sen ae EN oe s es ‘ ane Co ‘ & pes ci : hoe 2 ne pins See ee NGS a oN Vee ees ae ees CO ee fe ee ee Fs ee Bo ey OR sy be Ha Bg ee Ee ae p> 3 é Wass Bats me Sa oo ee . S807, LZ De ee nee pee ‘ See a oes ce a One a Ns a Boe oe eeeneeoo ae BA Se KG NG CO me is 5 Bae eecemean oeee eeoh a we ah ee ALee He aN C‘ RRS ; Be i:ye aeGe De eas ee on Ny oa oe Os . ee Ch fees oe Set ke oe ay eae os SH ee ein 5, an oe Vo KG Oe R ee eee aoe os ee Sts 2 Sy Oe Oe. ee Le oe Ce oe ee ee oy ce ae oe Les oe eee nine oe Or ; oe a st ok _ a UGS a LS SG oo eae — ae ae ey) Se | Se ue ee eee ote oe ei es oo oo ee oo Lae Ee ee eS ne ee oe . Soe a ote ‘at ee esae ee on SNS Raoe SN ce soe poe oes oe nea ee 4G Me Ro oo OG oe Oe ee a3 oe eeoeNY é ee os :nck oo. ne;eeOe ue MAE Me imee Mata SNe 2ue ue tae eae Mie ah OS ones Coes eeoeHes a oe ee oF i ae oe ee eeOe aoe fe Leoe oe Ae FRY Oe unt ue es Oesh ae Bice mentee Sens aeee ie Cosehs ee oe he eeSe Oe oe Rae osass eeon eh an ios ie Sica oe REN tee Oa aN INS oo ASG ee CO pe care © RS a NS Bice Ces oe ee ee : Ge oe , oe os SS pit : Ne Loe ee ae sy oe ta oe . oo Le ON is oe oe Moe oe oe Nae mes a a ws : Cy oy ce ee OOF Sete ors as oo Co : a on ae ens ei rhe cae Os Coe Aes ee oh Ele id eas, sts oe oeaaASs : Pe sieae oeCe aeoe eeceGn pe heleoeBee iS AG ee oe ce ae, eee NS 4‘ iei Dee. bee yCee AK Ot , Ses ee a ‘LOO resSn Spat‘iesnas Soe Ceoe“yhaa aehg weehSD os os satis ees on eeoe ee A. BH Aes oe — es Fe oo CG ‘SAO ‘oo BS Ose: onSERS oeSees Ce ae .aAG % es moe Oy ae he onah :aeaN sieve ee eeBue aean ONG osUa SF Peee iSeenS Re Poteet oy RA ei ee Ni NoN cee aei Oe ee sie RO PONE NM Cee oF eh ieee eee oeaS Hees Caters Mi ioe oe oe VS SG aSs eeSHEEN NK eae eeee us Pees aeee es eeCone ue oe ee Ge Nae CN RN eeBEE BOs Sea «eK au ues Cee Ce RR eeAES orn Ne Reon a oe Cate escae Fs oe ie SnCae esoeOS salt oy Kae . oePt ie HORS SS) eSSe Mate M4 Be oe Pee Nios eS Hes Oe oe Se oo Oe Bee ee Oe ;Se . ania ee fee“O Ns BENS Sy .Sone paths ay ne iis eeets oe MGs eae: aOS ,LING ES AN eS oeee He oa aN ASSak ae “a) oA BOS ok Aes DOS ees esmek ys ee aN2eeae iNa He oe eeatit es ea GH eeNa aesRO eeSR BO ex aNA BSUS aaN es oe oe)feat oe esse UNS AK ee oe BN he an Oy aseeTe soe See aSoe Oe SeBe,oe oS Se we ee aeSens eecea ee Ss ooPGCE oe oe Os oe Cs

oe ox2.SRR oS ssoe ee in, Doo. Oe choP, ioeoy aeeSee ooaeaCoy Lo oy eeree a are Se Bo = soeee esaGo 1SeaR De aA5Co — oe. Bie es:ee ee ee ee CaAG Neoe BAGS SU) xaa.Gs es oe oe yo ie es eecee ye ee ue IN)ce ae— Wees Seeens eeeee ie a ae ee os GisSN ERY oe ere ee eas eae oePSPs ie J oeOK Bes oS man ae neSNeaoe ce ieaees os veROR ‘eons CGN ae ee aOeee aeeesmC eeaa ne oe enone one aBo 2 oS CeMe yee iueyoe we

oe eeeane oeoe ee yee 7aOe oe) Ss Loe Se ogc olOnn ee oe co ee me Ae avo Ave oe AS Bea oeeo Oe noe Oy aes an yeLON ro ane :*8Cue oS ee 4aLe Dee a ae Se ce ee oe oe es SO Boe Na of son ee Uae oe eae oe oe: ste Dah oe he oeoS BA eeoo AS sae. Wee ie roae ae i ae ce yo oh as Roe Ne Me ee My ae Sone a‘ae oe feoe iee ee se< Se Wey ue co i So aeoo Seoy ae i soeN eee are oe Dee ee 2Nach o.Oe Ben ee oe:Bk oe eeey Co ies eee ee oe ees — ree ee in ay ce .;Oe oe ae ae oe Oa ene ee aos eeof eg iios esA oe oo. si She Martel Bee ae ieao ie :oe Bea ses os ee oe oe ee oe coed pee ey ce oaeEN aes ae oe .AEN co. aSeye iBeBis w Oo ee Fe ee me aoeaoo os 7Soe oo aoe aNe — esro Ae yo ae AR oe eee eo xCo oe ae Oe *Hea bes ek ee Cd oooe es xas Oo ee oe oe eeseat eee anne fy yRO Oe ee Ag 5Oo ae iuee oN vo oe aoe Hebi SO it ‘Ue ON Ry, Ne Le oe ee ee Ae Ck ae Pa hee ce a7oe ‘NOS nS ae oo ;ae ee Oe) ceee @ oe We ou inee gs eee oe se ee :ee ae ee oo oy on ee oe ed aohh be ek re“ oe ey oe oo ee CS iN oo oe eon oe mo oo ne ae -oo oe) ee ee aCo oEO) oe De

Res K: as oO DOK Cae us oe Pe oes 4 Ase: a Hee See oS onoe MoS i) ES. Or es. os fF Os SS OS Oe AO aeeoo.SaZR OO TESS ORO a ae Nae.a NA es UO Ni Le 55 Sh aot© i PACeae eee sce Se deinen za ee Wie RNLOG CS TSS S SSE Oey RUNG a aN NSN PRGA» EN COE EOE a PENG Ae Co. Ee,|. Ev AOD RS AOA Heiies RNG PENG N ET PC) EROS Baa LO EH RS asa ee Cae Satis eRe: aS DN eae once Gertie Nias ERE RE OU RR RU CADE ean VOR PS SAA SON SOA OGG EO OO Oe ea

Re OES: OA ON Le As So ees Perici SEOs BO Cre ee) COIN oo SE ee OO EG CO Nae | Se OS ce oe a DEN ane

ane SD SURI ONSeAUS Nait AN REA i Ue AON OS RNC fame tats? Caste a aes as Foe ee Pens TeSenate AS ie sate iiSaeePERS NAS POS RNSDO POSE les SCOR ONC SUMOPa SRN CEN SAAN OO TOES Re ats UR EON PAIR SESO SA OaANG UN Se Ee. i aes Pug hile cates Pate a CO OO, CA)ERS, Ce SAR Sees OGUREN Or LOCOS RR aeaA SNey aNOa dvs eee PRA EN ROS ROR ANN UCOGG asFREE AOS 8 SHES COG One oie Doth ae Oo Nae PEARCE, eeON ih ih OO FORDER RCS CO HN ON ROWSGROG Oe PRON SAOSIN EO: a Ca Seat FESS UNS NN SNS EON GG CaRNs eteSeeat Beeie ae Ie ea SER Ogi Rta OS: OG SERS ESaeCG CRN WS EOSIN OHAs RRSA VS aia ng

aaaSONU Pe eeNa ae aPe Oy Le GO UR, OSaayes OG LO IGeeeee iar SSeS aa. Lest! Niet ee A eG. esNESO SENOS ANG A eee BING OeCRIS OO SeeTR UO! Celle oo. aN ae Oe Cite eteer See ate! Coe Oe POOR SEE EG ON Oe ee oe Od es |oe. EN Mice Fa URGE oeON OMe Heatly Galtete Oesss NRG ateUE Ree Le OE GENS ORSON ORBAS ONES Ree NOG SN ONG RR) Beas Se Dan Oe Oaa.aeeeS, SORES Sree ceaatee Na OG SENG otGK ae ONS MEN Na ON Ree POO enOne OO SOB Be DAS. OR ees OeOat Dae oF CoSY Oe oe aWs OG Oe nie NaHoss SOS 8part Le TOG aie SSNS DAN ENaoo Ss Ore EAE ROU Ne BERNER) Oe ESO oisoy ENO heRoy, PA hl Ss ) Cy Oe oe a»aS oo.EOS TOG 8oo oeeo ee Oe AO EtHa Bonet Pa it aeaN SO Ya ERO BOONE OS NaESOS ROARK ANG IO NGOs . aGs Ne ee ics: RN et ee ee Co tees etSee aCaN rea SC ne Ue RG Ok se eG as ey ey, TOG soy Rn a| ee. oe atin meres Oe. oe. Os Oa: eG eeCSGs a)oe CO a. ou Ss oe eeoe TeLO easoe ee Oe i.LO eenes ent Mente ehSUED eee i)eae DONE RO A ures Ngati COCs LOS aeECs Fe POS TS eSee ONC PENA SS aaBO 2. ea. |OS ue -Ray oy es EEE us i,nie:OURS LD OS Co FO ay ae VO aLON aSOCoo ).aaooahoeAte es

a.Ca ee. oa ee ee.ee aas oe: SsosCaen Ae ae ee aSo ee>Cae Co Oe |Co Coee Ce. .LO is ke ae Se oe ek ES iaeooSS Ee ae ok. i Co ole a Ca eno .Me eeae esoo. ae Ene | So oO oo|oe a.Co CSee oe. ist. :a a oo oo Orne a a Co oe oe co oe i . oe oe oe ee ae ye ee oe OS —G ek a oe. a ae oo Oe . Ce oe i on ae eeoe a aoo ae oe ee ooaeee oyosa. Oe as a oy s a oe Re Lo.. OG ae aeCo CoO— oe aeeue oeOS ia apsa ooDSR ...ERC ioeoo a Co ee Oe ae oe oo Oe Oe oo CCNeyaeOU) ie Ss WerDymneo sos A e eae NO Oita AOD ASO aaoa! Oatate a OU OULe ANSON BSa CR CO aNOs SOON ONsae LON Rae GG ere RES BOOS ee ee OND ee DO oe A CO ee Oe LGSECA wy keea .ae |oeoooe ey-. . Re . a kee ee oe Eee ees el a .. ee Ie Ce a a Oe oe oe oe oe co > . eeae |. .. poe eee ree a ee ae oe ee SN a ee oo ee Oa NK .. oo. | | es ae Co. ce Oe) .. oe . ee Oe a Cs co oo aoa ee —... ee a eees Ce eeeeCO ee De co. oeaea.coLS aoooo TOE FOSES a oe ee Oy Oe ae Ce oy CaCo OG— oe oe iA a aoe a.. a oeSOoePO a COR ae. .aVON a oo. ooSsee eseens es eaEES Aees oa Co. SOs ueCe aeOeoe a aN od a Oe RE OG Gaon: ONE CNET RCN BAG a AUR OUR ee fet eatealae este Pee Rae NGG rand Ela wine oa cei panies Ai he se ROA a ROUEN NOSES: Oy RON BNA BROS Os SSSR Pa) GaN ASCE FUSIONS SUN REN CO ay

Rae ESN ENS Se A: oo Ce La A RS hae EN Rebeka ee ee Oa Ns Pia earn Oy TSS EOS OOS ST ous Oey ee OES, CASON SON ae oes HAE

TERS i LON Pei ONO Oa ON ne NG ea OND Oe SEEN GG DE es ecu SAO ease GRE REISS S Sh Weta Pea a ca ee RI Ge GR Bas VON NOD as POI ENON BSN AS Cea COVERS SOOM MNS AUN De eauulieeans

yLO NORaPOR ae a asSRO itn iy SIN | it Co PahaOU eae eee Oe aay eon Seer ag teas eee ety AENON Mas oo NID CCH Us ANY AVON OOSpes REGS UES LEDS Nao ROR ANS ah ENS SONG Beith DN BUSSce aan PUES eenas ERAGE Na TSN: SUNee eG) eee aN oeSee ae rics noel EeEe ae CRERG ON LONGO NGCee SUatee ERG ooaN . Ce. oe.ae Seioe COR SN FOO CO UNG: SEPeae ETD ESO Ay SAG Gan SON aaneo facia Oereaps ON aeHOSS i Bi CECB OOS CROs: LO LNGSasTOON Fes es saat i . Ce aOeeae aae BANE LON, Sevane ee Pea ae aaA CUO, ee EG ee EES SOIC Ee Te Peay ueSAN OOK oa.SOG EER SUES ee aa TER GCS EERO AON OG ‘ES a.|. ee Se SO) SCNT oe) Os OURAN ooPES ere SUN SRE POSEN Bae een ae UO Ce One FEN EN IES ENO PUES ENG PEER NE a ON ok es . oo POE Bea Doe eesetae Geren OG ee EOS BN eR a Dos Aes sasCEN UeasSONI SIN NOUNS SSEON ale as DEEN EONON San a AeCo POS ORvee ca GS SENones CS OE Ga Re ASSN NeOS Na he ets BEE eeeMay PANEGENUS) cen Oath ici aN aN ie PEa SNR GR CAO AACE RCO Na ROS AS GON, Oy Se LOND Ot eciee

ol . lO rae: a . | a Ny Co Os Ca ON: oo | oo . . oo. oe i; oo . a a oo ... . |. oo . | me Fee Loo a Oe akUsoe ee esNN aie an Say aeTSanata “s oeoyON aeioe RN BNE POG CeSHANE es FON OSOe:Pom Fe EEN eaNeCy GsCOs GRE RNA NUR Oy) Oc SON, PENT aa 2fenee Beare saa A SHG GR AESco aeRs EC AU, ooFARES SG AIR NGS ORD Eas4: NeuF UAC UNE Ay oo SNS aNSUEONG NIRS & a ON elsoo. Neee a ON iN RES Su . a ae a es ae i st On: GINS aes eNO) ERAN ON Noaos GN OEE BRN PO EG i SANS

peCae) oe eto.VE a.Ue SRS UIOSE EN eseaBa ee eeOEE ANG eres ae Ceeeeon, aner oe DO. A NDSO ee AA AN LO co aR Cees oea Oy oe oo eeSees Co coEO OeOSS: ae a Ot eens |. :a BSS I aGN EA ON Uy FOES any a FeesoVeet Eas aRN OO POE Nae a 2. Ne Me os Oy oo ekOe ON ay LASERS ooo Ue NGBe ae RRR oe oo ONE EN ESD SN EN OG Ge: oC ..ea .Eaoo Os te ay Ge aayae llee AaeeOs Ae ..oo aeOe BNE OO Ls ey aoe aON:So oy . ae oe es oo ee a a oo oe | ea oo oe as oo a Oo Co. oOoe CO oeKeon CO oe ee aeEO Soa aCRG Ce oe neee. pene ee. igPenie oeSeoo aEaa. CeSO Co osOSES es re ee eas Ce oeNeNae Ce Ee Aan Ss oe . oe eeeaeaNs ay .. CO VO Ly) he Oe sea SANE Oy a Oe oo ey Ce BY a OS oye SG ASH ec OO eG COGAN Nae BORON BSUS ss See! Bees) LOR CEN CONROE oa Oe ee CS: ee NY en SsNy oe eS . ae a) ae '—. | Oe Le ee SGN oo Os Soe Oe ee a oe ak Oe Ce aPeA eaCo oe | ee a as a a es i ee See Ge ae Co oo I. . oo a . . |. Thy a ve ae oo ae Co iy PGR es OS igi PVs ae Nea aa ON aN Cea Be Co. Se DENY . Os PEN ee RO SEN Bane EVAR Ce oe ‘ oe Oe a a oo ee a oe Oy oN oe oe Se ... Lo. a a EE vo a Oe eo a \ GO) oe 0 a) i a oO a oo oo ee a yO ae G a a Os oy a ce ae. .

ae Si.eesOe ... eoON Ke Bn aas. eeAS _DENG Ae oe Oe COG aURS oe OeSEO a aN oeORae Sen Oy aeHOGS Ae Ry eee a Oe CTS | eae eee|. ORO SOs OeCo ONG CR OaON NG aOeACY.ll |.Oeok.NSEsee aeGONG ee Be ..oeRSNES CON EO Oe ...Sea Oo ee re) i SOG La xeeo. ORANG es SOs Or uh OR CCS ee Pa) Nee: aN oo ae NEA a ne Ssae) Ve Oe eeOC ee RS Oe ea Dea ORa

vo oo |Le Ce aooa . .oooeLO oo . oo oe oo Ca oo a . aaoo oe.ooaeoooo oo.Cooe. KeoeOO eee—.Cas Oeaaoooo|

Gs .NA TG Ee eeeea eG aeSee: CaaN GN) KO iae . es aAAS a, Oe ENOME OS EONS SG LONNEON os Co ee SeeaeOe SG ON aeoe RONG Seen ay Cn BR Sa Se REO oo. eeISO Rs Esay a aHane SS aOR Os ae ROO ae NS OSS PONE SO SS NOONE OREN RUE ONES Oe ASN as Raia So) ee Co. ‘AS ..ons SGN AaShas COS aT LOU ENR ee Ge Ge Deen AES Ce VO BS AN eeORNS. oe Oe VsSoS ae Nseat oea oe oe we EO oo Vee SA Ee eeOY aAON Sat tN ren a Fe SN Oe ee SOs oo as SOO OeSaas oe Bak RG Rae SSE SNOO ENR TEL oa CNSR Oe ene COHe aNCESK TROON aySARI AS UN Se Ns) ORS NEC VA NMOS NG OS VANES TUNER ROU Gyan, YN Ns RGN RONG NGOSG ANN aeGe a.CO ee EES) ht Ree a Ne SCE oePRONG aNE SoUne Sey GSRR NRO SCORN SER aN TOS ise aNOA CORRES Sa ea DEN E Ce ONC UNE NS BSA CSINCK AeLe ANSDOING UAT ER eS oo .aS LO .LO aeDO ae aeeSRA ws LOS aRS eS ReCOUN: ROG EIR RSE Ce SNUG Eo Sa SO aSANs Cae) ie Bs oe. De Oe CO NO LOHR oo ee Ne oe ee. esaN eePENNING! UG DENK eeSUN Oe EEN NCO OSs AS COONAN SHA SGPCR ORNS, eeawy UREN RAR OGNa: SRA Ha an ee RO NOS RON eG TRESS eR SN TENA Oy Rees a Na eas TERRE ES CeO LINN TO De ea LO Se OOS USNR AN fined POS ESS BOSNIAN OS. SOY Uy NSN MOSS NS BNC OK Sy oo Ean .. BO ONIN AaERR) eesEeaeAVI). SNA coePee OeeeCoe. LG RU SA Saas OR PORN oe PaRevoo. SN ssSEN CayNERY NER ON a. Oe CO SEs .. ee .. | Le Oe. ee VER ON eee Oe AT ae Oa ON Ye Oe SONNY aee aay SO Caen Nea ea) a iia ey Oy So aff aeCsOe |.PO EUR PERS ee) SE oe. ea oo .ae Ss OR Ny SO SNe ay NG CON ERG VAN oe CNS CN OG esSONNE) Se CoZOE uk Pe oo DG ae ES EN Oe. SAN FO aUwe SSUES SO aaNER Nek Oe EES Nes DUCE VASES OeOe OE ROne VSO DOO SERS EO eenNG USS Ve SO weea SN Oe Cah |UA SE CGN Saas iASSO OO ay Le LOIS Pe Qe AN oy. SO WS aRe SON Oe eeee:Pot a Ht SOCR: VeON as A) a Oa NeOaae oo SON ESE a Gs) RUDD NG: Co ay REICH POO SNESN VER GENS US CSS naa ROC OSU USER OO BINA oneOS SOR? ONS asCOL OGG AG oe Cee ee Oa GN OS OO oat ENG Ne ONE aCe NCE GNes ng RECO ON SOU Seca ey POR ROS ES: SRN, 4 a US Lo. es AOR ie POO | eae Ds Re Ne NR A Nt ES OUR ONO! DEN eae Se Sa UN Ue Oe SENG GAINS ROO Oe: oe. NS INIA LON ANS SARE AORN SERS Ce. ae avoTeaeoo OA ee Lo OeewooOea SG OoaeasCoSsOeSO ooeeAs as SS aOa. oo Oe Oo .. SSaae Leyoo PeeOe (oooe GeOe ORES, NGCa Deoe LLPO Ooue. oe vo. co Na oe oo a oyacearoo. NG .. CO a Nae ee AE OE ya ee Ne Se DO ENa HOS PRN ae as Se ee Ne SGN eg Os ES ON ye ee Oe OO ORY onan so . Oy Oe OO ES | oo con ae Ce ae aRUSE oe oeSCR oeSeeaOS oeOS On oe ee aeOR esCONT CO Mo oe oo. oeEOOs Ae oeee:eG oo ROSA ROO CeUNOS Oe LOL oo Oe),ONRtCoe aSENN oy oe oe ae eaBo eaaRA ee RYa) DCO SOSA SNe LeKANG SRR a BOS OREN ace Pe eG NkSey FREAD BO ies NOUN DEON Oe BUENAS Ge Oa SOS ae SSS MACE ee NBG Reche eesPR a a nan OSes Os Pa BCE ae RePeINES SOROS ORCI Dae Nee SURNR NOa oan ake VOW DS GU as OOS Ry COO Vane SO ae a aA sea ATR SAN ENS NS ASN UREN SENN ROE PRN ONS ae Ss USS HE RCO M3) RA CNA RY Ce BUN Ne sus a oO) WEEN ONO ENG SOAR es BU nie BO SRN Oe ONAN See CORN SO SMONGS a BAe SN RO Be ae DROS SENG Roe DEO NoaN ENS OA aaa! BUEN SOE Dae

: . oe a. Oe oe |. . | a Os oe. Le Oa Ga | oka:

a oo ...oo.Co UG oo. COoe eeeeoo Co ee eeea>aee aa :-ifoo | En a Oa oe oe oo a. aa oo. Loa OoCoe o OK oo . CC aa— Co oooooe a.DEON oea aaeCo a co ioe | oo a. |Ca Co aaoe oaPERN aUSO Ee oO es ee. as ene Aas aN as Ve ee oo ee Cae Says a. ae ae iae EN Aes RRO ae ARG GG. eyee uh UR OE PS) NSOES EeEES Syoo Ce RO EeRARER esOe aePeKe Oy ae COO oe Cae COO SeROS CeRU OES OeRUA OeCOU, ORG Sey TE |Se oo CO ANS oo NRE oo RO oRU een CUNO SOO UNOS REN DOOR BNI SOA CED USE Ge SN a . ees ooi SNE Oeee Ana:HEN ol Nay 4aeasFeeG ee SUR RN SHUN eaON ENS ESN Eo, AMONG Dk OO * Say ASSN IA | Te Oe Se SEIN aeLOIS TEN OeIN aa SE a POIs oe. Ce OeAON ae aNR VG eeoy oo coBUSS So ee 7MA CO Se ooSR oo aSep oeSNSeats. oo Se een Oe OSE ONG SUS EE Oe ONG SPARE RONEN SOREN Oa CCAIR AS NaN IN OUND ENON DN Oey Oe NE BO PR aes Fee OO Se eR EN CY Oe ey ae

oo FORoe EME oy A | Me Se GN as. aIOe DOs aney Oa Lo See NE DON RS LON ON ANOS ean ON a ESAS SMe Nae SORIA OMEN a ee Fae AaOe Ae SefoNIN A) aSUNNY HONS Ny . Ba Me a UO OREO Gs ON an ASE ooRUAN OE SE A OK OsCOON EOCS DO coa) rot COS Ce Ce ‘eeaoa LO LSPya aw oOs |.: ey edENE) OIA NE CN SENS ONG SeSOON GN eiasORNS OR Ce eeoe Side ooOs oo. OS OE ON FS eyOe SER SIS OaORES Se a OaeeNE ES ooSE nNFO Oe ee ON ARRAN HO aOa aAST . He Oa LENEASA AO estON SO Oe CSO SOSGC BOR Us SeOe OC KoonDCG. BONONe NeINOS SOS ioayAK Seong

oo. oe oe oe a yeeeeeOS So- ae oo oe oo as aCS Teae aeWOO: Le oo Se oo SaOeoFBE LO oo oo ee a a.oe Ca oe x.oy Ce woSO SO DUE FOR Re oe SNTe ae 8 oe a | . oe nt aSsLON CORE a, aeGio UG Oeee a Co ‘ oe. BNA Pe ceee oe AE as OMS . So a aa:Oe oe _oe oo. oe Oe OH Oe ..oO SO .iy iARoe aee BO: . oo. Oo CO iCe Oe ac ee Oa a a Co ee Ran . ee oO Oe. oe Oe a oe Oe oe oo Co Oe OG eae oS . ON 2a ON) ae ae on _ 7 yo oo | oo oe oe Co : | oo ee aay Ce oe es oO a . a ue oe co oo oe De oo a ee DOs oo a ee oe a oe a a De oe a oe Lo oo oe a a ae Oe yo oe oe A ee oe a ce Os CON ve sO Co meeae . a ... wn oo | Ry a Se ON Ds Oe . ae DERE ea SHR ee Ce YONG CON ay) OS POA ae Ce Un SO . 4a_OC Oe ey Ds SO) a ST Ne ae OD Sa LOS es oo oe as ee oo oo PP . Oe ee Ce ae ee Ce oo oD oe aN ae ON SO Co OaSR ned a Seu ANCOR EU Co aeRO NSED Oeas Soe! ae Soe. UePS 7 ah SOY AUR aa ve PAGS OG oo SOS) Oe LOSS ENG Uae AS SAN Uaas DROS ae ES OsSee Ge Os ES SeSNR Ce OS oeRUG oe. aiySOS BG One EEN oo ...CON AG a SAN PAO RNS oe. asaae PO SOONG a.eae Eea el Se) SOMOS OI Tan Os a iBi — . a oo Ce I. . oo es ONG oe os COs ae ... ooyae PE |. is OY ON aSee Ce LO Ou) POE ayAs Os Re aeSa seLOE Ne . De ee eG Oe SS SURG 08SCE .. esCe .. LOO RUINS ee eR . aN a ee Oe NOs SSRs oe Ce as CN EON SOS LAN Se Oe: ENE ON ee Ca oe ay Ni oe ae ae . oy oo ONE AO ee a, .. ed a ee LN oe Os SEC ee OS Ne Ve OS ee CAINS oe SORES EG See .. a Lo a oe Ce Ne So oe . ON ON A ONO O Oe . a JOO a SN Ba Oe Oe LO a Os LO ae i Se Cua Oe TON Oe) . IS SG aBENS a aN SAR SNeFN UNO ey SONG PINOY RENN SOUS RN, RON AEG NOMOe NECEY IRONS CGY SAH Les US OAC RG ras aAnASes ONCE ONG Se, SAN ENA ER,ROU oa SO RN) Ce COP a AACON Ce ay Ce OS iy es aeRENO COA,ceSUA Ses De SARs a SOOECOG SINROCA SYNN CONG UY UENO SR ON:

Oe Ne OaNEG NGRU Rea LUN oo Ce aks LO OeON NEO ee.SAIN a COG. oy OsAne, as |Oe A eSLe eekae OSaaeao CEOe Nk Oe FAOCe POO LO. ae Se Oe OOO DNSCae BEESOs Re KO Ge NaSee tae OR ON Sa Ce OU or. ER SORE PRIN PUI Aue BONING Re ey PESO ees Dee Bu Oa LONER OE ON Aa SORES ONES Ne EG Co OO LANES ROC a ONES ND REG EN ies NOSIS RU ON DU PINS SOS NSERC ON NS) Sea a

Gs oe oo RANA OS oe Oe Oa LOUK Ou a. in we a ANSI SAG: BRN EES GUNG eS SORIA VS SR ann Oe OS GIAO PO SAS enon ON RC SEN, RONG SSPE

sO nae SER UU Ry, OSE ee a Co ae RIN Co ENE SS TE RESUS ONE AO RN ey eee NOON ER COR Ra ees SO EOG ee Sa Oe BN aS ANS CO

a.Wana ksaae Oe ne ue . LO Ce ARE ee SECON aee COG ao ON CNNoe See.Fes a RC a EOSIN Oe ie AN Oy LOOM HOESe OCU ONO SOTO RU eetVON Ee ROS US COUNTS TCS NS EGS)Ns SAN BOR RanRON LOSI PEAT INID) FOSNIARH a CDK haaee: oe | LON: . oe .oo ONC YN Ane oe aBa | aR Ce oe oeoy . ee eK aeLe) Ee eeCC a BO a— eeGECe) Oe oe aeGORS oe Co aOe oo, LoSOOLO Ve oe ae ce Beos egi.

ll oe OI a| ooee . |.OeEOUe . SN oe Coea ee a.aeOe ae SNe iCOG Ce ON oe. SOoo. ese LON aNs as . ooae Oe esOe eevo Seoe oo |.| Ge SEN UIEO De LOU | Os PONS eteSNe KORE ooHe PC . a co © oe Sa oe oo 0) co oe oo oo Oe oe oe oo aN a . A oe oe oF a ao oo oo) oe ss

. .OO Pas |. Lo ..—. Oeoe |.a oooeooea ams oe aaee... _ oe a a) oo. |. a || oe. oo oe —aoo. -. a. ie vay Gs GN ee LOSES PK . cee eee Re bee CONS Ue. ae ae a Ne. ES CS aay Oe a Va Oe i UNC ys aa DGS Re SN ey Se SE oS SONG a: Sy z ee

TE eisLOR PO he ey -... SeNeo Uy SONOS, SASSURAT ues Le Se CoseLOS OssSUNNY SE ANG SOREN EGAN SOREN SOONG ESOS BIS a OC PROS NANG REN BING RANTES AN ee te TSAR NaN ARSEBane Aa USO Oe Sea Se SOI UA CONROE CS FARO Cee COOCS Oy, GARGS Seo oR HaeCONEN, SNA BGSERO OO See OG OSU ENRON Oy: aN: Dans NB CORN ISAM

a OO Gea oo OuBeee OR eR oe AN esoeaa ane aOaOO) . SO a aad Coea oe a ee CO a SON, oo aOeOe) ae Gs) osco oo Ioa oo Ce oy ae ESEaONG Wee SO: Nek EN Re Oa EeHe ie ooOe ae De PRISOa Pe EGAN ove eR Cee a OGa as

Ce ie |. aNCo FENN co aera RAN EG Oe a LO Oa ioo Sans LO PAGERS COO: SG ORES CSoe aa FA) Ps ORONO EN aoe NY osCO ee ak Ceoe Poh: § oo oeNKeaSo aACN Co oa.RIVER, Oe oo oe aSA Oeey ooae aOES oo ee, oe aa a VA Sc a. ue oo oe Co oe Pa aTEUe SG oe aaCECo oe aOER oe UR ee ae ee STEAD Os MUSING Ry enoo TOES Gesey ee...SON AS Nae LOS a as SGN ORY SECO RsA oeco PENee Sanae SOY OC|Sty ee ee a ee ee : . ae ... Lo |ieind ae RING Oe OK ayia os ON ey Ue oe ye Tee SEs ie a Oe a a. UN SOO LOOs oneCo ON: LOes LINAS ae Oe EUR es Re RA KOO SUE SG) Oe OSGSEY NS UR AN Teas SAG Nenae ON nace oe Co >3OO Su aeBS aONS eS a ROR as oo. 2a RCN OeAEO ONC Oe PeeeNSVas a Pe oo ae oo aCeeaae Or aeee.

CLC ee ees a.Navan oo ane SRN ee a.anton ee °bee Co oe ne oo oan COR ae Co |..oe. .eeOF ..oe A)as Oa SOR | ee oe .ee loae . oe . oo. AN aee Es: oe TENOR Oe Gs oe oe SnCu ai_ a. a. Co oe aoo. oeFs: ae oo oo ee weOe Se io ee ED By i Ss RsOe oN, asOn SO, a.>... ioo ea Ge as ee een oeOeSS.. aa a| ai ae TENS oC Fa ae cee SMSyONG .. ae CANOE aS Ce Rey ENN UN BOs SraeSOe SsCoO RS Co HNleeeeecee Bs Wie Oa eeasAA, PON Ae oo me SsANE SBNER SONS BOG Oe NON SRG SOUR, CU aHae CG aRue ae,ON .CR, OO ofeyCOG SN OS “a OO Se ey ae ON Ce GON RK ee ee,ak OO RGN ee. Con i aMe SENS EO va) ovens PO aa SUNS SENOS Oe Oe AOS eGCO Yeo Be ROS SySoe SO ASS aE PN Sa LORIN Ianigeal ,oo as CINE Naess Oe ARSi a ROS Ca. PO aDS Sa Os AY ERON KN aia JOOS ANON SRO AeOGG HUN SO AROS SONNY NEMS LES COS SEE ReLU ea LAN - " ORRIN Sas .RNAS . Soa ae ER esEY: He WEES ey EGS a eG aCone Nae Co a on ey we oeOne aNUae"oeCs

CC |. ke OS Se .. Ee : ie ’ E é PSE ES EG ia ie i , ie

oa a.Oe ON oN ...ee oa Oe He a se:aeF4,ie cise Co 1oe oo.a Dy Oe _ ..DOr SE OAS ny aeeae a aSHE ss:i ,oe eae. ic Me Faeik bs:Sh Pou oe Le ae : CU oo Co NOG . ne Nee Ae aSo es Ce ie a. Ue A a. PO: Pe LE sess “iy ‘ye a. RN .. ee a. PAN: oe HOD MENG fa . : os i‘ J Ke gl Oa ee MON a at as | Re . BA Ga EG CINE) woe * . ‘ie, sas biel -,; ; a‘So oo a|oo |.ee oe aaa oe Mie ;owe. ioa :iyaVv iyMe ry; jah kk i.—.. aaa .a :oo “ier ls ¢:re Polke Aad Ps | tpe a‘Maas Niall ooOES veneer % site| :—_ 3M "Cour % tae Ng gad aoe : ; , ’ ; © ra ee Se :Ce a|.oe ee ; ‘vn cae eG ; i ed caoe ae ee , NE CL) «af TF. fI Aw i, eo = ae ae gi ] * ] f Pa i . . an, ee Se OSE he oi i gry i. : : g ‘ she ge — ;Fa:hee 4ch iy aie 0.ve,%ch File, by Geum keg FS Lac i @ Me Tal ‘i ; i ai, 4 ALYY) 4 KEE Cee ,# ;, ‘i Bo, ie-& a be ae at a at ad . i i i ‘ . . Ale? ras %‘i ie] i] e E 4 ‘ie Ne Enhraim Mar irraciviona _ 4eTZila, “Jewis i ™ ms “ Mi ean 3p 4 q ill Davo Wuoll B AL ; pa f F : OP a : i hep . ibe Mall Se ae lxke: BiGeing, i wy ¢ 5M. 1 we we . ipod i 4‘ak .. FcsouieeG,re;Vy KR $ or ‘Ai TT ‘eg Se Aas MeN vANS aROT a)os ENS eee vay eo. URN Pee OGURA ER ay Oe ae | Hy UY aCe On ceiBe DS aecite oo De oe USN LOO oC SE COs SOG SE SN EeCO Se CEN ee aUSN AC ie) DSS ee NS . ie. 3ig, RON ae aay .ee ay eee EE Oeice ea Se PROG ANG Lea FANGS Oe EGoc NO SON LOS SAN ESTE 7aie rIEa erat a a) ioeOG aOAR SeGh BC Oo cae OR eaea ee Ons) esCOE My Co = cory

4 Hegit BPgee q si' Nit ay. a

«agin SS

. .: :(i eC Te ene : cI NUN AGO EOIN Sos ROM CE eR,OiP

Se as aea ee; Fe PR I POae OG i ee Lo ip RE Sema ta san HO ON ono Sune icra coset et a .. :ee uae oeeroha os eostan . oe ee ee soa : SS Pe to eee nicht NS aden atoSvnn SON Gin.aaOR, ; oSReh Eo IGUM EOS RIKER Nt NS UNC uGN RS Cane SLAGL GaCOMMA Cinencro MN ae oo etait, oan Sateen etc uta sea ; FR err UEM SNAG! attain outatenc atta Aten ona Ne Sone he ye.

eon He Leesintshocaionce ROG GUM SRN SN ecient Pars an AVE ol CRC Re »

Pe en Seatac sta ac uth stacctearate aL Aot stn sion cash iy Ran ey aR ae

il Oe UR 6G UT OC a rae , agotat chUAaNatatRrS estat cnet te NRDae PooiNn tas salotal eanrm eas nti nenaSN Guts ean KA gaeHaONiy : Se ise i Bie DUG SH Cah nearerem NH eles oats OESTAI CUNO HMI A auogen GaGa nan Ci BLO Ot aa

SAO CSSA NEAL Oh SaAene EN hsASH Woe erica ciSNA IDSMGR acsASE Ss ee Scene SG Mica IM Ninan ahaa eva ALTO waTG ncaaNON Ne ne SS eon Maer et a CEU UME eM iEeae AMOR cretitaleie Ce SUSAN thea COI NE Ca uI ROAM SOR Samii

oe

i eee SOOataREG hG a Ha MINS NS stl SSSA GLAO alee I ese CE UDELL NGOS OIA CIS ss: . Peron eiecatta Patt whiiatnnaenh htedR AeeReas Pepa Ma Uo HanA tation tv MEANY AG) HH ee SOSMARS Sienna r oe RNR An ea AURIS MHS eae RR UR ANce GEN bas Ne ME Te noonTATE NOONE A SON DRS MCMC NOR SNES HON anh i.

cciee HRN e meat cnacmn es SC TN Myeabihy A irats aie ily slaCURN nite au NUN tseamI EARLE OSA aR Aba aH OU CIN ORC LUNNINT A) OAC Ph USNEMC MITA REG (Ha UMS E=tAT AL SOS ScLapin Lea aR ONO OCU SONS IG DG Mei saiiay EN Stel atteeabtns ene Sens hy

EE Oe es SOT a Ua I CUMS GAESIGRUS SAME Sa I’a Ee SSH OTe CUCM aoseeGANA a LO Oe. Cee eS OCOGG ttotene ae OU neRNA eeESOC a.RUMOR So So Be ASA Be CNB aU RU UD TSIM asta USS ata Oa as Conan UA ERG eC chan HNO AO RT ALC CHIE GH Un suet RRgHTALE SUA OSIRIS ERG Shia CCR ACR RNA ue Bien =

lg On OED BNA ee Oe eeoy eeeeR ies ier oe att 7 : ee OO OOO SOR cseeAE oe Ce ean aOOO OE PO omietti :SU ee eaSo SN |RE CE RORaPC OO OO CNSaGSS OSIRIS UU SOULE OMI CC DO SLUSOC One, : OIG aeNE BOO On RGN nCCe aUR WCAC Se OOM ORE OI AM SONUNN oeRICO OOO OO eeSA or OURS Pa Ga ae Oe oo SIS SIO GI) ice (hm oooo PD ACO SUA OU OU Oa GCONUNU KRY CT SO SESS VRame Ll BO GN WRENS SUPRA ISU OSIRIS ON OOS STM isan CO i icaae PHAN Ne ORD CRUE SEN Hat OEGOA BING ESN LANA.EN HOO CREAN SOanepn NR CARER ts ateOishi) DE NSLS NYA ORAS Arne TSGnee MUCOSA AASLE ONIN GOINeo. tat ie

THOR CNSR Soo OC Vette pec OU MOU Nat PERU Co Mle enn ORS BL BD EOE ON Oa HERO CGD AES FEN OUR CEN ON Gre cits i ae

iOE Scone SN ORSON ASMCEONEN OG ORIIUROG DelANE Nt DUNC TONEY et EeAUN GGG COOs aa OO OOO A 7 AOSee REa)ONS IU ORE SM I) CC) FG GROTON ATEN ROI A UR . BRN ac ii coeur ounce, SUC a8 A ONSEN EON ANC SERLOSS OER CO ORR NEON CR icy oe ot oe + ieGe OSCOR ana ISSO ORSON EGRSEN STH Sati CUOMO FUSER TCRrea ERR CURSE SSNS Cu RIUM YEU POSONT Gy Ge aa ee oa EOS AISI N CCE OC Na ER ENC IS UO VagRSE ENESCO OCACRE ee tn eA ORO COG ese: ee

.. neraey “4 Seee Se oe OO ny Oe eeLLoe PROTA IEa.CONDO OyoFOO ee eenataa MiSEE C usin eonCe OS OO rane ee.Oy : oy CC ae oeen PERO IRE RICO OOS OOOO ee mA es ee ee ee a oo i Oe ee ack . Se oF oo oe ee ae COO CO CO. SG: Ca Oe aNU eS Re Ook ee .ee . Ce I Oa ORC ames une Nani 6. CG ICRaH MOST AG le 2. nama oS Os Se ne MORE ela eerie ROG SON is esti«—iwsSC PSUS OO F:co teLO OeaINes SC erah en eer oo ek. CR Ce SNC QE gi}ESSE ESE OSE COO Career 5ee : e,,rrtr”—,—C*" . }— — Bor a Ree eeONCINOx Ce aOTA fee. :ae Oe Roe . :Be eeOO ee OC Geile nehe Es ee ee OER. ORY GL : oy BONN AN DOA I ROhc OOO Cae CAN oA eaaga :of ‘De eee PS a UNCOOL ee : . Se ek BPG SES Roe re GOSS: AS ee LD,twsstssti ae So CEO RCO NO NN a ee: ye) ° “.eCNG OC ISN aaee rt. ,re SN ET ee ae a:ayBNeee. A PN COE LOI ODOC UNS ace kg eRGa ae CE : EGR GOD COS NR iy EO eaa :oO Ce aNIC oo LTE meee :SSNLESS meee ee Bo ee

Pe OS MN HEN) IMTS ZINCosCOMMITS GIOne OeOG eyOeacca. : je SCN ONAN LASS UES) OGRE MoU GNU ANC REO RN ORN NH OREN BO Os RE OTNIK OTN ee aa . . Be et GE | OIA EN ERC ENG, NOONAN re ae eeMal .avg} : on oe oe ee RO as oo ee SSE ORE ONS) DE NSIC LL NNN : oo EI a OCIS oi NRE er eater see DC CNS RO US ESR es Naa CONE CO OR OSoo Oe . ee oe Oy oo ZOE, a SA EVO oS Boe a ee a eae Lee saa PS NE ECO UBT Ean UL enone Fe fe Sp SOURG AM MBN lca een HCO Anca ROO een RUS ULM ACM PUL tCHE leanCOR tut a ROSE es NU RNC ROU COIN NU UNTG! SEG CANT MEIN Naar ERS EM PMU KIL Cie CNCaaCOR eSBMMR Vrntgey RRR MR 1 CER AGERE ODI ONCen ORME Sinn CeIn cumsMe alAIRC CeSES ok, CaN NAG o

: RRR tat ERC OURON GS URN, SUR TUS MSU) ait OS MT OECD OOS Mela TEN CCR One ROTOR ORIEN ANN OCRISUO CASS GAS AOD UA Zed TCA oan Nae ESS OG aaa

. . Be RN OER ALU 8 RUC MEME NI ou I, OR IN Seep A CARDS BOOS Gea RENO 2) i a SRE OOS MOM CCl e oe WOU Ooi ECG OCA a Cn cc

. 2 se OER AOU AEM OSC SRS PROS OOS SONI CORRE SEO UAB GOH MERU ASS Nie RONIR KO SEE ORO SHOU Ha MUON NING Oe ENCED CON IN ea NGO CRS RSA UE NG . 1 RES OGG SOS MCNO GC i UO ee OSGONE elie UENO NIRA ME UL ECTS SNUG SOR IMEN DMO NET I ARIUS hana SOON UD UO OU EUOSEAN RC CRU ENO s ea Gey SASSO OMS MI SOAGON REC OCG UGSVENUS AG UCD CL OEE RAO SUES SUNN) ORDO GNIOSEDS RU SONI RORSRCAON SAILS

Te ee3ee: eives lL aaa is, COoO ee ee ee OO

: FSo OOOO IEC OECEO RNO RG CIC UGCy aOCG ale USAR GER NIN Peal CIR OGG HEMI ree ee aa 8 . 2 : BA TSU AGO NOUN GAR SUA CMU EURO eSNG Oe Oe RIO ee oorrs— aisOSOSOSOs—sOSOStsts”SsitiSi NMOS NOD IMR ON osEOS SCRUM ay Ie oe ON yoy aca mao mmmmnbeaientnsr BE OSORNO SERA CRSCUN SOO SNS EUR RCN Mana Chen ROTI Na OC Gs SEea TORE RS Hata CG ae = LEY ee Coaee : SSO EIRENE NUN UL SHUG CS OS CNRO UON CHU) ISRO USSR ORs Md atcha tsMIR te estat? ERIN RRtiie re De RECS sc AERO NTonels . re OS ee CORE AO Cas EROS ORR OU SRO, OG NR OEE Se ee UR eh ee ah SSeS : RMR er) Ble e Ue ON OI ORO SG aaa 7 Ok Gk LO ORO CUES Vek BORA ANGE MOS NCU) sete He SSS Sn rr enema ae ve DEE SRO OE CRG Cn a Nea

. 1 TSS ESE SUN NCES SU CIT SGA ROS CUS USERS BOOS UI ECO CU RRS Aaa be uistanetcaesne St eer te a POPES . ELL: USES SR NGS Ge as, |

RR COS CAN UN IE DO OE UO SEO CES CAA ONY OS EES UO IO SEAS Or ACG He, Pe F . em a en OS OG O COMI SNCS ASO : ee Oo a ON NSS: oes SENDS PT‘ Son ee AO UR A Ce HER HOS : OR ROO OU aON COU TERR INC UG:eo i ccs : ee SO NC OE OO a kaCe OeECR a COMME GS CU US UY:OO Oat Dateien ce ee NO em tne aN Criae es, ;

ee re DIR OE EES) OO NS LEDS SONG CLO INI IKLO PaaS Eo CSCuma AIO OCG OCU LSE Gane areree Le OE aesENE SOS OO) aeON OSTA IOI EEA OO UEOO NG SEO shisy wo a at petal COUSER EMD ae: ACU Cu aN SRE NCAT USeS Ree ES ON OH IGHAI ECO PCG SIU SS OIA ai aJena nae ReLN EO Spel (a EO ” Cd SONNE GtOa) OC am ;LOCA Lae IUSO RC Ee eeRGN PO BE MRA NG ee aee .AMER Ss oe heOBS (ose nee ump aes LO ae.: ° eeBE WO CE RAC Os Oe USCN eae :OO EI RAN Ralls SNES nea MICU CGE Set ME AMUN ONNe UMO ATCC raniERIN j uN CO NANCE ESAS ECU SSC ACA SSSR ee, SSEON ASCH SUSU RN ARGO OP CHOC OO ONE ASs SGU 8CO ASO NSE WOME EO a Ce UMC OMe an SSS CHUA UI eaROHR SE ee EGE CGE DERN USM ANID SCA onesteAS Oe a a aaa ER NL OS OO OR GOO OC a On OO DO SR a EE SSIS OS SUS ANOS CHOENOGRU eae RG Uae 1 ON ONCE ee SGU Ea aa OC ACN Gan OEE OSES RE ESO NG RON ON SR oa ints nisin oc” ” ae EEA cee Ra DANA Oe USNC ts USEPA CRC SERA: DOSEN RAN RAHA AU OS IU VRC EV ASUCR NAGI an SO OCR AIAN ON HAAAC aM RE ANTESNe ONGE GRO CO ION . MRR us Cn trimmer tararon i urine, BOO oe : CS RU SEN OTE a KO aRN eteaLScia : ST ON IeUNOS Sitti Se INOUaON COMO iy Gruhn a Creed a OeCE CN ORR USC asKURI ie te Se EESEE AIGRENNE Deon Ontatee a tatem umMiahSeu PNUSO ee SERRE Cok

Ne ee hh 2S CT ees ee ee an Se TNS ORI nea eG BR A

5 OS SAG STNOMEN GAUCHE SSN US NS LOS ZAR ORS) RGSS et=LOIN ;eeee Se OE UC RISAACN ESCO PC UU AOOEUS a ON ENC Uc CO IRE oe aeRE CG nn) Oe : EpNER oe ere oe Sones Rte“ ecie ERO at . ESOTERIC PRN UC Many OIA SSOS Ne RO one ie oo oe EC Ue OL ROO I USNNER ON GE NG insCUES Wemaisics ob Orae tuenS . MROU ON Re Ratan oe eater OSORNO Cla Ssos§ EN OST AUS SAG DE IRINA aaa TO ee eeaoCO aaeae)See OE

ee ee US :Ue alc ais COs oe Oe OO ecSN og Oe oe ne eeCO See ene: fees | Se ae aCO ,rrts”s:CisC;siC eeacai ee eines EE NS Sorta Sennaee : ese. Re ee ea erCOS once OCCO SO Te EOE aeeeeeaeaOO PC RRND oe

a ,r”:t:ts:s:sis CO CO GM AM IM CEO CON AM SU LO ON Ca DE ESSN SOS GRO ra ASAT «1S AEE IR oie SOM Moras any Cae ale Ginn a 4 OOS COCA SGN ROTA SIRT OSS GUE ONAN AES SS OE COUN ee ER NIC ORE CEO ae VEN Rn fe 2 RM one eee UG ICOM ANS RO OIE ONES Nes ee ae . LCN SOCAN I aetipine ro cnUSE MNT NS SN OMEAI ACI SBGer SECO Sn Men 16,00)? aM ota OErae le OS ES CO LE PNeT NG WAT ORR ee ES OU UCR OT CasICON AU SN CNR Pr ovion GGT COI RKO CESS Mh oem)5 rater ore Batis a meen Be SSN GM RR chaaNaa nn Sirsa? ALMeO UNEVO EROU ENMIS OME Ci: oe.

PO OO AN Mek eS I SUA Be a ee CSSA MIN OL OU NCEE Otay

| OR CeBUI eeEGPOOR OEIC030NAGI AGSESBS UO se aSOA ESSETSSAEE MEA?INS DUNG Maa Ny Aste NeEGSe: Phe RE. a fe I Oe SN IS NEN SCENT NER S02 EREee RINT NGS aR EN:ESTE SSSR EOIN EEE IGN ORGeat MOE EB eaeOOO CaCO BSUS RD OREN ree eea SRE ee eee Crue Semen iNnC uaa aei ITG SN ORO ONSEN O ONS. Oo aI SIRESEE SSee OSRLa ae enn OES OG SOU oman See OSte Seca Hon unin) Oo DNB ee

eC aURNS cae EE OU Rat oS ee rrrrrrr—C—“ iNR PEE AEE OCICS UR UCINC COR GeNEU Ae el: PR EN EQUA ONIONS UN OCR seala arctan : TRE ULTRAHE ES ONC ECE MME SaRA tgeety ASE Ne TR: RAs ATOKA Mt ec atatiecSata a Maree, AO A BHCC CUI. CORSe UNS ON UO Cn Ua NS anes RaMIO OU OS ONC atsOGIO Boe, “ 1D ec Pett OM enNC nen ey ae cat tala trailer ANC De SOEs MS «SO ESTA. MANSON TE SEA 7cUNAS TARCOGS OR 00 Anas een eraMatis :Rta Ltane hee eeeEene eA SEO ICRMR SCAG OIorn RNpanos ENaeRNIN GAR NIC ESE CCU 610 HIit Ae Dmnte . PE OUST OOOO CAC RNG CEO UU Maite ce OACINA ESSE GON Saal aS 2 °CSREES .cee ° Be erettMERE Ce ny Notas BURA ICN SMO TMENEEH tn Aa... OO OO ees Ne SIC itsOrRCD oe tablatid oo ete REESE EL OSU EES SAS SOARS OSE LAR uA let antl SPO Cope eaUOMO MOCO CCU URN NANT ORE MUNG CEH Ce RR SORES 1 et Ae OPE ARSs eee . ES ESO RE OE shikai Eats [Sci hNas NARG ike MRRIRE SMM eRe Naa Deron ty Ges os . BO RON OCU UNCON NUOG UR IDaera CUM NCU CAUCE tame : :' ‘IEPs Oe ES SEO Ea oean SOWIE SE oon EER ARNE CaN SU TB AORTIC SEE CEN ice ialtahoe DataOe Osta MRC ADR Cnn : URees I a nc SAIS ei ES GOA SSIES SOtich ka M MMR gy beatae te 222 3) SA 2Beets ie) oon RPG oe SRE eos SAN 7IE So aSBee OOTE et RsUAC ae aie BOGS EP MHD Re inmate eseigre MN? Besaree RU REC MEAS: Oe ASIN ORCS OS) A ee 8 ae tre ROE TO OS fe SEN SAA Tia nc Fre or Cn ey NU ORNS) eee RG NEG DG a0 EE eS en SO Nera eM mend EEE TRI SE MAGUS GST LE OT HSU SS aD Rea a GSC R TAU ENN EERO PCSN EAC! IUORSESS EAR AO OSSETIA TENN 0 dS ESGRISEA TEatiGun pega: aes eee os on ve CEE i Oe ie Yi ERE SEVER vs ogee me orSetnePeamereeniee Nm eeeT ON LOT oe HORN OER CORA GE EOSCea ANGES IVERSON UAC BINNS BAT AGHA AURA OS NSEC, Br Gn) oni ee a oh nA Sean Ei eee as cs Seen ee ren Si Ab URAC OSS eA © CANINES AN ZS NSE STO ORNS Be SCE SU AALS CONES tC Ma Re a MGM eens ekg hg oP Coven Tae EE AEA : eta ee RT SR SES Seba ets ea aN RG ae Se SR ee aN RE CO Rn ON oy OMe OCIS Catt ee EIA ONS ORION ORO US CMON OO NUANUEI ae DUO OU OOM UE 0s Aa Ee ar RSC eh Reena SASS eel EE EC . Pe oe Oe OO OS AS AN ea OCU ON CG ee PAOLO areer eER ODGSNG MOR eee acy os rae es et Sng DoSfannie SACU SEms eo: PLE AEE SSAA aie aoeeehare romtettgnaatasar tela nih eaaRanes eon aN oceICRA ASU NE US Er unONSe ONWRN NOU SUAS NN Way NON RGNaUSA uiee NOUS SENOS NANA us eee op aecs*s: le eats aeSahat tee SEDER BPS atoT MSEC SEL EES SEN IMA aa Nie OS isAU eaan Naty SOSES AHN NEN AVON AOTS SSR ETUC TyINE NER) BRS OO Ea FIND OGM Sat she tt Rte De eae steht Sos. kta ofaebet eA Nata ete! : LEP GN RE as GSFC e Roe Mees Nee cute Re BCI OG SOO PN SS OMA SEG NOG a Pe eee aeiea arin, an Sa Eat et ee ECE eM Ee . Sas ERS UU ART OO OOM enc Grn ema aA, OSH RAS UES NM aS PO as OO GRAS GONG ae ae) ESAS SOC ARM Ee nie:DO Aeodo ee FES wos seis TR reiBRE eybag Reem ON OOIR GUS Ny Sat CLAN Pree Meaney OE EO OM aN | | ee eeeRUIN PEM SR oie BeleiceRs wld bate . .ICUS 7(ic) aeDC NG WEES Def. Sets SG GSIE MUG Hae aEiin dal aarR SE ON ASOLO MAU OAC nMOS ae aCRN atang? DEcae Ue ROH OU ONES GE COS OSC ata OU RES iO ata *ME aOR sph aet : aRe anwrne ad Soi CMON nOnt inter Eee REAR ACO NUN AD ES eC OE OO IO OE ssRCS TGC eon ce Ie : 8h 2SS nObe Panne he tatna ati NOS INE ECON Cena a: ODEN AMOS HENS CRAG OR8 UEG AS OR MNCS 10 CERe ee ne sigRe Pret al:Serta! Tens teESE vo . :EEE SOARS NPeyale oereeonge Rese CMEC G ot hatcoritkeinltetesit oelnttion oe ..POCO CeOC EES OUND NO CeOIC ooo eeteete te! AyTURES a SEaR So Se .pe RMR PCT SNM AES atfelt oma se RH oatat PEO ON RRMA SONG SS OUNDVON ROU EIN GRU iLON LhLrLhLtsi‘Céisél BONEN MGS cE RUN SMG OREA seAACN Oe: SEES : CEPR EES w 2 OAS "SRI COCGSD SSSSH ONE ROSGONC EES OT AGH SMA PNata tats tiCANO CacROOD SeraCU Ut GL Gtestee : OTE UU UNCON GON MONE VAT CUR OIA) OOS, 1 RE EN A ee ORNS. By alae ee os He a gaat ties RDN Shite heh etek tat itOL tule sa at aaeGMSMA CHa egg eeROU RLU Nata TOSS Ne EO : EE SU Se AS ZO ONSEN eeUEC are seca Bete: 885 LESSENS 2etc AR Seas eer eT Naan RAC SGN HOSE mR Ua BO EON ECAR O uC) DNAS NSA NUN MOntearnncenn¢ SSP BRAM eeSorlebe MNO oot pony aOR .ai eteBe tute PSS . SCM RES 59, Ye neONAL RRA NENH MTOM en Ke male EO SPRAIN as aE an URS osENO Rc DOOR US UsUN AD NINNUO aUAC i ein ISOS ice a0 RRR RR Peat eres woe are TE ete neaRi PGi cha ota a Gnery Oor ee RaENS Se Ma NAOa SE NIG Grea GAN aI Ree Pcie

ea ae NPE Geers: 2 anne’ BA ee eae : emer ee Une aie NO Aan CG ees Gara)

|... .. eesREE ees, a aeee ; | ee eee oe OCI es eeee Om OC OE OO ane OO got ERR oe ISS te I eee ee . SSE SSE oo. Rees ORS Gea eee CO

Lh i ° . ee ee : oe Exes ee eee ee es Ce | Co ae

Oe ee ep eeeca eeUCTS coe F SESE RMiui SICRe OSS ert ce anncinm SO OES SG URSoCN eeOAS hn SO eae7 ee eMeumncn eC ees Oatseevee Po rete Oe

DORE OSCE OD CAIRO ci Ree .oo Ssbee natant ONEENE. 2item Se eae ones eer ccee eeIMC RRs tts TeeCUO SO CORNMeUatale 0 le S58 2 CTSA Stones Sc See°a Re eee cee ae rec cline ees MO APMIS ONC Ce Dhl NOSSO So SECA &alo! + on :oe:leeRallglec ESAT ES ante erie Ree SO aN oe ernie ES SM ResaSe Min 1RES Sette 3Se Peak COE GS CCU I Sa EOC ta SEED se .: :eR TESS : AO S Per RE CER ECS SS EIIOU AAA NR a aCe Cue IGIGWENE NO eS we SE WE LIC GEES ols Ne a HENS Goh Er iRARE eens isRM aeOa ee eeatwk ee oe)se MOR COIL US CCR as OO IO -— IRECT ee ee :RE USERS oh Re Se ee Uy ay Oe AOS RU TCE EREERI SOO IOSGe) CAUCE RA RT,ARCON Pears CuSONI eee omTS oa CR a's aye FeO A iat CECE RAR E ON Sata tnNEE ata MN A MaURC GS ree isetian cmESS re CaN CaNCK Soneols SENASIEN OIE COUN eACRU ERRRGUS OCUSo CRC NY RAE OG ASEUSUCE NOSSO eatpn etaote aleTRL , ceMARAE TiS ae ae . ve RAaN ATER AGRE MIND A Rere SEESintGO AEN OhtyCitta

a .l,rtw*:w:C:C:~*~Ci«szS eeOe aeee NE Ra USAR . ESS ey outer enema tEa aetake ae eae kstelal Aaeeoes RUE INE RRS SOUR, HAN Ge GR UG COI INS TELS UCRN UHR Ea Vieam ae Ee Cera ee . Syd cette pt Leshallot aesme Poe eeSUSIE ee nenINP ceCIOO TEENS eaea bor Dene AONNOEL 7) en batAU EMM a) ihCOMO ee oeBGnC Se ea SSIS EST ae Coe Rion Ieaeke Sc OCI Aaoe SS OE a OaOOS Is GUS EUNICE CD a L sta Wuatat ie AR SES OCB I a ans Rete AEeT eee ee CMCSA ee SUBSE M iat ae ea atata A Nieteietatat atu a nen esa we NRE ON pec RUSSEN EIGN aa Dlr” MRR i.RSS ara Bags CMMI ALCS SOG CC a easier ReNs BRS eaRONEN . Help eeace RR EE Ra Ee CODE ES EN Seiat ONC e ee Seaah tee oe PS Mareen sch SAVARGratnintate eneO Ua COUN GaN ANC Se Gite eto IN eoe Se Sette aetna .ESO Reeta ee ee gosh nieces uaHiSs PAM onGRA Palate pene ceNaa A aN eece rts:—:i— gt i Pe OR eee a an TEGO SNE VASO Maco OIE RS CN OIE ENE ORG 2 NON GEM OS USAGI Ig He RaIR ReeOR npaee EERE Ba eee EE SEN SAE AS a PERIGEE ola eR, Lhe em hake incre: UG GN RSS SOE UI Ia zhCIRM MSs Hava enaeevinnduter into tan ACU CON TEESSSDIG OT NOR ICOCRON CSO UNH lanRaOO UDRSINR SEONGH NCCU NH a BEE HE ESIoRo be iia ir aaa ee nse oehsemt ectoNOR SUE) eMC Men Mnn aNeeMPIC OCRRO: OOO

y BS

OS Oe OR Ce Ree De So ee ee oe URES OSTEND GS GEN SG GENUS ets SES OSS SUSI ONS RUE GVO ON ah (ATR Ee a Re CEE Se ANN OR eet yancenren mien? © ee aR ROR TN NOUS tsiuctels ASAE ott ea ia ht tl one stat eae KO Maton TA SPI aa GUE S aN ICA

CMR UE EN SN CUNO mia TARE OU US OS) ON REC, GS) ICs REOCT eeate cy erie ee tn er me ERTS rteOSE EO en cnt ERAN! ERE SM Na E Mes Se ehRS lunMUA ee TaN) ARO CUES EINES CONS SEE GN SAIC, CIO'ASIS S30 a eerae a eePTC ae SR oeON, Cn SSG NCR Cn CREAR GAS EER Mae tyenerananimeannintarns seo eeUA SeneM KTRPC SN MAN ee tvs La Moy W stay aaa GO CLMea CRE I iN i.OSM .r,rr,rt::ts”:C:*si«s=i‘COCOCiés=siéayyC Sn eee ee Cees IGT CIN CIES SSG AU Mg eytins neon OO OO IRUS Ea OGG SS IC AORN INE ND SOTE ee ENUR NUor rod ORR UAC UO Ua NSC Ae Beers ihata tata ate CRC UU atalobi Pas Oe cr Tee SRE ER NSOSC SE URGENT ORRIN NGSCY CORON SOE Aae StTa CON RR aree SESS SPN haa ata haat align ESSE REstatist LOtaN AE Ses See ihalaaneee atatt os a ahalgae ON cae a LESS naner oe TARE OSREO ST EO GaEAI ee Oe onTGS AIRS URN EEeer8 CSE OM Greer haSP RBH CCM INC! Sa Salers Talat el nce RS ea Ciinrentoninennetaennu mceniame teedaa CIS Co ,rrrt—“‘“‘“‘“‘(‘i‘i‘i‘i‘i‘i‘i‘“ SO Osc PSE CU OO iaESNA ara enc ira ate feaSSEES ucaneacicl ccoeiaceith ci vogges i stig cet PrMN eteictesorance ee aratnyCin nl:

aOME et oh ee ISOC ONES isNefeo BOR 8) |Oe Gatien arate tes coesenie iar saeecernyet eee iscamme nee eroedie OO a NG | iIe lrrrrr,”:~—“(C;iCSCiwsSCi‘(CSCW®S OO erSie pe eC eeeel errr reat ine oRien Utae ECE YC) ROE CIA Reisen tare nianes CN Ce Cs OU MeN ONS lhe CN eon SIE Caner ninalneotlaecnarnent ce ON OCS MS ORES EN Rie WAU OILUp aneOMIM MDy Be ROP ESI EROS ORFS annSA URL INNO MEN na See eSNSN SRS niin ees 728 rer 1MMH esalate aetttES Oe AEE ey ss ERY ates Media tatitattes inl ater ili PnCOMES: Cae OO SOU DU ON US etc DOAN teint 2 Rs elaee, eee ale OBE TSENG RE a haan AR Patty Os) RRR CE UN CeO CUM OMRON EOE: rr eeSSA ee aURI ee Rd OPO ASUS cite Nala Siete oxen cnet SN ct Or TO UE GO COAG Ca OO eee eR an ak ee OOR RUNG aseater VMs aR ana CA CUO aGen eu) OC es ORES NCCAA OAS SC es i ee Sn SOsON le Be Babe REL SES RNCCI SL GE, GeFCN aR RA Ulse aly ANEccae RYN SONa NSA ORO ni oateeonty Ses AUS ORG OMnteo aes, Cee aON.eeRyttss:”t—~—iCSCiC ,,titisisti‘“OsOSOsésis*ésé=‘CSOS mete ot ee eeNRO ce en eC ee ) — . fle ee rere are ates FESS SSBUG UREN ag ne BH MO Ia aSOE SADE CARICA ae CnUII aos Sih ease Gael uel Helo Suet lconda utara Oat eee tesOe SEOOSaaa:

Be ee aeeeeeeee: ees Tr SOUT tiinrCe unoo oan mete erm a ne eee ae _ oe ee oe .t«s~*~iCsisisiaCk ICoe Nh ee Eecis Nea OO momee rom mpoN omen nC hadee DO Cees ene tee cnene ar en Pe oN ear nta ce Oe a EON OIRO NEUTER SANUS) IRRRU OLSCG IGEN ESOS SCENES SOON 4 mee a ttOO ©RR LLIN SERU a ae AE oo chante KON BO SELOLIN eanaeayaa Noe CNAIE oe ee ee oSsa EON NE ULES MANOS) SIURON eC Se NO:Oe Rais (FEISS re GN URICeri ISUBNARSS EEy OSD NN SRC RN aie Eas: ee AAG: eea CSA nena neue eZ) aNe...lr,rrrtttCi«sCi‘;éCi«s ee Wile he MR im ncn on eee ir Nata ne LUE OC NSE Be SNUG QMUN CONES COO)ROCs COON OUND NRA GUN aT ANOD ets DCU CN AU a j EME pareeria LUO SG gre N aE cePN NN Be OUISE ae aaPaiCe ee CHa an ee SEIACH MS Sra HON DUES ICMRSR SOLAR SCO Re:aa PES AO ONT AOR ONS ser AS) OT a eeSECUAL ee OE ORO ON seNl ane IM ULCES ANG SLae RO LO BO OOLSM ee etOM eee. A HEELS SOC ER ioCONS sSlies Ses aCRN co Le GOH CnC niu aeeeOR San ARSON SDSS OU Brees CO SINAN UNO aCOR RUS NOR WO EACLE BOO Oe OSaoa AGT a a eee O Bolted elt OASIS tigate! ee aa oeRC ee

OO UOCIO GY Ce NOE ORR EN CCU DRS NC SR EBON Seogee I PO SS ero ALON OGM UUC RC Ma as UA PIRES A CMO a neat aren avr PRONG not OU OGCeOe . OO ON MUON MONE D ORS ROU Oe OR Ue ene eel cee Oe iio SoG SRE, SRI MACOS ESEyeo GE AN oeOsa eeCae On COI EN OER NU OARS TO eR curio oo eegeen.) BD NA Oe ee AY ie SeLARS icaihANaria totueSOE taKG tet ashins esse cal WRENCH SINUSEUS OSNG ASAT CATGRS CHRTM AURG NE RES NE NOM EN NEGO TODO NEON Ge ees a OS SSSR SO GNU ata cea SE GS IE INAINGe Rea IS RS WANs STON ANN a 2 aavere u ; ee aie oeNO ees ee oe ee

_,,r:C~wSCCC OOOGUIN —eeerrrrr:rr—S— Be Baty etn ar itta tad gh RE eee a Se RAH ee KC neu . :Roe PEO GOREGO SO IMINO A ae ROSEN Neiistet OOO NON as ON arate crEaerrr ceaeolon tes ee CUS eee no 3 oeteee NSS ON UN RSENS BSCS Se ON GS SEI I DNS. CAI ACUI GRR Seaaoma ees Iae PURO NRaeae SIRae CSN Soaee oe oS oS ABO NESE SOUS MEO UCSD NRC ORSINI ACA RONAN CEN UGS SAC RRS ECS Seguin s kT ERAS NRO). a a eee eae eT Me ates Maal Sienna a ate ate ae ore . GIES CSUR OH ena IRON St aie mtr tnt ake SS ONS ON

BN=COO Ue SARE RON OO Oe Pe isa sco aire Da :eee Ac ee ne RIS BRM Se MeyBeee aaePO itil NOG Se tee REO BN OCU IU PN RI OCC CRN SER RGiney MeSHER un Se ae ee ee REE, ane OSES OIE NER ea are alah soe eeeIOUI as nas |... =CENCE EAE Beets apbabee fetCON Barres ee Bere eeee Dnata ataes atalino SSae NAC MONG aaaGHAR eatas, NeieOatinlesah Aoe BORING ASs eR ICUS NG ee sig a: eee See eee nO) Ce Me ;; —SOS rttttttr:t:t~wr”:—:C:CiCiCizCzt ee eigebines fore Se 7 Ge So .oeMAIR CI Sea aatic), OC OCNA OCONOI ) CO Ga NIA ene aaCiEase ergheestittet ea UE Teas Ue ee SRO aaneeae ee A Nest aprt Sthes Rati Nitmanirtss enmenipennes) Conc iene LO ICO Eu eee ESO eT 22 PEO AE SR: ee hare Ge ee ee Oe RAS COR UI iOe .,rrC~—wrCC OO ey OR DVRS ALCS laoes i oes EEoe potSHES ae SE ES ANN SN aC DON WOM CHIROPRNTHA Cs San atal PR I ie eee aie ee eee wes " : NE RISES REGO UIT IN Or ON oe SOON SRN SEADOO COUN Rint Ce SU CO a OI OU CUS Ss eeeteneae een eee a PEA ag cee 2 Ne NOE) SOG re = ee ; eeRene CeBOG SSG Ga ane eres . Peis 98ST rites! Bas cr sci teraVinge oe CESS SSESNN Ker NEN a eee ete erence es ss aes NS EON DO OO LSDEE SOIN SU SIGN CARSON eat ae aa oUs of hehe Aol :CNTR i Sle QU iSCoENCAmeDE Be Se 8 EScect PAN Sanaa yl sauce tata a.AOR Bee ;SRD) nee OS .RIES ee ee eee nPGS MR ae VC GN ON as SCORE de LU fae aERE neint ten ie Mee tel toe oy: ee eee -ON se pes :ees)UE woh con GNA MS Sie ln ag ee SESS EO SU FO REN IU Cane IEA NSS AERC Nut an(0) AT :le ely eee ‘TA Setee ate wot aS ee .IR | ina PST EE Satie ovatus ontinucorshyhytyes RO AOaa NC Ie UNEASE mC IIOSIS PERS SSE es ED pe :RR ooo Ee ee os een Sein

NO I ra eae ee es IRR oe LSTA OES OS MICRA aia ats ee CNG a Ra OSCR eee ea an

i PE ,r”—”—C”"F SEES Ore ACESS aeees" ee SS EA ORM MMM i ety Sea Nec Sestitacaats nee GS NC SEM ere eA ener UNSIY ase CMO GN COE SGORR ty aRO ead CORSO Ss : Se CRON Ni osCe RU oo ee ceiCUE ea eer teeA SSI Aa ARI, Re AR NaEOS Poe RR eaens ial Se OUR BaPO aSaPersea RatRCCAUIN NCC at RENE ALN catlentet ONION aasinn ee oeees eeOPN erAOR eeeeSOD NORIO CS EN TN? SC Cia: See COC SON OE CO

-ttee ; EBS SESS 1S SEE eae ee LeCG ek ee SSOC) es eea OS NO I ce JARRE : ee ee OO a....rst”: ONO SORES (SSI 5 a : eae : oun ae ee) I eae OS SIAN TOCCOA CICK OS CONG ee Ti uteta niee ete ee pokes an ber) Gk ORS Sire BaP RIE Casati a ra RR EER EARNS

|... ee eee PPS eee ee ee a

Be aes AC HEU neeS RRR ERE eR ae Rie ntLEGR pen EE :yee ‘ eeL ,we Beoan BON me NR eeASU OOK alia kehstu SIC RCO a Oe CUIDOI GN EOE SO Ed ee ele nebee pele eg Spee : EC elne aae aDR ee aR PO 7 RRC IOS AN Sa he CRG ene —,Dm,r,r,rrrC~”CCsdsCS OG COOSA ces arene pana os lager SIE ee es UN TANG NODC AUN AUT BO ea aONES UG RGSIII CSUSB AGE, ae :eehloh aBein ON 1Ov A es Sa lL. SGT Pease : Le LSE ea eeAN a LORE ARON NSeeLOM CB2 COU CUNOt NS BO oe OOSeoee OU RIN CGO CONG EI aa eee eREe EIS Poel woneTabees ppgshCae let See OO OO, ORES Oo re ME eine netars ce BC RUC CCG OR OR OU CICS SUNY: OU tae eae E Sos . whDMass JsRei lsAMANO ee| Rs ee aN NGC A neee Pee ae Ny -_— ..ll.,ts*”*~— — cannes aLa :ane MEARE : a noes coNN ee ee Gs coe ea es eaten RStyose ee SeaSala ste ete eon eetSsSoe pat wet nah, ee i EEN Arado ae rN Di EASES AeAShee DO aN Seas oarsstaat Ese EGS

la ee Riri Meta SERN VON Te ON Hi ee Hees a RCN eet al Sidhe : aed

litebaSASS : aoe DEEDS meas e Rar ee2ee eae‘ ie:pate :: ‘: Lai Svs : Sanaa Reece itor es sisicoe. ieee ere nyBEEN ice egg “ hae . awa, SEYSeen estrieiagete oe

: OOS Bee ee Sg EE. ns ui .eeere oes nee ae eater tere ee *ance : vale : :¢: Sa spOSG eye igs aa SSHee am:ae Seer :nA (EEnar Siete nsarena SS Eeee aeoe cee

gee DORE ee7 Pear ae :DPoe eee ieee aieee: aoefh ”ee: Bee: ee ae oe ee ie Mast aoe Soe Sennanee a :Ents 2 : SoPES ieBak 2 me (ae nse eee oe aS rn ee ee icess ae one fatme lett:RE Bley wee :eee Clin ues ataait fosae te cates CC ee)re aeee Me

aee ema See ee eee pe eRfbb PELTED :peri mee, vee nsPata : . Se ee ae seen Med ee a iaaps: . eae Bete eee. aeee so Parana et orn .a . : :i .nts 2“oy oo my ueEe Eo akg aS stat Rohe aeJ oe od wigs :enn :an . .ae :.:WEISS creamer ad ee es canes, eS ee ae ee pean felts :¥mee ae poe aaes aaa NG ae Haha DO 8Recs RS Poe eames serie us apeaate Soe ote pean ee ibeats esAY Be Be. cars eben ea ta oe a:oe Iiiiast :Pe oe eats Ny ae 4ee ee ood 2aeike hee ‘Cen ilyPs) Sane es :;:an *:iae eae ..oe ::en Rearaahee a4SA Cece ncas cia GN ee ak ee eee eee ee Rete Mi idstlel vee . ae ts:ee:“:cas EE See silat OO cura OO Woe SRG: Bete nee eeea eile NER Caer :ee: aero _ Se tagROME: OS SAG eySE ae Oe tal ee RRA tat Se ese gees ae Toe PO EES : oe) eae Meee cit cer ay et an i Ns: ae pene, Cae a eee ENS ne ae : o ee at ee ee ah Alec Cane ae Coa COTA Bee se Se ee Reeaen een Se eenee : Mes : ee oe oT oo ona |ee“ ae es oe a ee veoe oe ee eae Ese ne ; wis oyanaes INES REESE eecioe aoe a oe So ee eae LS : es PEE ee oy es ae oe [ BRE areas oe eeen 0 eeaap vistors a pee lass me ae care RarCU Wicars cooeOE ce esoe ae ue em DAE Soieee AS! aeSN SE ae ee aHORS Boers Caen : . feist : SREEEES Poe o Sey At ineatceas i eai) seyOa tae ee on Peese As oe. ies sige Ea ea OSs See or°ete ae nates cre ESR esSent ees oa ee Pen Se EEE Pose toa es : .Lh !Tocoe Ne eo cos ey ae io Suro: ater ee. en Maes onoar yes shai Aee ess eeLo aDa iae ae Ny Bayne Aae aCS as ce POs ee Oe aseinen ie ae les :WE :get eee CO Oe eeaeae ne ae ae afs ERS BeOS piace’ eaeiarapats reas eeSEs fee: 5wel Putas Neie‘ON Sete oiCOON Looe ois ae SOROS OeMetta HREOC NE a*: 7:5aan Sennen eeeOREN Reea eo ‘ eea ae aBeSN oe Aes: el ss eos : Be eee SSS Donnas phone J Sere etree oe wanie PGeeOO ARR aoe atae ogee ee

Pn eo ERO AND =veh eaeraee :Paes :2Oye BEM eCey ee oeae Oe a ys Sete. : Bie ae ee SONU Pt :!Panis sree! fey nee See ee. has ee aaa ae Oat olaeean an Coe aoe Pyne Sten eee eee iEES iedNs: :: :M ee tsee tries Lees LEON ARRS Ce he es ita Gabe Bes Meee a ee Gare niae : Ted en eee |Siri ck oieeee Pane Loe AA aa pees sgone Ce Peis” er an eone (gee : anes . : ee . ws Be A ca sana ee Oeoes Hsates Te ae Sige Bice Aa Ce Sae aaa aN Le psa Bes SPS ces ee :eae anaes aSay Cae Oe es ee Ss ceees oak oeeee aeSeaeee eee "SS F oa OES: i oe Me aenoe ee ti ON 2 ee oyihe — oe eee ee oe Ons Bape Sus een.5eres . EEE SEES ee oeUS ne. cn oeieee a ee Ne ee eae Siete ee eeoeoes Sr Ss aS parent ss irs WERE aecaer CEPR SEee PgSaar: en aaaSs on Ne reDN Nic ws ce CO ata al Somes ee ieee SO USES eens ‘ Betta ve Beeee ponds ee) SEG ok eee Ruy Seo iiecs LO Oes oral Ree Scone Sales neat! paneer pore .iy eine A tate PO eeee ees oe eoee ;

Ry ey SelBee ik "¢ SG ePes i Does ie “e :asa > ¢“gisele ocby sesoe "a le. Wes eastSo faeOA DAS BAA Raepou AS Maa i Cy egSeite ae ieeas: FST As Racivis pects al? ‘s siei ee . naSAD ara ta A ON i Pai Siena Bia) SetWass) ee Raas ga ‘eos ane ee Del ae Bes nae s: “32mat feyhag eee ae Hae Se oeBae LO Sia UR Bues ee oe pee. Seen ter eee UE eee oe BS oe ae. .aeeeoy ee ae . ReeDE ees otEee cas _donee 4Syae oo eehe . Ba ot Petite ic Wee (3 hee wrasse ee he oeeeat Zamas fe ahs! Bag Pee aI Silos a all aa Se2 Ms on es aa, an) a. ae a) atoe eee He age

ile Be eee Reto rne htspars Racers Speeerta ee anne es Petob Veeaanaa ae aoaeaeos oe a4eroS sae Ce Pe ee eee Oe aEeaus aoe.Oa oe oe Se oes og lyaeReee eee: |elena ene Bytee Tents at ape ete ale oeate aeSe ‘ghctoS iat ins Pecos May ae oe oe ee et Can tearoe ae eee anata ee eae ae 2eegy Ss ioooePas oF oo xea oe Poe ee eee Qeusates Seep CMSaa SS Haiat aieare a ier eatet fs ee eels ne ee ae aoe eeSe GsaDe se 4 SOESan rite Ses eesShey Mee ee eee fee setae Benne! Pcie Eeelstetiee anRear he aaLSS oN ane Be PNio Si as eee OR Ei. Sets SN Viet ceese! a ae ieeeacne Begin Sees Hee COU ohooLe aSec Ba to. : oe oy Be ie Oe Teeee aoeeeBESS: ens Bhbes eas nyees cs ety ardeo ees Cae eeeeaa ee aa ae oa oo ae ape TIO a ee oe See es es RS ee oe eee 8 a oo :Peas ee SS eae aes Re, SS, esfas eeceeAeon Ds oe COG esCo een alies Ss Meee en tiesak fais! i om aNee SS EEG eeee ESE ESTs PESOS Dasa oo ee Me a )veal ey Oe yo Seta SRG oeees ig Pear, LOAN Ss alies etl pice Seas Ges ee ee EES Gocee Sepia aseencie ae a aes Teae ra nyCa i sy RRS caBinh Oa BaNg yas ENED setae ae a 5 Se es hte RS Le as os Cee aa Kees Co oe eo ae ae coeeatBeles a ee ate ee BEB See ee ee seine os sah So ea CO ee Se SNe Sue Piette Sera sae esESN ca Selene es ieinte oaifCisilid ay aoaoat Pay oo OO oeRON oe sie CooN ee Saar Fiat aasa eee ESSE SS eee Gee Pees ee Senet eat eo pase ee at) a)PN eeesRanta HS ENNe SNe eeeee Dee Ue ieee as Sheva ee Boeqed a Bese oeSuara seo ceane aegeen See See siete betters at ere ee yous thieoe iter oe inane ARES Se a ee ae pts nen

tee Said Sos ee ae eee. ene Se: eee SEEN E Roe tear ean ats Lanne eat CS Het ss Vs Wie. a NOTE Ney Sane ee oo a ay ey eesti i mip are.ceee SNSe aN eis gailee aSs Moe ete eeees ee Ae SEs ieMN ae A Set ay Nate Onion ERxeas SINGIN ane esRey, Pee oa CNEU GaN ae teat: :ois oo Be Bee een Be aCN ey oo Ps oe ae ee : . es Lhe Bea WS esas8 Bee Oe Coe oe PSs oo ee ee FG ous es eS. ae.Sth) zi ae ne nae Rn ee eet BES eres oo)eal eeUR eyPied Leta ee San ROG eeoe a3 eo ae ia ee SEG SPO hesehefeceetati elsha tises Seeuieee Aa heer heSOO ie oeeaS Ss Rtaie Doe Sie| VEN cae CURIS eG Ses i

eS tes cae SC, eeeUae ah eres esbetes Si een Greee as Page's Petee Eeesce CRN atONG Ce Usee a Nou ee ayy Acai tS ea aoe neae a SK OG, as ne: sisi Re eeBe UGE aeiaee tee Bs BODE eee ree EeeSMe ast Re i ete mae Gs ae ae ee Ma Se eeUre aeES Serta Es eet ge oa Fie seh Be fron .oeoe aaNY Sa eeee sent cees bertnie een Sy By) ee ey ee eypcre ees ee eos ryoe iise a)Ge Wire oe EO iat aeON Loh GO ieeeNase: Pere Sandel be ue ibaa Son SNCo ee a ee Gane ORs ane eeaOe rea OD Nw eae Gu eeSY RSM oeDe NNN Pa: De Bari Be er a nit ea as Po SG es ae ce) ausa? ae fetane ee ce oe. GG ls sae oe EG ee iAee eaeee osree ne ae. aeiae Aee LOO ‘ae pee as hee So iyaes oo. aee aie IPRS Re ee at esCM Ha Nas pees ae SeSE esSs Ce Gecaceaee aon Pen aes tts Pease ncis ee ae anes. Pe BC etee nea heDies aes ce SS aeeaon ea au Sees Ui aoa oeenn aCOs On Bei a Su He Oey Sue EA Be eateee Sahay m2 aeae TN eeeear on eere es EY, eeec: See ee sal oe aOe oes seae ine Oso eis a LoS US CHEE SisBi Cas Eee Pine: i eM cee Se Sees ee. es a 8ee neDies eeSa iNco an ee a Stes ns) ee Ly oyDT Tesauna oe see

rear aa aiehte besean as DHA HON atetPee eeepene ESSot pe| SNe Nias es ee ae ey a teeeRN 53 Ete ee Va Ne)OU Ronee ae Nie SANG ee i ieee oteGEES Mi oesa)PePiRipec cee a eee Gearon TaSESS oH aeare Niall PalAIN RRR a i?jones al eaSRE EN On RCOIN, ‘ie Re Ben aeDah, aS aes: aeSM aaati Ne Ne. Cees aesPES eo eS ESNS LSSiG Baty eae ae NG oe »OG ieee ee BOD eas ea Se MEN SE CHE Be os Sane ee RG Hen Jag eet PED nenaN seteti’ ea, eee Na mae OR as1eee St, ae ee,oeSo tae ON DONS BUN ONS eo fn Hea : eeEe Beco eeae aa Abit esSeaticg ovum aste—— Ieee GS Pe acral ee eyaee oa OE NbN SN area aeSt A SsSPSL) me Sai He ANNE Oe RNY neeaes Se ihe ASN Pee Oe SAMS EEA PES reachat CRs ean HO AN ety aa ee NCO LAs GG es tte cy Cael RES: Sh Pace ES 58, aeES Bie neies Ela A) ie eri hy alee aur’ DAC BNNs aly eeitita! HAS SOI Baiss GsSA aeies aaNah Tceier aoeeGEES! Bein ieOe Coie eee ere SSeS nate Eee eee Rone NO alas nt he oye aaa OS eeeS SaSa FOGER aSjigs ea eee _ Se om Sa) os es See nay ae OSS SS SiG DAC als. es oeeeeeieaeCO elweeee DR eee Nae ae CAR ay:ON ONG: CGR ian Vl aatiah

Be oe ne poe es ee EES. NSE So at Lo eee ae) Saag Be ee aN NE co ae Se ae Oct g

Be ee: Eee eva DON ate ciasheets ro ee SLE ye pee isSeige Py eliafaed Loeat ea ae ts HONG, oe eV aN ele Blt Sah aHSen Hosa Ai NN so ents esice Beeae aee ie‘oo 5} Lean seat 1EES ee EEE ae va eSaaa es 1sera Vee BR cot De Ae HG ihee SPsai Soe SiG asPytn ee fae oe es oe AS: nn Oe ame ai: oe . erBS ehsel aiOeAes ee AEG SSS ee aetiHe ae eRe Ua easeeeAteeCOC afe oa Soe ae aNat oeieDy es Selle Sods lsifoa aans Oh Me RDco Nag bees pees pee eesoe Se ie GiON La Vaes Ai He igs ee ee eli RCI HES iy eas Cre pve Oo Sean ieeahaae ISS Ee See ial Sevinint eeatio a AN yeaCe ea AG Say eeine ‘ eeUne api Ae Cnaat oyooRSS, Lk Ree, onan Ge ah Re kar fe gata beae aa MS: Eee See EES Pu eaEso eine ee Oe CO ei Bs Bo a oeeepane iaHONG BON vane OSES alae RLe apSe Oo He east ke es ie CO ,8ony eat CO aR at SO Ones ieRYO oe Ces aes eae aes. peehes Nie NhSas Peete aaa He ee ii Soe eee eae, eee SN Moe cea enue a ORES Os Oe Di Wine Sey aFN Oa Noy EER pase’y Pen HNP tat Ree eee eee LORE OSs 2S! Ce Boa Seige ee Oe f Bc DnaSa 0 ee eRAie aee hat aN LS Se Pe SAY Raacn Nn: ee Ua aire aR See i ie eee SEO UR ee Nei SN) Peis ee LS Be) aoe Eo Oe See Pi eae ae eaten i SOS IStoro eon oe up on era Peet Nshehe ekeae PEAR Sahay iaRenee ee sa eanM ee TERR Ss SAHA eae Rio LO ieBR Sie cautis: Be Say Seseee gsAish ant ACIS seta a Cae ee Rules EE OU on, a tou OO ectine Sioa y oy eon a EH ihe Coe ea Manic ee Oe ie PK NU eat To oa os Mee ee Oe a | ta ee Rena eis ZS ae maa: oe ts See ca tees Pa ass SOS SOU ee eed ee ee Tee eh HAUS aoe eis Es a pee ine a Lo Vea 1 ate ei ee . : oy re itBean BeeeaeOU aesCES? ee es eebee eseae isl Sera aie pe es os eGBAe weiss a ihe esAan ee ein OsON eee see oadLN Da tN eres eet ene Sn ESR ONOO ea me A feeeee i) aterga Bee Bs 2 Las ee ea:

Siacaceake eoAti na oe eyeae aati AAte Biss: ae obvi eteaoe eS: reRoe se Bs ES site Ponrant Sits Gs ies ea Se sNsiaa ete assas 1Sar i nae oeuN Oa: SSS eG Luigi Da pete Aus oeseat, ancl La te Co EO Cn anne |OOO es BG aes iSU a. Se Mite eo es: eeae So ila Domne ee Sea anesOhPe apant eeLOGS es).atA Oss Rs oes at os See Wat Pease A ees iNet ceeSi ea Seleea iti pe oa tas Seerae GNSS SEBS inte Peet ee aHea ate EG a) A hone ae eeas oe: ee!ae : Sa pea aaCe oath PAC Oo: aces ee Re C1 ae ae eee i NIE Bele Oe COR aoe Ieseteae aeae eeee eee Saas Le ASN peesceiestes aoe Hage ae RON ‘dee es,Eas ai Pata ats eine aeea eel eee he Seoy LsOa TS Real oe Peele si oN BO aoo esLCS aN uaa) oe elon Nialnett Ny ate ieee ee ee sissies ysROeae een ney stats aeEen SeOM Cae oe aeats oe reaeHee (acc Maly a yiWA SUN eeaeeae se ee (i Hoek eeRonse Tae:NS Ue? aiPauee se oh oN Oynee Tey, SaPag NNtenPe ey cS es 4Sac eesapohotts Oe ay a as Sars Baek Beet Cee ee Bes ueve Ree Reece BeNees neeOs SSE VOSS eee eneae ieAu oe 5% Cau eetre PU UN Ee Oe RONEN Mia ) Henan iia i a. Oa) ee ee A he aes Seah ee ene SA ee ae Soe ve) Oe BN ett oo We A aN Se o OU Gh shee. (Noe eee itt COE ae SSH sat ease ee aes: a SNe BORER ie Raley carts) 1 GsSO: a: eeAes.niet EO A) ee alee Pe oe ie: BO ALN pee Pi eeans OD oie ON oe Mee ay oes RS ORD oeee ahh aeetKee oe vy \ aaa St alec _. es OePrec oy.ace 1 os LN Da. ae one

eee ae 2 ae ne ee ae a ee oo. oe 8

Da Se yh Me |heeae fF aoeSe on oe waee OCG aeecehe ae Oy oo ReOe ae OeARN ORR enaeG ti ee HN aeNe oa aee taaeoa ze osetn oe iee oo eeosaie, ON) UNOS a aesa . oe iitMe eiaay oa RNs 2 tae iCo ueNG an rider ce BARS eeSCO SN Os ORIN .en osatKy hy Me Ce Le Pie ai.) Rt res ae oo eeNis ooeats PEON foSk— LOY aN Ge eeaS eea. oe Bo Mae _— ealssve eee Ge a oo. CO Ge eee oo " aee allPGs Ce ee AG OeSa.Syue :EB i.tinyCo ye! iaeeSoe iae aeeOat Co ose Se NERS ereae ea Wee Co ee oo er nN oo eeoean ieee esa ER SNee alea Nh oy Tehee aeres ossea. Oe) ONG DO ne pees oo ae ae ooeas: aea ee Les CG COs OE aula uae oe casi OU oe eee ee eeSG ete esnen oeaye ee aeNoe ooOOS og Se ae cia Te ae as a a,‘ih Dat Sine RNA sel rae PN DE eoaaeOe ey fete aoe Oaae SG oe ee ee SG An i Oa UNG a Pees aia ee Soe tice nh an AUR he teeaieame Aube LNs eps eas nee SRN ten eee Ra OOS LOR ENG

eS Tectia aa ccGs ee) Allies sett oo Pera es Da ais Sete es eee oO Oe me ee ities ooNGA a, iy Nigger an Ce A Gs, Hine eee eee eioe tan eG aise BUSS aan Hil ee \ wae NGA aeee nn he a Ne PO Oe OS Sanit Ae ea Megalo BN ltCoe beth Che: ieeee AG Rate eeeSees ath sneha ee? PGRN JOR ae ‘iGee Aote PIN aes a ae DR ae aENON URS Oy RON Ante et ea Aaa Bay tent eA 25 aue«iORR Rs lo ea ee ate ae ON OES Di ks ae rae Te Dees bear eG ae Ae Ne ON ee Mai aCHACHA OOK oe De oe See mse Mate ible thy Cat aeetal aca asates aNd Doooe Pee aUses ORE CHGS » aA Soe Sal helo SNS Vea ans etal aeieSU EN ee, eS SRG SIRaiOS a‘ti iPONE chal aR es TE nS hee aie So ey ee Ne ee es ceet: ne eae ANNA Noe La TO SC enale ani cae |as Sal eS asey ee tees Sioa ntsae aM Pe escian PeePa Hane oNa iae eee NO a) ae HORN aN oo AO aN ~~ Sis aeioe Dy ieoe) esence Nene oo ie any eG sie aheh Bi tie aNSae Ne ont BUDS aNOS PUN aeDEN oeoe ee Cea ae Aee eos eee eeSee shaGeers eds HRN Se EaNae, HORAN Sie Wee Oe Sy OsCe OSBe) CORON Ve shas reaSa ae iia LN EASING Py ook RNG ee NEES teeaieen Bae Gs Oy Wee Neeos istah NOei ieee Ns BIO EERO ERR i aN Cnt ae nee oeSegoe eek ne PN ee erin aeer iSS ao, ee ae ae ne as es ssee oO ee ee POs ny Bite eG ae reas AIS esy poe ieee eeAi eeen caterer renSaiae BON cna a CO oe Oe SVN SU VaR os iee a NRG i a ae GAIN oo DoS oo ae ee an a oe Bana Lae Hc i een ne Oe Lo oo ae Se ee oo Bo Gay's en on rouse oe rae te: ae oe oe Ro ah ee gee. ae a Ce LONG ie Se Nia So =acee Pica Caer abet: oo i saunas ae ieee) eee ooaa Meo Ne aeCE ae oe OM aee WS PO KONA SOsLOG BEN SUG aa sienna: Oesane a Seeae tats SS Pasi Pie oere Ne a. BS osieCUA SONG SN Me Ne MAS ee ON, elias INES ee SC Rah ay: HONG Ma Teas ites ee eee CE RR Ln eee RO Si a Me Taha ae a) Fe a ee 2 Ge ee Oe SO Me Ges se ee as! Ee a te eae aes SNe. eee fee te Hs Gs a MUNG Pees Gea CORP: oe PSG: one POO SSG a: BANG SOS SOR Aeeeeyooalec ste ae aoe es sat ens ee 2a eeePeas ai oe We_LA Oe er ayOne Rak SUAS as One Le TES at Be) oanvat aes ee eae Poe Go beleae a}SNe a sae aaa8 Teeato aie!es PC aeLo LONGoa eas Ne Os 7eeAO on aCk oe oe ee oaRes ~HERI: 8Ratna oy oes aOe oe aate=aemae aed 2oe ee Os oo eeaeUE ST oe ese tign ie Soe FT ee oy eeCBG Oe ee anes cae EON Oe oe Oe sll. Beri et neaPvataek aes ree tne Ui oe eee NOON en aee ae aeeee). 2Be ae 8ie ee: ae oe Oe co ae ag ms SeCo ste Dean cae SSRI eh esean oie ee Me sents ee ee eeae ey Be aiOa UNO aoS OR aoo WAN gh Aue chPe ari HON ae eo eeee ASC ae POR. pe ee “al ieee Uo oe aie Wah ee aEUR aeritiai| ate Ae Saath Meta arsaetal eS Boo COM: Riker ike ae Se: ee aSee tie So ae Pe ee ee MES ssoe oo aaa’ acau oN eh eee ey SiN See |ee AN Oe Dy ES ae Pes ae aU lets aa Ke PSR wy COTU eyane eae Coy Ses oe hie? war si Giieicn ee See: Ne ike ah: SS ae(ayn He: ISeMees Ae ety ees ae Be ON bie NR eeay i ab coe Sen eee eeeae ee eeSSee wi ee) Ce Seer Bas DW eae Se eee eae ROK Cae aes Yes anol ase Ve aeeseR eae ee,Md ese vos Pune pee aees feeee Hae hasROS Syrians Pe oe a aes | Re deOO oe | eae eee Ovie Di ai SR BaePAO BO SAG Se OUR ne aes Dues i ey ds oS Sa A Noe A as Se a hee ae a ee akin ae LO OS Fe eats eG oie Le MBE Pao hcaadl ee a Bees pe Ns ies Salat ee a ow) er om oo oat ie Se ee! HONS oe : ee oo aca ee oe iene ieatee ORS os as a es me oe Uscy) reee ee Cate an ee on, ieee cere(ees eyEN oo Ru ie gota! ati oat soeGt ee esaeSoe ees NO one :eens aes Le ae Deis eehe La aaa aiaohes Pea eee oe & mA Fs oe Lea GN! SNeaa Rakeepere seat Eons Heese Be Beinant ce fy ier COaoe aa pane Sasaee deca aie PG ils Euoo OOM fiche es oy oN es ae anpeer rerNsees Dee es BO ne Re OEE SPeUan ie a ee Hae ee Pelee wait ictitac cna Aees ee: i ee ols FOS aes EN Noa OS ie es eneet eee Coat Nae Hees He ee ps ee ae capail eeBay ee secre Ue aAOU ee Oe Datei aesCm ooaee SNe at feyeaeeNagi f.Ses (ise oa ae et) es “cba eaOs, heaDsoe va Soa ae as Uy is eo as ae eeaisee i

2caDoeaeeoekg=atee ngae- olen oe oo oy ee oeoeo oe ae ON a cfooPeo a Ce oo2- oa ae hee eo ol oe DA Gee oo Saas We Hiss Gps: aye a eee Penna Ue NE ee vee Ha ai ey pers ee ae cs ae Sita: sie! Ge sabe DOG Re? Gees oe BNR Raa FON ee:

8 oo Be te Ms SS ‘ oS os oe ae a Le eee oo ais ane co ae Te oo oy oe _ eee

Ben aediNO yarae SaNbieoh ae ieBae. Re a Piss! oa ate RA bitte ) ee aN a Ri eo ats i Pe) Pas aa PoeaN Neh Geee PEN LEes Weis eneyeeaeon mepeeoe: Onn see aiaPaioie oe Se oisiesSleae Neas a Tes heady es Mody Na ce es aae

ea ea et So oe ee Los oe ce a. Dae a ot me tie aeeS (geoe Be oeee— oyaea neoaPs | ee—aeLOi oF ee ae Bee : a oo ee el a oa tae 6 ee ne My oe ee AO oo eae oon a hia eas oo ee as ra. Ph nat oe ee ae eon os peo ae ea ho a Oss ee os Al PA ests aa) meStel i gee as NN LAaeae eetptaaPostheA ital Wages: eeLeoe eG HO oe aia Uk ie iast AIC OR Gee ee ue Ge Aesee bit ieee ataae ee ete vale oe alts ere igicress aa Minne or MatSs A LORS ey Co eMTe ee Sane

Bee Te iseae Rikiot in ce eee eee MineNs ea aN Ta eo ia | Le ole ilies ee oe De ei Niaoe ae cee URN OS aS eeHe a a es aN sO ies ah SePes oeoe.ieee eetet eS aeBann oe os ehiooe DeeNG aes He eseesot: Siees ee

Aaa nHaeesferns ete ens aeBe a ae oe OE Soegia, BSON eaeaaaoeoeeat aSNS ae. Hiya CY fas ee. ee ie MeaNSavile ns ee i ee we Nears aasal EES ENG ine aeIA Le oe Case fs) eae oe OE aOu ee eau Sy SSG cic yo oeAt eo sees ce oelp aye eee ee ake aN ee) eS POE payee, gi aesPea,ae He Ue ids pista sine a)nas i FSaE a ae icetlye eSuti DESENER oe Da Pikes DEGinte Hin a Vices eeaati SOames Ma aici iiaititea)oeae aes ee ekSY, cena Rea iesaL oeAaa Wee Deane eee VR eeAON Oe aee D ‘one os nheercad

ue aPa aeaie aeees ie ioe hd ee ..ae oeoo 2a aeeae Ae 7Coe ol eoa— oeoan es ie oe oege

Pa Cae Ae eee i ee HCO BS ae OS 5 CONS es Me Misa eae ec Le oe aes TSS A ih We RV OO SU) On Heche Lolitas Me A

oat et Oh ie Coane ei ae ons Se oe cae ete a i peace Le ea oe en UNAM ma. eS is Aa Hos

ne i rane es Lye eeePate OBR: i NoSy TaHse ae UR RENT cetNat ete Laas A ONG vt ooaNG POVOn OeAUER Be se UsRae She PON. ORS Ha Tees pci: anna | eA Nels oeHYD Wen‘ieeueset eePe Peal cADOM x ten EAS Cee PO Oe RO La) OY AOS ONG OAN Se) SRK GONG SORA UCU Mae LO RS Stitt aie eaten ie BG Seapine so one ae eas SONS Hee oat oe RCs ISON eR CORO) AUS i ‘ OSES RE TREE « es SRN ON AN ASE a Arete eras Wai OR EIS: 1 eee PRN aac MGR aa oe Be FOR S UOe eos a PCM O RA Oe ee DOE Ok BONNER PO ae DUONG Os NS I eA Se UN eee eaten AOU tnenes OS At eget ane ois Ue Riera ae tenes ROU Ds Bee SO See Ce me Dee CN

EEE a RS Ce WA SON ae oe EE NOS Peer a SO Os Ao le Oe Ne eae ke COO a oe es

ee Oe ae, oe canines OI aes oe ee OR eee | Cee Samant CO ace oo Co ee ee TO oo PO see ee ann Ve Oy Foe cae ORE Se ee eeLL Cl oe oo aVy Se OG ae ONO ON5 BAUS es pee. es Oe ORS i.ees )es oeOr ie ioe. eoae NS CeI ee) Cee One eo Lo CoG ye Se oo Ree) ey es es oo oo - ee —KGS oVe oe ‘i oy oe oe Oe oe eey Co eg Lo .Lo oo oo oeSES Oe os UC CON OOO CO en ROR eetoo SOROS A ns ano— Coe on aOSE ae ee. eeaOe ee Oe eesREX Seen LOO RO) ae OG, Lois x Rie atatennnte ereResa Do OR CULE OND Si ERC SE On aN s Vara pe oe eeDO Os Lee Ox Os SEA RNY Ss) SOREN RRC SOREN R28 SRO oN RONEN Su inelintats SOE CORES > at Ru eM ae ayes) ath NA nM ges? OO ae GN A te ean DESO URSIN Sey ee Ce SO DOI ON Sn ex SOS

CEO NESO eG) PO NS easaCs ORNS eRxOK Mee iiale8OG REG SRR ee ee eae eyOS ee ees oe ee OR OR COS ERR ee ONO a SONS ON RSeaCo Oe eeSO CoCOS ee LONG oeONS Co Re Sa CUO. BIRO IGS EOSean es DOU aCE aas LOaS ON Ga, as— Re aooooSOO oe Bo Lo of OeOSI OO a OS DOSS PO ee NS oe. Leee oe aaLS _DOOa Loe asOU soPO, Oe

Ee ey LN CIOS en Ss2CO N SURG A OES ENN RAS RROSeane aieReta SSUN NIRS ES SOBRS OES ISG: neOe: ESR aea :eeaeNee s en "TRS SON SAAN BRNRoe NN UNE NSN Sara a oasseyea tralia tineantOO Ae ONES Oe aLOS Pa Wa ON SUNS SHOR SGRoe ee Oe RE ON ESOU ES Se TIRES DINE EN SONG. AN NG SENG GOR sone Sas rae ON RON SONS SON DOD ON IRN OG es S AN oa es BO DO BOS OOS ee BEES OSS ORs RC ee COR CO

ROO COSOR NERA ERO CO Ua oo aLU COIN aeCO SAU Os RN ERO PCOS PURSE ae eee Day SRO : Oe aes Oe Gas MOSES DONC SSR UNS 2RA OG aUGS KO SG SAY, PU SURG US OAC Se,Re ee oo Oa.Oe SOON aSOON CGOke Cae Oe ROO Aa 2. Pe ORO. Ue AeeOe es aOU eee Ue eoLo eee aTORE OU sk ecARIENG RON SG Oe Cee eeBUR (oe OO NOG aOR as, —aa SOOO CeCo GCoe OOH CON ve . Bee DOS ORS i ON Cos “i US oe ee KOs ORs. SRN a. Oe yee EN A ee ye We RON Dee oo Os Oe oe oe Se eS Be : ° :

Looo.o. oo. oo. CoI 2. .sera aeeeeee ;iba bBe i ee eo aeCo oe Co oe tec : :; 7es : UES : : te | an ( } 4b Tee oe oo . Oy .. eee : : Tee Mer a SE Dee OS Co Le OES OO . . vi ad Mm 4 thologic DNitVOR 7HD . gine v:aaalllt Ny ;qa( 7-:tM % vais ON :ieo' 4i“— .:the -72. :OOO ;}i>ieslaieieien hey, A ;| Ea sig, mit rh44i \. aq or .as gt: ii. Py: pa, :5—i:i.qoo ij ae BN ee .S aiq Ae. a‘VO a .F a et} oe m Lee S€ iei igs cil :ime :_ 6g aie: Portrait aiietas . ;yf ee, P.7) Courtes F8 Cg Te ae. ge te Cea ;a i 4 7 7E ‘yD ;%%

. NS LOS oo. — oe Oe a a eG Be Ca. ND) a oO Coe : oo Oe elite arse ca ie me : : 7 ; i i j \ | } if a

muOona ‘ beeae i, Panen jc ralle eC. . *. 117 i ra

The Experience of Women 165 children may have equaled the number born to mixed couples. In the majority of cases a Jewish father is recorded (though this is not true in eleven of the thirty births between 1813 and 1815). It 1s possible that in some cases these unnamed fathers were Christians. Even after taking all these factors into consideration we are still left with the fact that at least as many Jewish men had illegitimate children as Jewish women especially during the years before 1805. One must then explain why the perception at the time and by later Jewish historians pictured Jewish women as the chief libertines and not Jewish men. Some of the explanation comes from the nature of the situation and some from conventional attitudes toward women. It was possible for a man to hide the fact that he had a mistress and illegitimate children, but a woman could not hide the fact that she bore a child out of wedlock. It is possible, therefore, that the Jewish community might not have been aware of all the cases of Jewish men with Christian lovers. The father could get away with payment of support for the baby in many cases and not have his personal life interfered with. One also has the impression that some of the children were simply placed in orphanages and not taken care of by the couple. In any case there was an unusually high infant mortality rate among illegitimate children. _ Since according to Jewish religious law, children of Jewish men and Christian women were not Jewish to begin with, the Jewish community may not have thought much about the baptism of such children. On the other hand, the children of Jewish women and Christian men would be considered Jewish and the Jewish community might have seen the baptism of such children as a major tragedy. In addition to these factors, it is clear that one of the factors influencing the fact that contemporary reports and belles-lettres as well as later historical accounts emphasized women’s extramarital affairs was the traditional “double standard.” Sexual activity outside of marriage was considered a much more serious offense for a woman than for a man. In Jewish tradition only relations with a married woman

but not with a married man were considered adultery. The libertinage of Jewish men was thus considered less important and shocking than that of women.

Women’s and Men’s Behavior during the Crisis: Conversion When it comes to patterns of conversion, the evidence uncovered by Deborah Hertz shows that women were indeed the “pioneers” of the wave of conversions. In the period 1770 to 1806, women were the majority of those converted. In later years men not only equaled but far exceeded women in the number of conversions. Hertz also showed that women were especially predominant among those baptized between the ages of twenty and thirty and concluded that women converted

in order to make themselves better candidates for marriage to Christians, while men converted mainly for career reasons. The overall figures for baptisms in Berlin shown by the Judenkartei in fact far underestimate the degree to which women predominated in the pre-1806 wave of baptisms. This is because the vast majority of those listed in the Judenkartei for

166 THE SOCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE CRISIS that period were the illegitimate children of mixed couples among whom females

were only in a slight majority.'4 :

Among adults who were baptized, the predominance of women in the early period of the wave of baptisms is especially striking. Among those aged twenty to twenty-nine years of age, women were over 70 percent in the period 1770 to 1805, slightly below 50 percent between 1806 and 1819, and a mere 33 percent of those listed between 1820 and 1830.'> Among those baptized at age thirty or above, men were in the absolute majority in all periods. Among teenagers aged sixteen to nineteen, males and females were evenly balanced in the periods before 1820, but males outnumbered females by five to one in the 1820s.!¢ Several things about these figures are particularly striking. First is the fact that (before 1806) women were most numerous among young adults of marriageable age. Second is the fact of the rapid disappearance of female predominance among young adult converts in the second and third decades of the nineteenth century.

_ Both facts are associated with issues involving the motivations for conversion and | the differences between male and female motivations. There is considerable evidence that women’s conversion was very frequently related to marriage, extramarital love affairs, or family pressures, while men were more likely to be swayed by career considerations (although marriage and romance were factors for men too). This did not mean by any means, however, that either gender operated in a homogeneous manner in the wave of conversions. The women who predominated 1n the early phases of the Taufepidemie differed from each other in many significant ways. There actually seems to be at least two subgroups among the women who predominated among the early converts. One group was made up of women of fairly modest backgrounds who were involved in one way or another in romantic affairs with Christians; the other is a group of elite Jewish women who often married into the nobility. Most of the women who are listed in the baptismal records before 1806 were

from out of town. Many of them married Christian men after their baptisms. Despite the fact that the era of female predominance in conversions coincides with the peak of mixed-religion illegitimacy, seemingly only a minority of these marriages were undertaken to legitimize an out-of-wedlock child. Perhaps one in seven of adult female converts before 1806 converted to marry the father of their illegitimate children.!’ In part this is offset by a substantial (though smaller) number

of men converting to legitimize their offspring.'8 An analysis of female baptisms shows that the close relationship between female

baptism and subsequent marriage suggested by Hertz was indeed a fact. However, it was not merely that women converted in order to make themselves more eligible for later intermarriage as Hertz proposes. In many, perhaps most cases, the marriage was already planned at the time of the conversion, which then merely removed the last obstacle. Of a sample of forty-two Jewish women known to have married after their conversions between 1770 and 1826, twenty married within three months of their baptism. The pattern for men who married “out” was only slightly less direct.!? The pattern in such cases is clear. Baptism was the precondition of a marriage already planned. Sometimes the baptism and the marriage were within a few days

The Experience of Women 167 of each other. In several cases, it is clear that the bride-to-be was pregnant at the time. This information leads to the conclusion that quite a few baptisms took place because of a previous liaison between a Jew and a non-Jewish lover even in cases where no out-of-wedlock children had yet been born. The predominance of women converts over men was at least as noticeable in leading Berlin families who converted in the late eighteenth century as it was among the more modest women from out of town who converted in the city. Most of these women converted outside of Berlin, sometimes in secret. Although there are early cases of prestigious men converting and marrying out of the faith, these were less

common or striking than those of women. In several of these elite families in which both men and women eventually converted, the women were the first to take the step. This was true in the case of the children of Moses Isaac-Fliess where the daughters Bliimchen and Rebecca converted in 1780, but the brothers converted in 1787 and 1804.2° Similarly Sara and Marianne, two daughters of Aron Moses Meyer and grandchildren of Veitel Heine Ephraim, were converted without prior instruction in 1788, forced by parental pressure to return to Judaism, and then converted again in 1797 and married noble-

men. They died as Frau von Grotthuss and Frau von Eybenberg. Their brothers converted to Christianity many years later.2! This phenomenon of the sisters converting before the brothers and marrying into the nobility was found mainly in the last two decades of the eighteenth century among the elite. Later, sisters were less likely to take the “pioneering step” in the family. The curious fact that Jewish men were the pioneers as parents of out-of-wedlock children, but that women were the pioneers in conversion and marrying out may be related to different attitudes toward marriage. For Jewish women, bearing an out-of-wedlock child might have been viewed as more disgraceful than conversion. They therefore tended to convert early in an interreligious affair, or even before the interreligious affair was consummated. Jewish men, on the other hand, whose romantic affairs could be more easily hidden, would be more hesitant to take the public step of conversion, which would cut them off from their community. These factors seemed to be operative especially in the years before 1806, though they were far less evident in later years. The pioneering role of women in conversions within families and their numeric predominance over male converts were generally reversed after the first few years of the nineteenth century. The association between female conversion and subsequent marriage was also somewhat reduced. Virtually all those who converted in their twenties before 1820 were single. In the 1820s, however, over 20 percent of female converts in their twenties were married (as were 3 percent of males).

Quite a few of the conversions after 1800 involved married couples or even whole families. In such cases women often converted as part of a family group. Baptismal records show about thirty such cases in the first three decades of the nineteenth century. In some cases, however, baptism either led to divorce or did not involve both spouses. In the family conversions of the nineteenth century, the relative roles of men and women seem to have reversed. Women were no longer the pioneers within the family. In fact, in a number of cases it was the woman, not the man, who

168 THE SOCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE CRISIS remained Jewish, or at least held out longer. The same is true about baptisms among

siblings. One example of this phenomenon is found among the descendants of Salomon Abraham Leffmann (died 1808). One of Leffmann’s daughters, Betty, married Isaac Dann in 1802. Dann converted in 1811 along with the couple’s three children. His wife did not convert at the time. Her brother August Wilhelm Leffmann had already converted in 1809. Dann’s brother Jacob had also been baptized earlier (in 1806). Betty Leffmann Dann eventually followed the examples of her brother, husband, children, and brother-in-law and accepted baptism in 1815.

Another example is the case of Henriette Liman. Liman was married to the August Leffmann mentioned above who converted in 1809. Her own father, Isaac Nathanael Liman, also converted in the same year, as did one of her uncles. Henriette, however, divorced her husband in 1812 and remained Jewish. By 1813, though, she converted and married her cousin also named Liman who had also converted (see Genealogical Table 4). In the case of Betty Dann mentioned previously, a government document states that she is “not ready for baptism because her old mother is still alive.”?? This motivation, while probably authentic enough, does not seem to have affected Betty’s

brother August Wilhelm Leffmann. In any case, Betty Dann did not wait for the death of her aged mother, who lived until 1821. Hesitation to convert out of respect for an aged mother is documented in several cases, mainly of famous women, among

them Henriette Herz. It is possible that this hesitation was less common among sons.

Conversion followed by intermarriage was a means for elite Jewish women to raise their status even higher and enter the nobility. Such attempts to ally them-

selves with or to enter the nobility were also to be found among men. But the men’s situation was somewhat different. First, if a woman married a nobleman, she generally acquired his name and title and could pass it down to her children. On the other hand, a man marrying a noblewoman gained neither her title nor her

name. In a much later period, Werner E. Mosse has demonstrated that women of , converted families had a much easier time of intermarrying with Gentiles than did converted males, at least in part because of the name change.*> This is an ironic reversal of Jewish tradition, which assumes that religious status follows the mother.”4

Gender and Sincere Religious Conversion One motivation that would seem natural, though it has not yet been discussed, 1s sincere religious faith. Some writers have connected the conversion, especially of women, to sincere beliefs associated with Romantic religious theories. The theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher, one of the chief theoreticians of the Romantic school of religious faith, was closely associated with several Jewish salon women. It is always difficult to assess the sincerity of professions of faith, especially when expressed in applications for conversion. We do know of a number of Jewish converts in the period under study who did become sincere and even pious Christians. Expressions of sincere Christian piety can be found from both male and female converts. Still there is quite a bit of evidence that would lead one to”

tO a we o y&Si=

S #6 > ef S Ce > ae Lf) 1) ar "ON Ze wh _ =

won da ee | __ | BASS = pER Sen nw go PEA Ea > SB Cae LHe 2 YS co a OE es SS YOr Nn = e | =) ao re ond AmB OS x = oVyt = Dg oo by a , = bb) & &3 o w ~ 0 [5 =o som cao BO Se So ay Nha v) _ vy#8 | ae d&om BAR egar | qf 35oe 6 OD HES aa Pho ge gl co Ve ol > oS fQ Qu rare?) > ola Ny] is ao 8 enHEu ¢ ZI6 ee, po BOL ~ Oat ¢ vk

a & 3£ Ee qa c

1m ‘oo Eat

q es - ~ O
ene gg = Vw 22g 7 7 _9

) VY oN ag © —— g S=v 22 G20 _ gQize 8k £2 a SO 1S OL g rf NYE e@) ~“_-,

GOas 42008 YD caSG YY oT . 3 bb a8 £ URE DDE 3.48 6 mM oOwh HO" = NS m oe BH NO OC v $ as ON

170 THE SOCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE CRISIS believe that religious conviction was not one of the most common reasons for conversion between 1780 and 1830.”° In the cases of persons we know who eventually became pious Christians, there

is considerable evidence that many discovered their deep faith quite a bit after their conversion, which was often for more mundane reasons. There seems to be little difference in this regard between women and men. The assumption based on the greater tendency toward Romanticism among women than among men that, therefore, women were more likely to convert out of sincere faith than men does not seem to be supported. A few examples of famous pious converts show similar male and female patterns. Dorothea Mendelssohn made

many statements of piety especially after her conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism in 1806. Some of them are tinged with an anti-Jewish nuance. Sim-

son Philipp Veit.?’ ,

ilarly strong statements were made by Dorothea’s sister Henriette and by Dorothea’s

In all the cases of the Mendelssohn conversions, however, the initial conversion was otherwise motivated. Dorothea converted to marry her lover, Friedrich Schlegel, on the same day as her conversion. Henriette, who was originally a rationalist, also did not become pious till years after her conversion. A similar scenario was also the case of many male converts later known for their piety. Johann August Wilhelm Neander (born David Mendel) eventually became a pious church historian although before his conversion he had shown antipathy toward Christian beliefs. The reason for his conversion was purely practical: a formerly Jewish doctor offered to underwrite Mendel’s university study on the condition of his conversion. It was only after his conversion that he read works of Christian piety that turned him from a nominal to a believing Christian.”°

Women’s and Men’s Influence in Ideological Affiliation Besides looking at differences in the behavior of males and females in various aspects of the modernization process in Berlin, it would appear useful to attempt to assess the extent to which men and women had influence over the ideological decisions of their family members. While there is no direct evidence from personal accounts about who in the family was most influential, one can make certain inferences from statistical patterns. In most cases where only one parent was alive at the time of baptism, it was most commonly the mother. This as well as various other pieces of evidence would

seem to indicate that the mother’s views were less respected or feared than the father’s. Compared to the relative influences on conversion, evidence concerning family relations within ideological groupings, and between them within Judaism, show less male predominance in decision making. Within family groups the female line often plays as great a role as the male line. Even among the orthodox, where we would least expect it, we find that relationships through the female line were about as common as through the male line.”? Among reform Jews, relationships through the female line seem to have been even more common than relationships through the male line.*°

The Experience of Women 171 If we compare these relationships within each group to the relationships between the different groups we find that it was rare for the orthodox to have brothers who were reformers but common for them to have brothers-in-law in the reform congregation.?! Whereas among the orthodox, sisters were more likely to be found outside the group than in it, among reformers, sisters predominated both among the siblings who were in the same ideological camp as well as those in the oppo-

site camp. There does not seem to be similar evidence that daughters of either orthodox or reformers were more likely to convert than were sons.*? It would seem from this that daughters were more likely to abandon orthodoxy than sons, but (at

least in the post-1818 period) less likely to leave Judaism altogether. Although women seem less likely to have perpetuated their family ideological traditions than did men, there were many cases in which the woman’s orientation held considerable weight.

Differences in Education as an Explanation for Gender Differences A common explanation given for women’s greater prominence in the salons and among the “pioneers” of conversion was the differences in women and men’s educational and religious experiences. As is well known, Jewish women did not have any role in the Jewish religious service except as passive participants in the women’s balcony. Men were trained in advanced Jewish texts, while women were excluded from studying them. On the other hand, it had become customary in the course of the eighteenth century in wealthy Jewish families to teach girls such elegant skills as dancing, French, and music. Many Jewish girls in the late eighteenth century also had access to German belles lettres in public libraries or their parents’ own collections. Jewish women were frequently complimented for their general culture, their ability as conversationalists, and their social graces. Some observers commented on the contrast between the social abilities of Jewish women and the clumsy backwardness of many men. One observer wrote in 1792, “Education [Erziehung] is the reason why the female sex among the Jews is better looking and better educated [wohlgebildeter] than the male and that side by side with the ugly and dirty boy

you find the neatest and prettiest girl.’ Although this factor probably played some role in the conspicuous role of the salon women and the seemingly greater adjustment to Gentile society of women compared to men, its influence has often been overstated. First of all, the contrast between the vivacious, educated woman and the clumsy, boorish, uneducated man is often overdrawn or a mere stereotype. There was, after all, a vibrant Enlightenment movement among Jewish men that produced a number of important intellectuals writing either in Hebrew or German. Many Jewish men in Berlin were reaching

beyond the traditional ways and finding new outlets for their talents. Besides, in the late eighteenth century with the decline of the traditional yeshivas, many Jewish men received little more Jewish education than the women. Women’s Jewish education was also not necessarily as rudimentary as sometimes claimed. Henriette

172 THE SOCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE CRISIS ,

Hebrew.*4 ,

Herz, for instance, claimed the ability to deal fluently with the Biblical text in The difference between men’s and women’s backgrounds is therefore not merely

a matter of the women’s lack of Jewish education and the men’s lack of secular knowledge. Although the difference in education of the two sexes probably had some effect, it was far from the whole story. The contrast is not simply between prematurely modernized women and backward men. Rather it is a contrast between two different forms of modernization. Whereas men’s modernization seemed to be directed into institutionalized form in clubs, publications, and the reform movement, women’s modernization was focused on individual and informal activity and changes in personal lifestyle.

Explanations for Gender Differences: Male and Female Institutional Outlets Much of the contemporary and later literature focused on the role of women, whether as showy visitors to the theater, promenaders with non-Jewish men, or hostesses for the leading literary salons in Berlin. The very conspicuousness of the social activities of prominent Jewish women is, however, a reflection of their very limited organizational outlets for sociability. A look at the organizational structure of the Berlin Jewish community demonstrates strikingly to what extent Jewish men had a host of formal organizations in which they could socialize, do business, or engage in communal service, whereas

women did not. This was true both of traditional Jewish men within charitable and communal organizations of the Jewish community, and pro-Enlightenment and nontraditional men in merchants’ organizations or men’s clubs. Despite the social =—

barriers that existed between Jews and Gentiles, some Jewish men were able to join mixed organizations as well. Jewish merchants could be admitted to organizations like the Korporation der Berliner Kaufmannschaft, or more specific organizations like the Verein der Lederhindler. Some distinguished Jewish men were able to join mixed intellectual societies like the Wednesday Society or the Philomatische Gesellschaft.*> _ Virtually none of this applied to women. Even in areas that one might think of as areas of traditional feminine interest, like charity work, there were virtually no Jewish women’s organizations. In answering a governmental inquiry in 1811 the Jewish community of Berlin listed twenty Jewish charitable organizations. Only one, the Chevras Noshim (women’s association), headed by the wife of one of the city’s assistant rabbis, Hirsch Landsberger, was not a men-only organization.*° Even the “modernist” Gesellschaft der Freunde and Briiderverein were clubs of unmarried men, which did not permit women to join.?’ The society for dowries for Jewish brides, cofounded by Moses Mendelssohn, likewise had only male members. Of the foundations provided by last wills and testaments listed separately in 1811, two—the Dina Nauen Cohn Stiftung for education of orphans and the Edel Rintel family fund—were in the name of a woman.*® A number of women were also listed among the Jewish school directors in Berlin in 1812.°?

The Experience of Women 173 Women’s activities were almost never recorded in Jewish communal records. Tax lists mentioned only husbands’ names. Widows were virtually the only women listed and then only as “widow of Abraham Krotoschin,” etc., not with their own names. Women’s names were often omitted even in marriage lists where the bride

was frequently listed only as “daughter of... .” The degree to which women’s activities were excluded from official organization and even official communal recognition, while typical of all traditional Jewish communities, was much greater than that in nineteenth and twentieth century traditional Jewish communities when women’s charitable organizations were more common.

The lack of formal organizations for Jewish women, and the lack of direct participation in the affairs of the Jewish community, may have been a factor that led many Berlin Jewish women into a type of activity by which they gained the moralistic criticism of many observers—conspicuous consumption. Wolf Davidson’s description of “certain Jewish ladies, whom I need not name, with their conspicuous clothing, their screaming colors and high feathers, [who] . . . take over the front seats in the front boxes in order to capture the eyes of all by force” is a good example of the type of criticism some Jewish women earned. Although conspicuous consumption by Jewish men was certainly not uncommon either, it was the actions of Jewish women that were most noticed.*° In the salons, the lack of social outlets for women within the Jewish institutional structure also played a role. The salon was an informal means to express both the social and intellectual ambitions of a small number of elite women. Ironically it was the informality of the salons that led to their success. Elite Jewish

women who had almost no organizations of their own could gain prominence through an “uninstitutionalized institution.”

Early Arranged Marriages as an Explanation of Conversion Some historians have looked at the patterns of Jewish women converting and marrying Gentiles and have attributed the women’s actions to the traditional Jewish pattern of arranged marriages at an early age. In fact when one looks at some of the most famous cases of conversion, which involved both divorces from Jewish husbands and marriages to Christians, we do find that the women had been involved in an arranged marriage at an early age. Moses Mendelssohn’s daughter Brendel (Dorothea) was married off at age nineteen to Simon Veit whom she left fifteen years later when she met Friedrich Schlegel. The later Marianne von Eybenberg and Sara von Grotthuss also seem to have married as teenagers before divorcing their husbands and marrying Christian noblemen. Rebecca Saaling, who married David Friedlander’s son Moses when she was nineteen, soon divorced him and eventually converted. In analyzing these cases we must make some important distinctions. It is probably true, though there is no way of verifying it, that most Jewish marriages in

this period were arranged by the parents. Certainly in most cases a dowry was involved and there were carefully negotiated financial agreements between the families. In most Jewish communities this does not seem to have been the cause

174 THE SOCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE CRISIS of much friction during this period. In Berlin, it 1s likely that the contrast between such arrangements and the free romantic attachments preached in the literature of the day did come into conflict with the marriages arranged by family. Although the assumption of arranged marriages is reasonable, it turns out that the other part of the assumption, namely, that Jewish women were married off as young girls, is not true for the bulk of Jewish families in Berlin. As a matter of fact, age at marriage varied tremendously by class. The average age at marriage for Jewish women in eighteenth century Berlin was twenty-four (and thirty-one

for men). It was only in very rich families or families with the most favorable

legal status that early marriages were frequent.*! ,

There was indeed a connection between early arranged marriage and later conversion, but this connection was more or less restricted to the Jewish elite. Women in the salons, for instance, had an average marriage age that was six years younger than that of Berlin Jewish women overall.*? The Jewish families that were marrying off their children very early were not observing typical Jewish customs. Rather they were following the practices of wealthy families that were both more anxious to arrange “dynastic marriage,” which would keep the wealth and the business ties in the family, and more able to do so because marriage restrictions weighed on them less heavily.

It is not surprising that in some of the families in which marriage was very young, the couples would later break up. In other cases the couples who married young stayed together but were more likely to convert later on. Early marriage is closely correlated statistically to later conversion, but much less directly connected to divorce.*? The connection between early marriage and conversion may in fact have nothing to do with greater dissatisfaction among those who married young. It may simply be a corollary of the fact that wealthy families were more likely to convert than others. The wide difference in marriage age among rich and poor Jews in Berlin is a

reminder that one cannot ignore class differences in analyzing gender-specific aspects of the crisis of Berlin Jewry. Berlin Jewish women were as varied as Berlin Jewish men. Assumptions that we can make about the women of the salon and other elite women who married “up” or who left husbands they had married when very young do not apply to the bulk of Jewish women. When looking at the majority

of Jewish women who converted during the years when women predominated among the converts (1770-1805) we find many factors not found among the elite. Elite women did not convert to marry the fathers of their illegitimate children, since they seem to have avoided pregnancy in their love affairs. Poor women who converted in the early period were frequently not resident in Berlin. Among adults who converted before 1806, women were much more likely to be newcomers to the city than male converts. They may have been motivated to convert by the desire to acquire legal residency, again a problem that elite women did not have.

Career Reasons for Male Conversion Acquisition of residency rights as a motivation for poor women to come to Berlin and convert was only present during the period when women predominated among

The Experience of Women 175 the converts. Later, as men become the majority of converts, they also were more likely to be from outside Berlin than women who converted.*4 The motivation of male migrants was quite different, however. It was not permission to reside in Berlin

that made them convert, but rather their desire for career advancement. This moti- , vation is almost nonexistent for women, who were unable to procure government positions no matter what their religion. For men, marriage was a much less important ladder to social mobility, and it was less tightly connected with conversion than it was for women. Marriage was certainly a motivation for the conversion of some men, as has already been seen from the evidence about fathers of illegitimate children and from the rapid marriage of some converted men. For most men, however, other factors predominated.*

Marriage followed conversion much less frequently among men than among women.*®

The desire to remove barriers to career advancement was an especially important reason for male conversion. In the pre-1812 era, when all Jews were subject to a myriad of population and occupational restrictions, conversion would remove

, all such limitations. After 1812 most of these restrictions disappeared (at least in the “Old Prussian” provinces) except for restrictions on entering government service. The growing harshness of career restrictions on Jews after 1822 was an important motivation for the many young Jewish professional males from the provinces who converted in greater numbers then. It would seem from all these considerations that there was some difference between the ways men and women moved away from Jewish tradition, but these differences were not as absolute as many scholars have assumed. One cannot say that either sex was more likely than the other to break with or remain with tradition. However,

their paths away from tradition seem to have followed somewhat different patterns. “Modern” Jewish men tended to work through formal organizations and to express their modernism through Enlightenment categories or, later, through religious reform.*’ “Modern” women, on the other hand, did not create organizational networks. They expressed their modernism through personal actions and informal institutions. That is why one finds them linked with conspicuous consumption, the literary salons, and personal conversion rather than with formalized movements. Among the elite minority of Berlin Jewry that left behind literary evidence of their ideological bent, it seems evident that women were more likely than men to sup-

port Romanticism and men more likely than women to adhere to the Enlightenment.

In other aspects of the crisis of Berlin Jewry there was relatively little difference between the sexes. Jewish men and Jewish women were about equally likely to have children out of wedlock. Intermarriage and love affairs across religious lines were common for both Jewish men and Jewish women and high divorce rates affected both equally. Although women were more likely to convert before 1800 and men were much more likely to convert by the second and third decades of the nineteenth century, it would be an exaggeration to state simply that women were pioneers of the Taufepidemie.*®

Although an analysis of the role of women in the crisis of Berlin Jewry has shown that they did not play the overwhelming part that has been attributed to

176 THE SOCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE CRISIS them by some historians, this does not mean that their behavior is not significant. Even when we leave aside those areas in which women really did predominate (the salons and Romanticism), the place of women in the crisis 1s noteworthy. Contemporaries were clearly surprised that women’s conduct had any effect at all on an important change in communal life. Women were not expected to be leading influences in social life. Even in those aspects of the crisis in which the role of women was not very different from that of men (illegitimacy) or only predominant for a short period (conversions), this was a noticeable departure from earlier norms. Whether it was to praise their social and intellectual gifts or (more frequently) to criticize their frivolity and lack of loyalty to the Jewish community, contemporaries and later historians have been quick to emphasize the part women played in Berlin Jewry near the turn of the nineteenth century.” Even when women were not acting vastly differently from their male coreligionists, the fact that women were acting publicly at all was sure to draw attention of those (mainly males) who

wrote down their impression of what was happening in their society.

The Aftermath of the Crisis: Berlin Jewry After 1823

Religious Life After 1823 , The Prussian decree of December 1823 forbidding all innovation in the Jewish religion marks the end of the period of intellectual ferment within Berlin Jewry. Whereas the great innovative movements in Judaism of the previous three-quarter century—Enlightenment, religious reform, Wissenschaft des Judentums—all had

| Berlin as their hub, Berlin now ceased to be a vital Jewish intellectual center for some two decades. In 1824 a new Jewish board of elders was chosen that was still made up mainly of modernists but contained few great or innovative leaders. By political fiat the orthodox had won, although in many ways their victory was a Pyrrhic one. All innovations in Jewish religion were forbidden, but tradition did not regain its hold in the lives of the Jews of Berlin. The reform forces, though defeated in the public sphere, continued to find arenas of activity especially in the sphere of education. For the first few years after the decree forbidding religious reform, the wave of

conversions continued unabated; in fact the numbers converting continued to increase. By the 1830s, however, the crisis of conversions began to ebb as large numbers of migrants from the eastern provinces of Prussia poured into the city. Although orthodox Judaism gained control over all Jewish worship in Berlin after 1823, it remained a shadow of its former self. The majority of Berlin Jews simply ignored organized Jewish religion and attended services rarely, if at all. The victorious orthodox forces really gained very little except the elimination of their organized opposition. The picture one gets of Berlin orthodoxy in the 1830s is rather dreary. Its main source is the humorous memoirs of Aron Hirsch Heymann, a later founder of the separatist orthodox Adath Jisroel. Although one suspects some of his characterizations are overdrawn for effect, or to contrast with later improvements he. claimed

178 THE SOCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE CRISIS to have made, the general picture does fit with other known facts. The two beadles who led weekday services in the main synagogue were both elderly old-style pious Jews. The assistant cantor, who was also the chief notary (ne’eman) of the community, knew no Hebrew grammar and made money from the sale of synagogue seats. Oberkantor Lion had been the cantor of the Beer reformed temple but, in his own humorous phrase, had been “kashered (made kosher).”” He was accompanied by the traditional bass and treble singers (Bass und Singer), whose performance Heymann mocks. Few were present at the beginning of Sabbath services, since people attended the early services in private synagogues | and only came to the main synagogue afterward. Having already prayed and had _ breakfast, they could then spend much of their time conversing with their neighbors. Some also passed around snuff. The rabbis, Jacob Joseph Oettinger and Elhanan Rosenstein, could barely speak German and were not able to give a real sermon. Heymann describes the Shabat Hagadol and Shabat Shuvah discourses of Oettinger as a travesty. Oettinger’s Talmudic argumentation in Yiddish would be interrupted by various Polnische Waullerner who would engage in disputations with the rabbi. Much of the audience came only to be amused. Some of the other synagogue attendees of the time are also depicted with thick Yiddish accents. Many seats in the synagogue were ownerless, since their possessors had either converted or died. The ritual bath was delapidated and the meat market (Fleischscharren) in the synagogue courtyard was a distraction.! Even the leaders of orthodoxy had to accept the fact that they and their institutions had lost influence. At weddings Rabbi Oettinger did not do the traditional handkerchief dance with the bride, since his policy was always to leave before dinner, so as not to insult those whose dinners were not kosher. In 1829 the rabbis had to accept the removal of the charity for the land of Israel from the list of seven charities with special privileges.* The orthodox also had to make certain concessions at the time of the opening of the new Jewish cemetery at the Schénhauser Tor in 1827. Some were purely practical: because of the increased distance to the cemetery it was necessary to use a hearse rather than carry the corpse there on foot. Others were of greater import. The old burial society was replaced by a new one, which still respected traditional forms but no longer had the independent power of its predecessor.? Although orthodoxy was the only permitted religious form, the communal boards continued to be made up mainly of nontraditionalists. Unable to find modernized rabbis, these men were satisfied with seeing a very weak Berlin rabbinate. In 1820 Ruben Gumpertz, an elder of the community, had told the government that a rabbi’s main function was that of a “Kauscherwdchter” (supervisor of kosher food). Despite his failure to receive the title of chief rabbi, Meyer Simon Weyl showed some strength and shrewdness in helping guide the antireform campaign of the years 1814 to 1823. After Weyl’s death, in 1825, his successor, J. J. Oettinger, had much less influence. He is generally described as an upright and worthy man who avoided all controversy and possessed few leadership qualities. The government enforced the prohibition on religious innovations rather strictly,

especially in the early years. Even the orthodox sometimes found themselves in

Berlin Jewry After 1823 179 trouble with the government. When Rabbi Oettinger dedicated the new cemetery near the Schénhauser Tor with a German sermon in 1827, the police considered the sermon a prohibited reform. Even ten years later, some minor changes in the liturgical forms were initially prohibited by the government.4 Until the late 1830s, the atmosphere of the Berlin synagogues was that of AltOrthodoxie with rabbis who could not speak German, cantors who knew no Hebrew grammar, and decorum virtually absent. This began to change slowly thereafter. Even supporters of orthodoxy like Aron Hirsch Heymann felt the need for some changes to make it viable for the future. In 1838 Heymann was elected synagogue chairman (Synagogenvorsteher) and put through some “reforms,” which were gen-

, erally in consonance with orthodoxy. A male choir was instituted, decorum was introduced, Rabbi Oettinger was required to attend all Sabbath and holiday services,

and the cantor was to wear a clerical robe. In addition the auction of synagogue honors was abolished. Even these very modest changes were not without their opponents.” Although the two official “interim rabbis” of the community did not speak High

, German, Salomon Plessner, who arrived in Berlin in 1830, did give German sermons on an unofficial basis in the Beth Hamidrash on alternate Saturday afternoons. Although he was completely orthodox, Plessner’s homilies had a more acculturated form than those of any of the official rabbis. He also delivered wed-

, ding sermons and performed private confirmation ceremonies for boys and girls, both of them liturgical innovations.°®

As stifling and spiritually unsatisfying as the post-1823 situation was for the orthodox, it was much more so for the nontraditionalists, who could find few outlets for their religious impulses. Religious indifference was widespread among them. Since innovation in the synagogue was prohibited, they turned to creating a modernized educational system. Many of the older Jewish schools were in a state of decline. The Freischule, founded by the Maskilim in 1778, closed in 1823. The communal board called in a group of Enlightened educational experts to create a plan for a communal school.’ This plan was soon rivaled by a contrary plan set up by Rabbi Weyl with the aid of Jeremias Heinemann, an ex-reformer who now supported the traditionalists. Weyl proposed a rabbinic and teachers’ seminary with an elementary school to feed into it. Although the new school was to be under orthodox auspices, it recognized a place for secular studies and new educational forms. In 1825 both the communal school and Weyl’s school opened. Eventually they were merged in 1829 as the Jiidische Gemeindeschule under the direction of Baruch Auerbach.® In a way similar to developments in other large German communities in the 1820s, the new school became the center for liturgical innovations, which were banned from the synagogue. The school had about 100 male students. A girls’ school was created in 1835. In the boys’ school Baruch Auerbach or his brother, a former preacher in the Beer-Jacobson temple, gave weekly sermons after the traditional Sabbath service. Another innovation was a students’ choir in four-part harmony. Although officially a school service, the religious exercises were attended by parents and other adults. The room was filled to capacity. The service seemed to fulfil some of the needs that the decree of 1823 left unsatisfied.?

180 THE SOCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE CRISIS Most Jewish children did not attend the Jewish communal school or any of the smaller private Jewish schools in the city. Some two-thirds attended non-Jewish schools that had a generally Christian atmosphere. The community was unsuccessful in creating any mechanism for providing the children in such schools any kind of

systematic Jewish instruction.'® |

Outside the school there were some scholarly activities, undertaken mainly by Leopold Zunz whose Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge der Juden appeared in 1832. His lectures on psalms attracted a small but distinguished audience."! The beginnings of real alternatives to the “old orthodox” way of life in Berlin, however, did not really come until about 1840. In that year a new teachers’ sem!-

nary headed by Leopold Zunz came into existence, which lasted for a short period. In the same year a new Cultur-Verein was created in which some seventy educated Berlin Jews endeavored to encourage scholarly and artistic activities among the Jews. Its membership soon increased to 200—-some of them influential men in the

community. In 1844 the first communal rabbi with an advanced secular education, Michael Sachs, was chosen. Sachs was a traditionalist who opposed any but the most minor reforms. Although his arrival satisfied forward-looking traditionalists like A. H. Heymann, it did not do much for thoroughgoing reformers. _ Jt was among members of the Cultur-Verein who were dissatisfied with the pace of reform both within the community and elsewhere that the Berlin Reformgenossenschaft (reform society) was founded in 1845. This group soon created a radical Reformgemeinde (reform community) with a suitably progressive rabbi— Samuel Holdheim. A separate reform service was now available again in the city, this time in much more radical form than ever before. A few years later the religiously liberal party gained control of the board of the Jewish community. After the death of Sachs, and the appointment of Joseph Aub, a liberal rabbi, as his successor in 1865, the community as a whole went over to the new philosophy. The great new synagogue built on Oranienburgerstrasse in 1866 incorporated an organ and other innovations (although it was much less radical than the Reformgemeinde). Even the old synagogue on Heidereutergasse, while still traditional, was now opened to the regular sermons of the new reform communal rabbis. Some of the traditionalists then seceded to form their own separate community. Although the decree of

1823 had postponed the takeover of the Berlin Jewish community by reform for several decades, in the end that takeover took place.

The End of the Crisis and Migration from the Provinces The years immediately after the decree of 1823 were marked by a level of conversion to Christianity even higher than anything seen previously. Slowly, however, a change became noticeable within the wave of conversions. Increasingly the converts were young men from the provinces coming to Berlin to make careers for

themselves. !? ,

The peak in absolute numbers of conversions in Berlin seems to have been reached around 1830. There is a disagreement among scholars about whether the absolute numbers declined thereafter or merely stopped growing. Abraham Menes

Berlin Jewry After 1823 18] showed an increase of about a third in the number of converts in the province of Brandenburg between 1812 and 1821 and 1822 and 1831, but virtually no change thereafter.!3 Deborah Hertz’s figures based on the Judenkartei show a decline in absolute numbers after the mid-1830s.'4 Whether the number of conversions declined or simply failed to continue rising, it seems clear that by the late 1830s, at least, the sense of a crisis in Berlin Jewry began to fade. The Berlin community as a whole was undergoing a substan-

| tial change in the late 1830s and thereafter. It was being affected by an overwhelming wave of in-migration from the small towns of Prussia’s eastern provinces. By the 1840s the Berlin Jewish community was both much larger than before and of very different background. The eighteenth century Berlin community had been formed by migration from many areas in all directions from Berlin. Besides easterners there had been many migrants from such central German communities as Halberstadt and Dessau, such northwestern communities as Hamburg, Hannover, and Hildesheim, and even some south German migrants. In the period after the Emancipation decree of 1812 migration came chiefly from the east. The increase in the Jewish population of Berlin does not become evident until

, the 1830s. From the 1770s until 1822 the Jewish population of the city stagnated. The increase that began around 1822 was slow, but then began to gain momentum. The Jewish population of the city surpassed 4,000 in 1825 and reached almost

| 5,000 by 1831 and 6,000 by 1839. In the years after 1837 the rate of growth was much higher. In the fifteen years between 1837 and 1852 the number of Jews in Berlin doubled-—from 5,645 to 11,840—an average increase of over 400 a year.!° The Jewish population increased more rapidly than the general population of the city in the late 1840s. An indirect indication of the growth of Berlin Jewry, supplementing the above data, can be found by looking at the numbers of new Berlin Jewish citizens listed in the Judenbiirgerbiicher.’° Excluding the great fluctuations of numbers in the first few years Jews were permitted to acquire citizenship, we find that the number of new Jewish citizens in Berlin hovered around 40 to 45 between 1816 and 1831 with few exceptions. From 1832 to 1838 this suddenly increased to the 60 to 70 range and then, after 1840, averaged over 100 annually.!? Of the citizens of Berlin listed in the Judenbiirgerbiicher, 727 were born in the

city itself. The nearby province of Brandenburg provided another 600, and Pomerania another 128. The formerly Polish provinces of Westpreussen and Posen

provided some 350 and 615, respectively, while the other eastern provinces of Silesia and Ostpreussen provided 330 and 50 each. All other Prussian provinces were home to only 115 in-migrants, the rest of Germany provided about 200, and all other places (mainly Eastern Europe) provided fewer than 65 migrant citizens to Berlin before 1850. The small West Prussian town of Markisch Friedland alone provided 133 Berlin citizens, most of them between 1823 and 1849. The switch from migration from the nearby towns to migration mainly from the eastern provinces took place at about the same time that the pace of population increase in Berlin climbed. In the 1820s most of the new citizens in Berlin were born either in Berlin or the nearby provinces of Brandenburg and Pomerania.

182 THE SOCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE CRISIS By the 1830s the switch to migration mainly from West Prussia, Posen, and Silesia was already completed.!8

Because of this steady wave of migration to the city, the character of Berlin Jewry had changed radically by the 1840s. Fewer than one-third of Berlin Jews in 1850 were the descendants of the Berlin Jews of the pre-1812 period.!? The board of the Jewish community, the leadership of Berlin Jewish organizations, and the spokesmen for the leading ideological groups were only rarely members of the families that had dominated Berlin Jewry in the eighteenth century.”° Many of the chief elite families were disappearing from the Jewish communities by the second third of the nineteenth century. Of the descendants of the three great coin millionaires of the Seven Years War, the vast majority had converted to Christianity by 1830. Among the few who did not convert, quite a few remained childless. Other elite families of the eighteenth century, too, seem to have converted in their entirety or at least their majority. Few of the families in leadership positions in the reform community created in the 1840s were related to the leaders of the reformed service of the 1810s. Most were recent immigrants from the east-

ern provinces or their children.2! In the vastly increased Jewish community of the mid-nineteenth century, even the same number of conversions annually would have much less impact. As the new migrants reached positions of prominence, they were probably also less affected personally by the conversions of old Berliners to whom they had few ties of family or friendship. They could see their community as a growing and flourishing one, whose numbers far outstripped its losses and whose influence on the commercial and intellectual life of the city was on the increase. In many ways the Jewish community of Berlin in the middle of the nineteenth century was no longer the same as the community that had gone through the crisis of 1780 to 1830. Two-thirds of the Berlin Jews had arrived in Berlin within the last two or three decades. Many of the members of the old elites were no longer part of the Jewish community at all. Although some of the institutions of Berlin Jewry still remained, and the locale had not changed drastically, the personnel had undergone a great change. Most Berlin Jews of the midcentury knew of the crisis only by hearsay, not because it had affected members of their own families. Slowly but surely the crisis faded into history. The modern institutions of the community, the rise of liberal Jewry in Berlin, the growth of secularism and German culture among Berlin Jews, were less the direct outgrowth of the struggles of Berlin Jewry of the period of crisis than the result of developments all over Germany. Most of the Berlin Jews involved in these modernizing activities had only the shared locale in common with the Jews of the crisis period. Although Mendelssohn might still be viewed as a heroic figure and some memory of the period of crisis may have survived, few Berlin Jews carried any family traditions of the crisis period, since most of their families came to Berlin after the crisis was over.

Conclusion

‘Blank Page

Conclusion

Berlin Jewry was one of the pioneering communities in the adjustment of Judaism to the modern world. As a pioneering community it served as a model to other communities. Though the underlying structural situation was similar in Berlin to that of other modernizing communities, many aspects of the process of modernization in Berlin were unique. Unlike later communities trying to adjust tradition to the challenges of modernity, Berlin Jewry had virtually no models to follow. The explosive quality of the initial process of modernization in Berlin was largely absent elsewhere. At the beginning of the process of change, there was little about Berlin Jewry to lead one to suspect that revolutionary cultural developments would occur there.

, In the slow slippage of tradition in the early eighteenth century detected by some historians, Berlin played no outstanding part. When modernity in the shape of new upper-class lifestyles and Jewish Enlightenment ideas did begin to emerge around the time of the Seven Years War, the initial progress of the movement also gave little inkling of the crisis that would follow. The first leaders of the Berlin Haskala were notable both for the relative moderation of their program and the peaceful nature of their relationship with the Jewish establishment. Moses Mendelssohn, the undisputed intellectual leader of the movement, was respectful of the tradition in his writings and daily life. He corre-

sponded with leading rabbinic authorities in an amicable manner. In return, the Jewish establishment, especially the lay leaders of Berlin Jewry, gave him honors and privileges. These same communal leaders played a leading part in the changes in style of daily life that began to blur the distinctions between upper class Jewish and Christian daily life. One has the impression that neither Mendelssohn himself nor most of his wealthy lay supporters saw the revolutionary or “dangerous” implications of the cultural adaptations they favored. Instead it appeared that, slowly and peacefully, the leaders of the community were synthesizing German culture and traditional Jewish forms. Although some conflict between the forces of Haskala

and the traditionalists began to become evident during the last years of Men-

186 CONCLUSION delssohn’s life, these conflicts were minor compared to the rapid and allencompassing radical change that became evident soon thereafter. Even the early peaceful stage of change occurred across a wide spectrum of human experience. Not only did some philosophers try to reinterpret Judaism as a basically rational religion but many Berlin Jews were changing their linguistic and clothing habits, changing the education of their children, acquiring knowledge of subjects formerly unknown to most Jews, and breaking down long-standing cultural barriers between themselves and their non-Jewish neighbors. Perhaps one reason why the Berlin Haskala, even in its relatively early stages, had an effect on such a multitude of aspects of life is the fact that it combined an intellectual and a social change. On the one hand, a group of intellectuals, recruited from many different social strata and geographical origins, were adapting general Enlightenment ideas to the Jewish community. On the other, a new Jewish elite was emerging, that pioneered a new lifestyle and that, at least superficially, found the new Enlightenment way of thinking congenial to its new position in life. These two aspects of change in Berlin in the 1760s, 1770s, and early 1780s— the intellectual and the elite social—already bore within them the seeds of more

radical developments. The new rationalist approach to religion could, at least potentially, call into question the validity of traditional Jewish practices and beliefs. The attempted synthesis of tradition and Enlightenment in the works of Mendelssohn soon showed itself unconvincing to many of his followers. To this potentially explosive situation, a number of new elements were added

in the last decades of the eighteenth century. The emerging discussion of eman-

, cipation for Prussian Jewry gave formerly theoretical considerations of cultural — , change important implications for political and economic rights. The elite of the community, especially, now saw the possibility of achieving a social status equivalent to their economic status. Cultural integration now seemed to some to be a means to the goal of social and political integration.

Other factors that seem to have helped to lead to a crisis situation were an economic downturn, which made the formerly secure position of elite supporters of Enlightenment, like the Itzigs, more insecure, and the rise of Romanticism. The

economic woes of some of the elite may have caused them to despair of their influencing the community peacefully to adopt Enlightenment and, instead, to seek integration outside the community. Romanticism, or at least changes in mores often associated with early Romanticism, also had a profound effect on the development of Berlin Jewry in the years from 1786 till the French occupation of Berlin twenty years later. In this period, following the lead of the libertine Prussian monarch Friedrich Wilhelm I, Berlin society loosened its sexual mores. The Jewish community of the city followed the general trend quite closely. Somewhat related to this trend was the independent role played by Jewish women especially in the literary salons, which combined persons of various estates and religions. Unlike the Enlightenment and the later reform movement, the salons and Romanticism in general operated outside formal institutional frameworks. In this period of rapid change and individual self-expression, the formal philosophical syntheses of Enlightenment intellectuals seemed to

carry little weight.

Conclusion 187 Peaceful evolution had turned into cultural and sexual revolution. In some ways the social changes in the community were progressing so fast that they got away

from the intellectual leaders who wished to direct them. Although men like Wolfsohn and Euchel moved in more radical directions in their criticism of tradi-

tional religion in the decade after Mendelssohn’s death, they nevertheless con- | demned some of the excesses of what they called “superficial Enlightenment.” Even

Friedlinder’s radical step of proposing a form of conversion to Dean Teller was only a momentary concession to the confusing forces of change in the community.

Most of the leaders of the Berlin Enlightenment condemned what they saw as | social excesses in the modernizing sectors of Berlin Jewry whether in the form of extravagant luxury, illegitimacy and extramarital affairs, or conversion to Christianity. They (and later supporters of the Haskala as well) saw these “excesses” as caused by the absence of true Enlightenment. The leaders both of the Haskala and of early religious reform saw themselves as sailing safely between the twin dan- | gers of Leichtsinn (frivolity) and Frémmelei (hypocritical piety), which caused the crisis. They argued that it was the failure of the young Berlin Jews to acquire “truly Enlightened” culture that made them prey to excesses. The relationship between Enlightenment and revolutionary changes in identity and personal life among Berlin Jews is a poignant one. On the one hand, the leaders of the Enlightenment did not intend for the break with tradition to be as violent and complete as it was. On the other hand, the persons most involved in the most radical of the breaks from traditional communal and family life (conversion and illegitimacy) were the young family members of those most involved in the Enlightenment. It was, so to speak, out of the very circle of those trying to create a philosophy that would enable Judaism to survive in the modern world, that the most profound challenge to the viability of Judaism in the modern world was to come. The relationship between the “first stage”—-lifestyle change and Enlightenment philosophy in the time of Mendelssohn—and the “second stage’”—sexual freedom, family breakdown, and conversion to Christianity—has interesting parallels to the relationship between the French Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The French philosophes, too, rarely saw the radical social implications of their pioneering ideas. Certainly few of them anticipated that they would help inspire a political and social revolution. Yet there can be little doubt that there was a connection between Enlightenment and revolution. Of course, the changes in Berlin Jewry were not revolutionary in the political sense, but they did involve a challenge to accustomed ways of thinking and acting in a multitude of aspects of life. The period of free social mixing faded in the years after the French occupation of 1806, and the granting of broad Emancipation in 1812 put an end (at least for a while) to the uncertainties about Jewish political and social status. However, this did not end the crisis of Berlin Jewry—it merely changed the way the crisis expressed itself. Although extramarital affairs and the birth of illegitimate children became less common, the trend of conversion to Christianity not only proceeded unabated but continued to swell. The granting of formal legal Emancipa-

tion gave, at most, a pause of two years in the upward trend. As it turned out, legal equality was soon placed under various types of limitations, and even where

188 CONCLUSION it remained in effect it did not bring with it the hoped-for social equality. Many Jewish residents of Berlin continued to believe that only conversion to Christian-

ity would solve their desire for acceptance. |

Although the Emancipation decree of 1812 did not end the wave of baptisms, it did bring into practical effect an attempt to synthesize Judaism and Enlightened ideas in the form of early reform Judaism. Unlike the “peaceful period” during the life of Mendelssohn, the new movement soon met strong opposition within the community and led to a sense of schism. The government prohibition of religious reform in 1823 ended the formal controversy but left neither side really satisfied. The “epidemic” of baptisms reached its highest point in the seven years after 1823 when renewed restriction on government employment led many young men to

convert for career purposes.

The series of changes that took place between 1760 and 1830 were loosely , connected with each other. Enlightenment need not have led to illegitimacy or con- — version; nor was reform Judaism a natural outcome of Emancipation. However,

the combination of factors did help cause one aspect to proceed from the other. Although the Enlightenment of the first stage and the radical outcomes of ille_ gitimacy and conversion are not linked by any logical necessity, but only by loose influences, there 1s another relationship between them—the personal. Here we can seek a connection not through the logical affinity of the phenomena but through the personal relationships of the individuals involved in them. Such connections have long been noticed by students of the Berlin Haskala, notably in the persons of the converting children of Moses Mendelssohn, and many (especially enemies of the Enlightenment) have used these connections to claim the logical dependence of the radical stage on the earlier stage.

To evaluate the personal connection between the moderate and the radical stages, two forms of investigation are necessary. First, it is necessary to explore the factual dimensions of the connection to see if it did in fact exist or was merely _a faulty extrapolation from a few atypical cases. Second, if indeed the personal connection can be established, one then has to try to understand the reasons for

the connection. ,

Establishing the facts about the connection between the moderate and the radical phases of modernization in Berlin has been undertaken through the use of a collective biography of all Berlin Jews in the period. First we have been able to evaluate the overall magnitude of the radical phenomena of illegitimacy and conversion and to put to rest the wildly different notions about it. It is now clear that conversion had a considerable effect on a significant portion of the community

and affected about one in twelve individuals and one in four families. It was more widespread in elite families than in others, but in any case it certainly did not involve the conversion of one-third or one-half of Berlin Jewry. Having established the overall size of the radical phenomena, the more difficult task of evaluating connections with the milder Enlightenment activities remained. Besides looking for individuals involved in both aspects, which was comparatively rare, this investigation has concentrated on analyzing the role of the family in the crisis. The result of our investigations was to demonstrate that there was indeed a significant statistical correlation between those who followed

Conclusion 189 Enlightenment or reform programs for “peaceful” Jewish modernization and those who engaged in radical steps such as conversion. Although other factors, such as wealth, also had a demonstrable effect on the degree of conversion, ideological

orientation of parents was a significant element. ,

When we see figures that show almost one-third of subscribers to Mendelssohn’s Bible translation having children who converted as against 9 percent of members

of the orthodox burial society, and that 44 percent of the subscribers but only 20 percent of the orthodox had at least one grandchild who converted, this seems like a very considerable divergence. This difference remains, even if somewhat less strikingly, if one filters out variations in wealth.’

Did Liberalism Lead to Conversion? When one considers the statistical correlation between liberal family ideology and

later conversion of family members, we can see that the family was indeed an important factor in influencing ideological and conversion decisions. While it is true that some parents baptized their children for the sake of social or career advancement without themselves taking the same step, in most cases liberal-minded parents probably did not actively encourage their children’s or grand-

children’s conversion. In fact we have some evidence that they regretted such decisions. Nevertheless, they presumably put fewer obstacles in their children’s way than would orthodox parents and perhaps were more likely to retain personal ties with their converted children. Persons who converted would seem to have been influenced both by something in the atmosphere of the families in which they grew up and by the example of family members who had converted. It may have been a generally more liberal attitude, which left important life decisions up to the children, even if these were painful to the parents, and which respected the ideological disagreement of their children, that made “liberal” parents less likely to erect a barrier to conversion than orthodox parents.’ But it was not only a possible difference between the parents’ reactions that

explains the higher baptism rate of the children of Enlightenment supporters. In , quite a few cases the baptisms did not take place until long after the parents’ deaths. Other influencing factors probably include differences in general cultural outlook

and lifestyle. In a family supporting the Enlightenment, children would have received more encouragement to study general culture, to read works in German, to appreciate art and music, and to associate socially with non-Jews than children in orthodox families. Families observing the dietary laws would have had a harder time socializing outside the Jewish community than those who did not. All of these factors can be guessed at rather than directly documented. Taken together they indicate certain aspects of the lives of liberal families that would have reduced the barriers against conversion more than among those not affected by liberalism. It would be going much too far, however, to move from these fairly indirect influences of a liberal family atmosphere in reducing barriers against conversion to a direct equation of liberalism as the cause for conversion and other manifesta-

190 CONCLUSION tions of assimilation, or of orthodoxy as a sure barrier to it. A number of considerations demonstrate that the polemical accusations of opponents of the Enlightenment that Enlightenment caused the crisis that followed are oversimplified. At the very least, one can say that there are alternatives to such a simplistic explanation.

There are several other objections to the argument that reform caused conversion and that orthodoxy was the effective antidote. First, not all orthodox families were immune to conversions. Although the percentage of conversions among the children of those active in orthodox circles was much lower than among the children of liberals, it was still far from negligible. In any other society but Berlin at the time, it would have been considered shockingly high. Second, orthodoxy could not have been an effective barrier to assimilation and conversion because it was unable to hold its own members. After all, if orthodoxy was the safest bulwark against conversion, one must ask the question—why did people give up tradition to begin with? Every reform Jew in Berlin or elsewhere was the descendant of a traditional Jew. The percentage of children of the orthodox who later affiliated with religious reform was probably at least as high as the percentage of children of the reformers or Enlightened who converted. If orthodoxy had remained a satisfying ideology for these people, they would never have adhered to the Enlightenment or reform. Therefore simply seeing orthodoxy as the

solution and reform as the cause of the problem does not seem to describe the situation of the time accurately. Perhaps it 1s most productive to analyze the circumstances in terms of generational progression. First there is a generation that gives up on orthodoxy and seeks comfort in a modernized ideology like Enlightenment or religious reform. A later generation, which was already brought up liberal, then took the next step of giving up Judaism altogether. This succession of three generations seems to have been the most common one, though we have seen two types of “speeding up” of the process. In one the descendants of orthodox parents convert without going through the intermediate stage of religious reform; in the other, the same person who first sees reform as an alternative to orthodoxy 1s then disillusioned with reform as well and converts. Thus, it was not so much that liberal Jewish ideologies caused conversion but that they were often intermediate in the process by which members of various families moved from tradition to conversion. Was the cause of the final break with Judaism the failing of the liberal ideology of the children, or did it occur earlier when the grandparents were unable to pass their traditional faith down to the children? It would seem that if one were to assess responsibility, it would have to be shared by traditionalists and liberals alike. Those traditional Jews who were able to pass on their traditionalist leanings to their children seem to have had a better chance of keeping their more distant descendants Jewish than those whose children abandoned tradition. Other than the fact that wealthy Jewish families seemed more likely to abandon tradition than more modest families, we know little about the factors that caused some families to retain their tradition while others left it. The fact that so many Berlin Jews abandoned traditional life and practice would

Conclusion 19] seem to indicate something missing in tradition as it had been practiced in Berlin. What this lack was eludes our present state of knowledge. As to the liberals, the figures show clearly that for most of them, in the period before 1830, adherence to the Enlightenment or reform was a weak barrier, at best, to abandonment of Judaism. The very high conversion rates of children of adherents of these movements are evidence enough. One could argue in mitigation that reform, at least, did not really have a chance to develop freely during the period, because of the opposition of government and the orthodox. Whatever the causes, though, liberalism was not a bulwark to protect Jewish identification at the time. Therefore we return to the explanation of the pattern of reform and conversion as both one of generational succession and as aspects of the same break with tradition. Those who became reformers were one step further away from tradition than those who remained orthodox. Therefore their descendants were more likely to take the next step away from tradition and convert; quite likely, many of the children of those who had initially remained orthodox were taking their next step— becoming reformi—-at the same time as the descendants of those who had earlier become reform supporters were beginning to convert. An additional part of the equation has to be added here. That is the fact that the wave of baptisms was restricted to a particular period of time and began to

, fade after 1830. Thus those people who did not begin to turn away from tradition , until the 1830s were less likely to see their children convert than those who turned untraditional earlier. Jews in the post-1830 generation were much less prone to conversion, even though it was in the 1830s and 1840s that the religious reform

movement in Germany began to make important strides. |

The difference between the period between 1780 and 1830 and the period that succeeded it thus needs to be explained. In the earlier period there was a crisis of Judaism, many conversions, and a clear statistical correlation between liberalism and converted children. None of this seems to be the case later on. There has to be an explanation of why the earliest stage in the break with tradition was marked by such a crisis, whereas later stages, during which the number of Jews who were no longer traditional had increased greatly, were marked by much less of a crisis. Not only was there less sense of crisis in Berlin after 1830, there also seems to have been little repetition of the crisis experience of Berlin in other modernizing Jewish communities in Germany. In other places and at other times, the abandonment of traditional religious practice and the rise of a reform movement or of other nontraditional ideologies were not accompanied by a Taufepidemie or by revo-

lutionary changes in family behavior; instead, a much more gradual process unfolded.

, The relationship between liberalization and assimilation in Berlin is thus not merely a logical connection between the two phenomena but must be related to specific factors present in that particular time and place. Special characteristics of Berlin Jewish society may have led to the explosive events of 1780 to 1830. These included the rapid rise of a few fabulously wealthy families, the long struggle for Emancipation, the role Berlin played as center of both the Enlightenment and of early Romanticism, and the strong impact of Romanticism and a wide-open lifestyle during the period 1786 to 1806. But surely

192 CONCLUSION the greatest influence in creating the radicalism in Berlin was the pioneering nature of the event itself.

Here one can give an explanation that contrasts sharply with the initial “antireform” explanation. One could argue that what the early period lacked was a clear alternative model to traditional Judaism. Almost all Jews had been raised in the tradition and had only adopted alternative styles of life in adulthood. For many the only “real Jews” were the traditionalists. Everything that modern Jews did, whether it was speaking German, dressing like non-Jews, playing the piano, singing Christian oratorios, or violating the dietary laws was pioneering and a break with tradition.2 Once one had begun to break with tradition there were no longer clear boundaries about how far from tradition one could go. Although most of the leaders of the Berlin Haskala devoted much of their energy to creating systems that would reconcile modernity with elements of Jewish tradition, these systems were mainly theoretical constructs rather than social realities.

The semineutral or neutral society that they imagined in which their Jewishness was irrelevant to their qualities as human beings and in which people of different religions could mix as equals never really existed. The social circles that seemed most to approach this semineutral society (for instance, the salons) were in fact circles where the pressure on the Jewish members to conform to Christian cultural, social, and even religious norms were intense. Even if individual Jews could find social acceptance or devise satisfactory syntheses of Jewishness and general culture for themselves, these individual successes had no institutional form and did not form generally accepted ways of identification. For most members of Berlin society,

Judaism still meant the Judaism of ritual observance and thus a step away from observance seemed tantamount to a step away from Judaism. Modernized Jews in Berlin had difficulty escaping the perception that they were

exceptions to the rule, different from the typical Jew. Rabbinic leaders were assumed (usually rightly so) to be enemies of the new way of thinking, and the Enlightened often felt estranged from Jewishness. Perhaps this is the reason Enlightened leaders seemed so anxious to devise a new term like “Israelit’” or “Old Testament believer’ to replace the derogatory “Jew.” Although an Enlightenment movement and a reform movement were created during the period under discussion, they were always marked as exceptional minority movements different from the bulk of Jewish practice. In the case of religious reform, it was unclear almost from the start whether the Prussian government was going to allow the movement to develop legally at all. For modernizing Jews the final step of undergoing baptism may not have seemed all that much more radical than working on the Sabbath or eating pork. Many might already have seen themselves as abandoning the only kind of Judaism that was “real Judaism.” _ Lacking any clear social or institutional model for a Judaism other than traditional, many modern Jews. seemed to feel themselves trapped somewhere between the “real Judaism” they had abandoned and the bulk of Christian society from which they were divided by legal and religious barriers. Conversion to Christianity might

permanently solve the question of belonging and identity. Rather than floating between two societies and belonging to neither, they could become Christians and find a clear form of self-identification. This identification was often made without

Conclusion 193 great religious fervor, but it did serve the purpose of finding a society to which to belong. If association with the majority religion brought with it political and social advantages, this made it all the more attractive.

The peculiar feeling of floating between two societies was most acute at the , beginning of the process of modernization in European Jewry. When those who were leaving the traditional way of life were a small minority, and most people

assumed that Jewishness implied the unadulterated tradition, the modern Jews had | a hard time finding a niche for themselves. Paradoxically, as the movement for modernization gained momentum, the necessity for radical abandonment of Jewishness became less urgent. As their numbers increased, modern Jews began to see themselves as an alternate model of what Judaism was. They could now say, “I am a modern Jew,” or “I am a reform Jew,” rather than merely, “I am not like the other Jews.” The real growth of the reform movement in Germany dates to the 1840s, by which time the crisis of Berlin Jewry had come to an end. By that time there were not only reformed services in a few places, but also reform rabbis and a growing institutionalization of reform practices. Although reform was very much delayed in returning to Berlin, Berlin Jews could still look at the growing number of modern-style Jews throughout Germany and identify with them. There was no longer a reason for Jews who did not follow tradition to see themselves as being outside the Jewish norms. Thus, paradoxically, the first nontraditionalists, being a small minority without a clear-cut model of the new Judaism that all agreed on, were more likely to take the radical step of apostasy than were the much more numerous nontradi-

, tionalists of later Judaism who saw so many more Jews like themselves. In the later generations (however much the orthodox might disagree), the nonorthodox Jew could see himself as being as legitimate if not more so than the traditionalist. There was no longer a single rabbinic Judaism from which one could measure one’s distance. There were now alternative models of Judaism and one could choose which model one wished to affiliate with. If this latter scenario is the true one, then what caused the “wave of baptisms” was not the abandonment of tradition itself, but the fact that the abandonment of

tradition was seen as abandonment rather than as the creation or adherence to another model of Judaism. It was the absence of an alternative that caused so many modernized Jews to turn away from Judaism altogether, not the existence of mod-

ernized Judaism itself. | The appearance of a widespread alternative to traditional Jewishness by the

1840s did not mean that all the problems that had faced Jews in Berlin during the , period of crisis had disappeared. Certainly Jews had not achieved full legal equal-

ity, and the goal of social acceptance seemed even further away. They could, however, believe that many of the problems of German Jewry were on the road to solution: economic positions were improving, there were signs of improvement in

legal status, and secular education and knowledge were steadily growing and seemed to be a permanent feature of German-Jewish life. The new world that had been promised by the Enlightenment and the early theorists of Emancipation had not yet arrived, but it seemed to be on the way to at least partial fruition. The appearance of viable forms of modern Jewish self-identification helps to

—194 CONCLUSION , explain why other communities did not have to go through the same type of crisis as Berlin Jewry. Once alternative models were in place anywhere, modern Jews could be reasonably certain that they had alternatives besides Christianity or a return to pre-Enlightenment Jewish life. They did not have to fear that the forces of tradition would be able to squelch the promising light of Western culture among the Jews. They knew that others had succeeded in creating some form of new synthesis and therefore did not see any particular reason to turn to Christianity out of despair. There were factors specific to Berlin as well. The explosive growth of Berlin _ Jewry in the late 1830s and thereafter ensured that the families and social circles most involved in the struggle for modernity and the ensuing crisis were becoming a shrinking minority of Berlin Jewry. By 1850 the vast majority of Berlin Jews came from families who had recently arrived from the eastern provinces and had never gone through a crisis. They either retained the traditions they brought with them from Posen, Silesia, and West Prussia or they were able to modernize in an atmosphere where viable cultural alternatives to tradition were present. Not coming from the old Berlin families that had been involved in the crisis, they were not personally affected by the influence of the old families. Growing up in an age when a modern Jewish sector was as much a fact of life as the existence of tradition,

they were not faced with the feelings of alienation that a previous generation undergoing modernization had faced. The first Jewish community and the first generations to go through a process of modernization of culture and lifestyle were the ones who went through the greatest trauma as well. The more the process of change became routinized, popular, and taken for granted, the less danger it seemed to pose to the survival of the Jewish community. After the initial crisis that those who cleared the path to modernity suffered, those who followed only needed to follow an increasingly well marked road. The Berlin Jews of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries went through great confusions and difficulties in their efforts to create models for modernizing Jewry. Many of them failed to find a means to accomplish their desires while remaining in the Jewish fold. Yet their efforts, with all their flaws, helped to create paths that others could follow more easily. The later generations were less likely to succumb to the temptation to stray from the community or from conventional family life. Many of the members of later generations of Berlin Jewry made important contributions to Jewish and German culture, but few of them were to have the pioneering cultural role of the crisis-ridden Berlin Jews of 1770 to 1830.

As we have seen, two models of explanation can be put forward with considerable force to explain the Taufepidemie. Some will prefer the simple statistical correlation, which shows reform more associated with conversion than orthodoxy. Others will prefer the “lack of alternative” theory. In a certain way preference for one or the other of these models will probably parallel the two traditional attitudes toward the Berlin Haskala. Those sympathetic to Haskala will prefer the “lack of alternative” theory; those unsympathetic to it will now be able to point to additional statistical evidence of what happens when people turn away from tradition. _ Although the statistical evidence that this study has uncovered can certainly tell

Conclusion 195 us more about what happened in the Taufepidemie it cannot settle the ideological controversy over the rightness or wrongness of liberal Judaism. Each group will be able to find some backing for its way of looking at the Jewish Enlightenment.

Berlin Jewry and the Overall Modernization Process In general this study has emphasized those factors that made the process of adaptation to the modern world by Berlin Jews different from the process in other communities. We have explored the reasons why the beginnings of modern times in Berlin Jewry precipitated a crisis much more acute and evident than that found in other communities. To a considerable extent we have attributed the crisis nature of modernization in Berlin to the absence of alternative models of change in a pioneering community. Having shown how Berlin was unique, however, we must still explain what there is about this pioneering community that made later Jewish historians and thinkers so interested in it. If it was so exceptional, why did so many later Jews see the events in Berlin as both a model and an influence on other communities? Was it merely that Berlin was the first community to undergo the changes, or was there some other common feature? Perhaps one can answer such questions by distinguishing between the specific way the crisis of modernization developed in Berlin and the underlying structural situation it exhibited. Perhaps other communities were not faced with a wave of illegitimacy or conversions on the Berlin scale at the beginning of their move from tradition to modernity, but many of them did experience the uncertainty and the

, dangers that such a process had for a minority community. In every community, even those where no crisis took place, mild cultural changes and changes in political status often brought in their wake more thoroughgoing transformations. Growth in secular education frequently brought in its wake abandonment of traditional religious practice. Improved social and economic status often led to an increase in intermarriage with the Christian majority. The relatively mild initial manifestations of the process of modernization almost everywhere led to more profound changes even if they rarely took the extreme forms found in Berlin. Among Jewish leaders at the beginning of the modernization period there was

frequently a split between those who saw the process of change as unalterably , dangerous and those who felt that the only way to cope with change was to tame it through compromise. Such leaders of the “Old Orthodox” party as Rabbi Moses Sofer (the Hatam Sofer) of Pressburg felt that even mild cultural change would lead eventually to a breakdown of the Jewish religion. They therefore fought even seemingly innocuous innovations in education, language, or style of life. Certainly

this uncompromising rejection of modernity did not long dominate Central European Jewry. Nevertheless, almost everywhere that the modernization process began, there were some traditionalist leaders who felt that loosening even one brick in the old edifice of tradition would cause the whole structure to collapse. Even though, eventually, most Jewish leaders and communities made their peace with the forces of modernity (where they did not embrace them outright), there

196 CONCLUSION was nevertheless a sense in which all change brought with it further change. Every

move in the direction of a voluntaristic Jewish community based on individual choice meant almost inevitably the growth of diversity within the community, the blurring of boundaries between Jews and non-Jews, and a growing trend to abandon traditional religious practice. The embracing of secular culture and secular education almost everywhere led to a decline in the central place occupied by the study of Jewish traditions and Jewish texts. In most Jewish communities, this process of change did not take the form of a crisis in which, within a generation or two, large sections of the community abandoned their Jewishness and their traditional family life. In most places, change was gradual with relatively few violent confrontations and few rapid paroxysms of abandonment of Judaism. Yet, if other communities did not manifest a Berlinstyle crisis, many or most saw a gradual slippage in commitment to tradition, in exclusive identification with Judaism, and in communal cohesiveness. Patterns of intermarriage developed more gradually than in Berlin and without the shocking quality shown when the children of communal leaders seemed to convert en masse. But if most communities did not fear a crisis of baptisms, many feared an actual or potential growth of assimilation, which would lead to the loss of large sections

of the community. In most later Jewish communities, the process was long and drawn out and the forces of cohesion had time to develop alternative strategies, which would enable many to cope with the powerful forces of assimilation. Still, those forces continued to exist in most Diaspora communities and they often worried communal leaders. Many of the ideologies and programs of modern Jewish movements were created, at least in part, to stem the forces of assimilation. Such movements have largely prevented a repetition of a crisis like that which occurred in Berlin. But, with few exceptions, they have not been able to reverse or halt the more gradual structural process of amalgamation with the majority culture. Because the question of survival or assimilation has remained a vital question for modern Jewish communities, the Berlin example has continued to hold so much interest. The Berlin Taufepidemie still resonates for those in the Jewish community

who fear assimilation and look for means to cope with it. Divisions of opinion

about the Berlin Jewish Enlightenment parallel divisions between more recent ideological trends. And these divisions often are based on different diagnoses and different prescriptions for the survival of the Jews as a minority group. Later Jews discussing Berlin Jewry between 1780 and 1830 were often merely using the Berlin case to debate their own solutions to their own problems of assimilation. While they tried to assess responsibility for the tendencies to leave Judaism then, they were also assessing the value of different methods of coping with the same structural problem in their own day. This same issue of survival or assimilation remains alive to this day. Berlin Jewry represents not only the beginning of the chain of

events leading to the contemporary situation, but it presents, in a particularly extreme form, many of the issues and forces still involved today in the troubled

adaptation of Judaism to the larger non-Jewish world. |

Notes

Chapter 1 1. In most cases in this volume, religious reform will be written with lower case letters following practice suggested by the historian of the Reform movement, Prof. Michael A. Meyer. The main argument in favor of such a practice is the fact that no institutionalized or ideological Reform movement existed until the 1830s. The term reform itself was rarely used in descriptions of the early experiments at liturgical change. Similarly the terms orthodox and orthodoxy will also generally be written with lower case letters for parallel reasons. On the other hand, Enlightenment (and even Enlightened when referring to the movement is generally capitalized since it was a defined ideological movement in the period under study. 2. Friedrich Nicolai, Beschreibung der kéniglichen Residenzstddte Berlin und Potsdam (Berlin: Fr. Nicolai, 1786), p. 240. 3. See Alexander Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study (University of Alabama Press, 1973), pp. 346-348. 4. This cynical phrase by Heinrich Heine is quoted often, including in The Jew in the

, Modern World (eds. Paul R. Mendes-Flohr and Jehuda Reinharz) (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 223. 5. The works whose subscription lists are used in this study are a. Mendelssohn’s Bible translation (1778-1783) b. The Hebrew journal Hameassef (1785) c. Yesod Olam, a medieval compendium of science reprinted and commented upon by Baruch of Shklov (1777) d. Sa’adia Gaon’s Emunot ve-De’ot reprinted by Isaac Satanov at the press of the Jiidische Freischule (1789) e. Satanov’s Mishle Asaf (1789)

f. Satanov’s Sefer Hamidot based on Aristotle’s Ethics (1790) g. Saul Berlin’s pseudonymous collection of responsa Besamim Rosh (1793) h. Shalom Hacohen’s volume of Hebrew poetry Mata’ei Kedem al Admat Tzafon (1807) 1. Herz Homberg, Imre Shefer (Vienna: 1808)

198 Notes to pages 7-11 For the sake of comparison the subscription list of a non-Enlightenment work of the same period was also looked at [Jonathan Eibeschiitz, Chidushim al Hilchot Yom Tov

le-haRambam (novellae on Maimonides’ holiday laws [1799])]. | The dates refer to the dates of the subscription lists. 6. The 1723-1789 tax lists are published in Joseph Meisl (ed.) Pinkas Kehilat Berlin. Protokollbuch der jiidischen Gemeinde Berlin (Jerusalem: Ruben Mass, 1962) (hereafter referred to as Pinkas). The 1809 tax list is in the Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People (hereafter referred to as CAHJP), P 17-466. The list of all Berlin Jews in 1812 by family comes from the Leo Baeck Institute (hereafter LBI) Jacobson collection I 82. The 1744 address list comes from LBI Jacobson collection I 37, and the 1812 address list from CAHJP P17-508. The genealogical material comes from Jacob Jacobson’s various works, especially his Jiidische Trauungen in Berlin 1759-1813 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1968); the baptismal records come from the cross-reference cards to all baptized Jews (Judenkartei) in the Evangelisches Zentralarchiv in Berlin, and the list of affiliates of the Beer-Jacobson temple is in CAHJP K Ge 2/83 (unlabeled). 7. The use of occupational categories for the social analysis of Berlin Jewry is beset with problems. First of all, considering the narrow range of occupations within Berlin Jewry it would be hard to differentiate clearly between different groups. A huge percentage of Berlin Jews were listed either as Kaufleute (merchants) or Handelsleute (dealers). Although the former were generally wealthier than the latter, the differences are not always very clear. Second, the occupation listed for an individual in one list frequently differs from the occupation listed for the same person elsewhere. Therefore, in most cases, where I need to differentiate between social classes I have relied on the tax lists (a rough indication of income) rather than on occupation. 8. Some of this genealogical material is presented in four genealogical tables in Chapters 13 and 14. 9. Some pioneering work on measuring the scope of the wave of baptisms has been done by Deborah Hertz in Jewish High Society in Old Regime Berlin (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1988), but this study goes beyond her work both in refining the information on the internal makeup of the conversion movement and in comparing it directly with other facts known about Berlin Jewry at the time.

| Chapter 2 1. Azriel Shohat, Im Chilufe Tekufot. Reshit Hahaskala Beyahadut Germania (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1960). See, for instance, the index of places, which has 33 entries for Berlin, but 42 for Hamburg plus 34 for Altona. The number of entries for Frankfurt am Main (42) also exceeds those for Berlin. Several of the entries for Berlin show traditionalist characteristics for Berlin (e.g., pp. 122, 130, 147). Certainly Berlin nowhere stands out in Shohat’s volume as particularly far from tradition. 2. The year 1671 is merely the conventional date for the founding of the community, because there was already a Jewish resident in Berlin for several years before the decree— , the court Jew Israel Aaron, who tried to prevent or restrict the arrival of his new competitors.

3. See Stefi Jersch-Wenzel, Juden und “Franzosen” in der Wirtschaft des Raumes Berlin/Brandenburg (Berlin: Colloquium Verlag, 1978) and Jiirgen Wilke’s lengthy study of the Berlin French colony in Helga Schultz, Berlin 1650-1800. Sozialgeschichte einer Residenz (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1987). 4. After 1701 1t would become the Prussian government.

Notes to pages 12-13 199 5. According to Nicolai, Beschreibung, p. 240, Berlin had 9,800 inhabitants in 1680 and 28,500 in 1700. 6. Ludwig Geiger, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin (Berlin: J. Guttentag, 1871), vol. 1, pp. 48-49. 7. Selma Stern, Der Preussische Staat und die Juden. vol. 3, pt. 1, (Ttibingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1971), pp. 71-80. Even the decree of 1750 made the exception of permitting the settling of newcomers, if they had at least 10,000 Taler in capital. Besides the Ordinarii and Extraordinarii, the Jews of Berlin were allowed a number of communal officials (Publique Bediente) above the regular number. These included rabbis, cantors, beadles, butchers, grave diggers, watchmen, etc. In addition, the individual families with residence permits could hire their own servants (maids and male office

, assistants), but none of these private servants could legally marry.

1764 (Beschreibung, p. 240). 8. Nicolai estimates a total population for Berlin of 78,000 in 1732 and 122,667 in

The number of taxpayers listed in the minute book of the Jewish community during the mid-eighteenth century were:

Year Number

1726 179 1729 186 1733 223 1739 262 1742 276 1745 309 1748 319 1754 341 1759 392 1764 437 1768 464 9. The number of Jewish taxpayers in the period 1768 to 1789 hovers between 464 and 483 and never goes above 500. 10. In addition the Prussian Jews had to pay 4,800 Rekrutengeld (for the army), 400 Taler Kalendergeld (for a government-sponsored calendar), and 300 for the Monte pietis (public charitable table pawnship).

11. Selma Stern, vol. 2, pt. 1, pp. 43-44, 48-49; vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 260-261; vol. 3, pt. 1, p. 50; vol. 3, pt. 2, pp. 420-421, 471-473, 495. 12. Such requirements were promulgated in 1725, again annually between 1744 and 1750, and finally after 1763. In 1765 the requirement to deliver 8,200 Marks of pure silver

: was suddenly raised to 30,000 Marks though in the following year it was reduced again to 18,000.

13. Selma Stern, vol. 2, pt. 1, p. 41; vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 2, 9, 19, 219-220; vol. 3, pt. 1, p. 51-54, 55-58, 221-224; vol. 3, pt. 2, pp. 511-512, 530-533.

, 14. Selma Stern, vol. 2, pt. 1, pp. 61-65; vol. 3, pt.1, pp. 137-139. Among the products with which Jews were forbidden to deal were wool and thread, raw hides, foreign hides, tallow, tobacco, sugar, wine, coffee, tea, and chocolate. They could sell dyestuff and spices only in towns where no Christian dealt in such products. The Jews were also very much affected by the general protectionist policies of the two monarchs, which forbade all merchants from exporting raw materials.

200 Notes to pages 13-15 15. Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 82-86. 16. CAHJP—K Ge 2/120. 17. Although this traditional formulation was used to describe the duties of the rabbis of the Beth Hamidrash, their actual duties were a good deal more circumscribed. They were to be prepared to teach a daily Mishna class for an hour after morning prayers and a daily class in Shulchan Aruch (Orech Chaim) for an hour before afternoon prayers. The

audience was to consist of members of the Beth Hamidrash and any other community

members who wished to attend. When Sanwil Neugas was appointed a rabbi of the Beth Hamidrash in 1766, his duties included to be present all morning to hear the lessons of students from bar mitzvah age to age 18. In the afternoon he was to study together with all who wished to come “whether great classes or small classes (shiuro rabbo veshiuro zuto).” He was not to leave the building for classes in a private home except with two or more persons and then only after afternoon prayers. He was to supervise the study of the yeshiva students (bachurim) “day and night” and to teach a class in Pirke Avot on Sabbath afternoons. Similar duties were set for Rabbi Loeb Farrnbach in 1770 [Moritz Stern, “Das Vereinsbuch der Berliner Beth Hamidrasch,” Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Jiidischen Gemeinde zu Berlin, 4 (1931), pp. I,

XIV, XV]. |

Until 1743 legacies by community members for Torah study had to be sent to Lissa and Posen in Great Poland. 18. See Pinkas, pp. xxiv—xliv. 19. Pinkas, pp. Ixxvi-lxxvii, 68 (document 74, paragraphs 6-7). 20. Pinkas, pp. lix—lxi, 45 (document 61, paragraph 1). 21. A budget of the year 1811 sets aside 25,435 Reichstaler for government taxes and only 14,019 Reichstaler for communal expenses (CAHJP 17-466, pp. 9—10). In 1792, when the Itzig family who had been granted naturalization settled their accounts with the Jewish community, it was calculated that 2,700 Reichstaler of the 5,642 Reichstaler they paid to the community were to be credited to governmental taxes (from which they were now exempt), while 2,845 was to go for the upkeep of the community (CAHJP P17-642— discrepancy in figures in the original). 22. Pinkas, p. lv; the list of 22 private services (minyanim) can be found in LBI Jacobson

collection I 49, p. 107a. ,

23. This seems to be indicated by the fact that one of the chief sources of income for the Hebron fund was stated to be money collected on the four regular fast days—-Shiva Asar Betamuz, Tisha Be’av, Asara beTevet, and Ta’anit Esther—as well as once on the Monday—Thursday—Monday fast (b’hb) after Passover and once on the fast after Sukkoth, as well as on any other fast day agreed upon by the community in time of trouble (Pinkas, p. 28, paragraph 44).

24. Kede shelau yaavru zeman krias shema utefilo. |

25. Pinkas, p. 65, section 61, paragraph 5: “Also no one may bring meat from an animal , from the small towns [yishuvim] because the members of our community [bnei kehilosenu]

have the custom of forbidding meat from an animal with growths on the lungs [bosor shenisrecho]. And in the small towns they have the custom of allowing it. Therefore it is forbidden and anyone who violates this shall pay a fine of 10 Reichstaler [a considerable sum] and his dishes are non-kosher [vehakelim asurim], except from those communities which also have the custom to forbid such meat. From them one may get slaughtered meat.” A later paragraph, number 25, also seems to require another “glatt kosher” practice: “If there is meat left over at the end of the week and its time may pass [mecht iber die Zeit werden] [i.e., it must be salted and soaked within seventy-two hours of slaughtering] . . .

| Notes to pages 15-16 201 then the overseers shall distribute the remainder among the taxpayers so that each shall take several pounds.” 26. A proof of the universality of Sabbath observance is a communal rule (1729) complaining of the violation of the Sabbath caused by the custom of grabbing [chotfim] from the food portions for the celebrations of the birth of a boy. Instead the host or waiters were to distribute the portions properly to each guest. The Sabbath violation described here must be a very minor one. It cannot be a matter of carrying on the Sabbath, since Berlin at the time was surrounded by a wall, which would have made carrying permissible. If more major Sabbath violations had been at all widespread, such a minor infraction would not have been mentioned (Pinkas, p. 52, section 64, paragraph 8). Proof that the observance of family purity must have been universal is the discussion of imposing a tax (Pardon) on use of the ritual bath—1739 (Pinkas, p. 87, section 89). 27. Pinkas, p. 30, section 46, dated 1729. Ironically the rabbi appointed in that year, Moses Aaron of Leipnik, was appointed under government pressure and seems to have had few of the qualities claimed for him in the resolution of appointment. Even the letter of appointment of Zvi Hirschel as rabbi of Berlin as late as 1772 speaks of “sharp pilpul” (Pinkas, section 268). Geiger, who reports on the disputes about Rabbi Moses Aaron (Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, vol. 1, pp. 49-50; vol. 2, pp. 85-86), also reports, rather censoriously, about the traditionalism of Berlin Jewry in the first years of the eighteenth century. He especially mentions the interest in Kabbala and the support for the Sabbatian writer Nehemia Chajun who came to Berlin in 1713 and published two books there (Geiger, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, vol. 1, pp. 24-25, vol. 2, pp. 48-50). 28. A record of 1745, for instance, discusses the practice of various large communities asher begolus yisroel (in the Jewish exile). In 1754, when the community was forced to buy certain goods from the king at a loss, they declared all members of the community to be fully responsible partners vechau yihye vechau yikaum benenu ad bau gauel tzidkenu

, (and so shall it be and so shall it occur until our redeemer comes). The last example of such language occurs as late as 1802. In a document dealing with the attempt to convince the communal elder Liepmann Meyer Wulff not to resign his post, the introduction describes the fact that Jewish leaders show God’s continuing grace miyaum bo am bechirau al admas nechor (from the day when His chosen people came onto foreign soil) (Pinkas, sections 125, 159, 348). 29. One such example is shown in a document dated 1762 (in the middle of the Seven Years War), which concerns a loan of 6,300 Reichstaler by the community of Halberstadt to the Berlin community. Evidently the community of Berlin felt endangered by war con, ditions. Therefore article 3 of the contract began “Should our redeemer come with the help of God to bring us up to the Holy Land [Bevau gauel tzidkenu be’ezras hashem yisborach lehalausenu el hooretz hakedausho| or \f another reason should cause our community, heaven forbid, to move and scatter its individual members from here” they would first have to repay the loan to the community of Halberstadt. A similar “Messianic” passage is found in the communal record book of Berlin dated 1746. Again a loan is teken out and the principal is to be kept by the institution (only interest is to be paid out) “until our redeemer comes. And if our redemption should come soon [ve’im tihyeh ge’ulausenu bizman korauv] or 1f there be a reason which we cannot write down that the community has to scatter,” then the loan has to be repaid (Pinkas, # 129, 198. The 1762 example is also quoted by Shohat, Im Chilufe Tekufot, p. 195). This seems to be counterevidence to Gershom Scholem’s claim that the failure of the Sabbatai Zvi movement in the 1660s caused Jews to despair of the coming of the Messiah.

202 Notes to pages 16-18 30. See Geiger, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, vol. 1, pp. 19-23; vol. 2, pp. 36-46; Selma Stern, vol. 1, pt. 1, pp. 108-110; vol. 2, pt. 1, p. 133; vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 291-299, ~ 31. Selma Stern, vol. 1, pt. 1, pp. 109-110; vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 264, 267-278; vol. 3, pt. 2, pp. 61, 230-232, 234, 251-253, 257-258, 309-314. 32. Besides the dispute between Markus Magnus and the Liebmanns there were the disputes between Moses Levin Gumpertz and Veitel Heine Ephraim on one side and a clique headed by Meyer Ries and Abraham Hirschel on the other (1750). When the Gumpertz—Ephraim party won, a dispute soon broke out between Gumpertz and his brother-

in-law Ephraim—a dispute that not only involved disagreements about communal procedure but also became a bitter commercial battle (Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 272, 235~-

241; vol. 3, pt. 2, pp. 265-269, 270-272; Hugo Rachel and Paul Wallich, Berliner Grosskaufleute und Kapitalisten, vol. 2 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1967) [hereafter referred to as Rachel/Wallich], pp. 59-61.) Other disputes involved the unpopular election of rabbi

Moses Aaron in 1729, which led to fistfights and arrests (Selma Stern, vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 290— , 299).

33. Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 278.

34. The street names, Jiidenstrasse and Jiidenhof, both of them in the main Jewish , residential area, received their name from the medieval Jewish ghettos, not from their functioning as Jewish streets after 1671. 35. Geiger, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, vol. 1, p. 49, vol. 2, pp. 84-85, reports on an attempt by the king to force Jews who did not own their own houses to move from their rented homes into the barracks between the Koénigs gate and the Spandauer gate. There

seems little reason to believe this regulation was ever enforced. There are notes in the minute book of the Jewish community dated 1738 and 1741 that speak about accounts and treasurers involved with Baracken and Service (al kol iske habaracken veservis). It would seem that these were two kinds of payments to the government, the first of them intended to buy off the decree concerning moving to the barracks. 36. A government document of 1744 would seem to indicate that the Jewish residence patterns were voluntary. It states “auf der Friedrichs-Stadt sich einzumieten und zu wohnen,

wird sich niemand von den Juden deshalb bequemen, weil sie alsdann teils von der Synagoge, teils von andern Juden und ihrer Freunde Umgang, samt deren zuweilen noétigen

Beihiilfe allzu sehr entfernt sind” (None of the Jews would agree to rent or live in the Friedrichstadt [a section far from Alt Berlin] in part because they would then be too far from the synagogue and in part because they’d be too far from the other Jews and the socialization of their friends as well as their help when needed). Government decrees had stated that in buildings owned by Christians there should be at least one Christian tenant, not only Jews (Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 2, pp. 134-35). All these provisions would seem to indicate that the government did not generally support ghettoization of the Jews. 35. Nicolai, Beschreibung, p. 232, gives the civilian population of the (Alt) Berlin district as 22,017 in 1777. 38. The 114 households on the prestigious streets included 56 on Spandauerstrasse and the others on K6nigstrasse, Poststrasse, Heilige Geist Strasse, Neue Markt, and Molken-

markt. One hundred twenty-four households were located on the following back streets and alleys: Klandergasse, Pankowgasse, Probstgasse, (Nikolai) kirchgasse, Bollengasse, Kraut und Fischmarkt, Heidereutergasse, Hinter der Garnisonskirche, Hoher Steinweg, Kronengasse, Siebergasse, Grosser Jiidenhof, Reetzengasse, Geckhol, Kleiner Jiidenhof, and Hinter der Kénigsmauer. Rosenstrasse was once the main street for prostitutes in Berlin and was originally called Hurenstrasse. The list is found in the Jacobson collection at the Leo Baeck Institute (file I 377).

39. Geiger, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, vol. 1, p. 43.

Notes to pages 18~55 203 40. Selma Stern, vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 75-78. 41. Seventeen sold linens (Weisswaren or Leinwand), twelve sold silk, and seven sold wool cloth. Four were clothing dealers. At least fifteen others sold cloth or clothing and other goods as well. 42. There were 15 money changers, seven pawnbrokers, five embroiderers, and five silver deliverers for the mint. 43, Nine of the 14 top Jewish taxpayers in Berlin in 1739 can be identified by occupation. They include 3 in the silk business, 3 money changers, one who was both a money changer ard in the silk business, one pawnbroker, and one who dealt with tea and linens. 44, Nicolai, Beschreibung, p. 240. 45. Nicolai, Beschreibung, p. 2, lists 5,190 French and 1,052 Bohemians alongside 3,374 Jews in Berlin in 1785. Geiger, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, vol. 1, p. 44, vol. 2, p. 78, mentions how Berlin Jews helped the Protestant refugees from Salzburg. 46. Nicolai, Beschreibung, p. 241. 47. See, for instance, the usage in Altmann, Mendelssohn, pp. 386-388. 48. See, for instance, Altmann, Mendelssohn, pp. 653-654. 49, Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 83-84. 50. Selma Stern, vol. 2, pt. 1, pp. 95-102. 51. The record of the case of Jeremias Cohen in the communal minute book states that since he had “broken the fence and acted contrary to the law and religion of our Torah and Jewish custom [poratz geder venohag atzmau neged din vedas taurosenu uminhag yisroel],” he was not to be called to the Torah on the holidays (but could be called on Sabbath and weekdays) and he could not stand in the place of honor next to the Torah reader at all (laamaud lisgan) (Pinkas, paragraph 80). On the Veitel Heine Ephraim—Abraham Posner case, see Leiser Landhuth, “Veitel Heine Ephraim als Anwalt des Judenbarts” [written, 1872], published by Moritz Stern in 1909 as the first of a never-completed series Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Juden in Berlin. Landshuth

claims that Ephraim got involved in the case more out of spite against Posner than out of religious conviction. The story of the expulsion of a Bleichréder for reading a German book is mentioned in Meyer Kayserling, Moses Mendelssohn. Sein Leben und seine Werke (Leipzig, 1862) and is repeated in Heinz Knobloch’s popular, Herr Moses in Berlin. Ein Menschenfreund in Preussen. Das Leben des Moses Mendelssohn (Berlin: 1982) but not in Alexander Altmann’s scholarly biography.

, Jeremias Cohen and Abraham Posner (also called Abraham Hirschel) were both wealthy members of the community, while Bleichréder was a poor servant. 52. See Chapter 5, pp. 46-47 and notes 19-24. 53. Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 373-375; Geiger, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, vol. 1, pp. 75-76; Altmann, Mendelssohn, pp. 10-25. Among Gumpertz’s works were a supercommentary to Ibn Ezra’s Bible commentary and a Hebrew compendium on the sciences. He acquired a doctorate of medicine from the University of Frankfurt an der Oder in 1751. Samoscz wrote Hebrew commentaries on the works of the n.edieval Jewish thinkers Yehuda Halevy, Yehuda Ibn-Tibbon, and Bahya Ibn Pakuda. The Marquis d’Argens wrote several pro-Jewish works, notably Lettres Juives (1736—38) and was one of the many French-speaking members of the Prussian Academy. Pierre Louis Moreau Maupertuis was the president of the academy. 54. The best researched decription of Mendelssohn’s first years in Berlin are Altmann, Mendelssohn, pp. 15-91. 55. The one exception to this is Kohelet Musar, a small journal that Mendelssohn and a friend Tobias published in Hebrew. It seems to have had only two issues. The exact date

204 Notes to pages 22-28 of this early Haskala (Hebrew Enlightenment) work is disputed. Some date it to 1750, others, among them Altmann, to 1758.

Chapter 3 1. Heinrich Schnee’s Der Hoffinanz und der moderne Staat. Geschichte und System der Hoffaktoren an deutschen Fiirstenhéfen im Zeitalter des Absolutismus (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1953) is particularly hostile to the coin entrepreneurs. Rachel/Wallich, vol. 2, pp. 291-311, 313-320, are somewhat more balanced, while Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 227-254, tries to explain the economic value and importance of the coin manipulation for saving the Prussian government’s finances. 2. Ephraim and Itzig were not themselves related by blood. However, two of Veitel Ephraim’s grandchildren—Henne Veitel Ephraim (d. 1776) and David Ephraim (1762-1835, later known as Johann Andreas Schmidt) married Daniel Itzig’s children Isaac Daniel Itzig and Rebecca Itzig. Moses Isaac-Fliess was married to Daniel Itzig’s sister Bela (d. 1793). Fliess’s son Joseph (1745-1822, later baptized as Dr. Carl Ferdinand Fliess) married Daniel

Itzig’s daughter Hanne (1748-1801).

3. Moses Isaac-Fliess paid 2 Taler, 3 Groschen in 1748 (already a substantial sum), 4 Taler in 1754, and 47 Taler, 3 Groschen in 1764. Veitel Heine Ephraim was already very wealthy before the war. In 1745 he was paying 4 Taler, 18 Groschen, 9 Pfennig in taxes, which rose to 7 Taler, 18 Groschen in 1754 and 31 Taler, 12 Groschen in 1764. All these figures come from Pinkas. These taxes were paid 42 times a year. | The taxpayers from the three combined families who paid 26 percent of the total communal taxes were Veitel Heine Ephraim and his sons Ephraim and Joseph, his son-in-law Aaron Meyer (Joresch), as well as Moses Isaac-Fliess and Daniel Itzig. , The pattern of greater concentration of wealth at the top of the economic scale continued until the end of the 1780s, at least, with the top 5 percent of taxpayers paying about 40 percent of all Jewish taxes. 4. It has recently been restored by the government of (then) East Berlin. 5. Among the buildings previously purchased by Itzig were Neue Friedrichstrasse 36 (8,000 Taler) and Neue Friedrichstrasse 42 (9,500 Taler). The Itzig mansion was so large that by 1812 it was inhabited by several wealthy Berlin Jewish families, among them Itzig’s son-in-law David Friedlander, his grandson Moses Friedlander, and two leaders of the Berlin reform synagogue.

6. Rachel/Wallich, vol. 2, pp. 311-312, 356, 383.

7. Nicolai, Beschreibung, pp. 6, 9, 11, 852, 856. , , 8. Nicolai, Beschreibung, pp. 784, 787, 838-840. The art collection belonging to Veitel Heine Ephraim’s son Benjamin included a Caravaggio and two paintings by Poussin. Among

them was The Flight of Mary and Jesus to Egypt. The collection of Dr. Joseph Fliess included Rembrandt’s painting of Ahasuerus, Haman, and Esther as well as a painting of

Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene. ,

9. Felix Eberty, Jugenderinnerungen eines alten Berliners (Berlin: Verlag fiir Kulturpolitik, 1925), pp. 251-253. 10. See Nicolai, Beschreibung, pp. 934-935; Rachel/Wallich, vol. 2, pp. 357-358. 11. Nicolai, Beschreibung, pp. 861, 931; Rachel/Wallich, vol. 2, pp. 314, 341, 357358.

12. Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 198, 205-208, 210-212; Rachel/Wallich, vol. 2, pp. 323-333, 359, 361-362. 13. Ephraim’s silver refinery was evaluated as being worth 200,000 Taler at the time

Notes to pages 28~31 205 his testament was written in 1773--74. The gold braid manufactory employed over 1,000 workers. In 1782 it had a gross production worth 300,000 Taler (Rachel/Wallich, vol. 2, pp. 323-324, 332-333. 14. The velvet and plush factories of the family of David Hirsch were founded in the 1730s; in 1768 when Jakob Hirsch reduced the velvet factory to 82 looms, he also set up a factory of lighter silk goods with 45 looms. The plush factory, however, had to be given up in the 1780s, since changes in style made plush less salable. Moses Ries, who started his silk factory in 1748, was still considered one of the most important Prussian silk manufacturers in 1783 but had to sell the factory in 1785 to Israel Marcus. Bernhard Isaac (Mendelssohn’s employer) began his business in the late 1740s. After his death in 1768 the factory continued to flourish and sometimes reached 120 looms. Another Jewish silk factory owner was Meyer Benjamin Levi, who was most active between 1771 and 1783. Among Jewish silk stocking manufacturers were Moses Meyer Bendix. Abraham Friedlander, the brother of the Enlightenment leader David Friedlander, started a silk ribbon factory in 1779. Isaac Joel founded a sewing factory at the orphanage in 1749. He also founded a wallpaper factory.

, 15. See, for instance, Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 190, 191, 195, 196, 197, 200, 204. 16. Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 172-173, 174-176. 17. Rachel/Wallich, vol. 2, pp. 536-542. 18. Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 100-107. It would seem that the General Privilege was not intended to suppress noble or guild privileges. A dispute over the meaning of the Generalprivileg came up in 1783 when attempts were made to prevent some K6nigsberg Jewish merchants with General Privileges from a type of commerce (Handel tiber Scheffel und Wage) generally restricted to members of the city’s merchant guild. Although opinion was divided on the matter, the king finally decided to allow the Jewish merchants to engage in this type of commerce.

19. Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 2, p. 101. When the requirement to purchase porcelain from the royal factory was introduced in 1769, those settled on a General Privilege had to buy a larger amount than those who were merely Ordinarii (Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 1, p. 222). 20. Schnee discusses these individual grants of General Privilege in Hoffinanz, vol. 1, pp. 186-196. 21. Among the manufacturers who received General Privilegien were Isaac Benjamin Wulff (cotton manufacturer)—1765, Levi Moses Levi—1765 (on condition of starting a stocking factory), Meyer Benjamin Levy-——1771 (cotton and silk manufacturer), Moses Ries—1772 (silk manufacturer), Bernhard Isaac’s widow—1773 (silk manufacturer), the Hirsch brothers (silk manufacturers)—-1774, Israel Markus (manufacturer of partly silken goods)-——1785. Among the bankers were Marcuse, Jacob Moses, and Salomon Moses Levy’s

heirs. See Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 100-107, 197, 198, 199~200, 201~203. 22. Between 1726 and 1759 only 20 different individuals served as parnassim, even though elections were held 12 times during the period and the number of elders was generally five (besides one or two government-appointed Oberdlteste serving for life). Between 1762 and 1803 there were 27 different individuals in 12 elections even though the number of elders per year were generally only four besides the two Oberiilteste. 23. This regulation was almost immediately modified to allow wealthy persons who were incumbents as tovim or ikkurim to serve as elders. 24. Pinkas, pp. 205-207, sections 202~203. The only elders from before the war who were ever elected after the war were Veitel Heine Ephraim and Hirsch David (Prager) who had first been an elder between 1750 and 1759 and then served again in 1768 and 1771.

206 Notes to pages 31-32 Of the postwar elders, only six others had held any prewar office. These exceptions were Nathan Samuel Bendix (elder in 1768, ikkur in 1750), Jospe Hollander (elder in 1762 and 1765, tov in 1759, treasurer in 1756, charity warden in 1753), Itzik Ries (elder 1771, charity warden 1756-1759), Moses Bamberg (elder 1762, treasurer 1747, 1753-1759, charity warden 1744), Jacob Moses (Oberdltester 1768, 1774-1799, charity warden 1759), Juda

Veit (elder 1762, 1774, 1780, treasurer 1750). | |

25. The seven electors were chosen by lot. Before 1768 there were 3 chosen from _ among rich taxpayers, 2 chosen from medium taxpayers, and 2 from among small taxpayers. After the changes the distribution was: rich—4, medium—2, and poor—1. The change in the distribution of the electors may not really represent a restriction of the vote to a smaller group. It may also have been an attempt to reflect the growth of the wealthy class due to inflation. Whereas only about one in six heads of family qualified as members of the class of rich in the 1740s (as against one-third in the middle and one-half small taxpayers), this had been changed by the inflation and enrichments of the Seven Years War to almost one-third rich, one-fourth middle, and only two-fifths small taxpayers in 1764. The attempt to offset this growth in the number of those qualifying as rich was made in two ways: by increasing the “rich electors” from three to four in 1768, and by raising the boundaries between classes from 1,200 Taler and 3,000 Taler, to 1,800 and 4,000 in 1776. This latter change reduced those in the rich category to about one in four families, and increased the poor families to near one-half. The situation by 1780 would have given one-fourth the taxpayers (the rich) four of seven electors, as compared with one-sixth the families with three of seven electors before the Seven Years War. 26. This seems to appear for the first time in Pinkas, pp. 205-206, section 202. See also Stern, vol. 3, pt. 2, pp. 275-277. Although there is no evidence of a property qualifi-

| cation for election previously, virtually all elders elected before the war had also been wealthy men. An assessment of 4,000 Taler really meant possession of at least 16,000

Taler in capital, since only one-fourth of a person’s capital was assessed. , 27. Also suspended were regulations forbidding persons to be heads of charity funds at the same time as elders of the community and some of the regulations on having previ-

ously held offices. ,

28. The only move in the opposite direction was a lowering of the property qualification for elders to 3,000 Taler [Pinkas, pp. xlix, 323 (section 312), 399-401 (section 345)] and a temporary decision of 1780 to permit the election of tovim and ikkurim with only an Erech of 2,500 Reichstaler. 29. He had previously been chosen as an auditor (Ro’eh Cheshbonot) in 1780 and 1783 (Pinkas, pp. 326, 342). It is not clear whether he held any more important offices before his election as an elder in 1808. 30. Juda Veit served as an elder from 1762 to 1765, 1774 to 1777, and 1780 to 1783. Hirsch David (Prager) served as elder from 1750 to 1762 and 1765 to 1774. Veit’s son Salomon served as a charity warden from 1780 to 1786, as an assistant elder (Tov) from 1789 to 1794, and as an elder from 1794 to 1808. Hirsch David’s son David Hirsch served as an elder from 1808 to 1814. 31. The Bendix family was made up of the descendants of the assistant rabbi Samuel Bendix. Joel Samuel Bendix was an elder from 1759 to 1762. His brother Nathan was an elder from 1768 to 1771. Nathan’s son Hirsch Nathan Bendix served as an elder from

1789 to 1794 and as a treasurer from 1780 to 1786. Hirsch’s brother Samuel Bernsdorff, | a later reform Jewish leader, was an assistant elder from 1794 to 1803. A third son of Nathan Bendix, Levin Nathan Bendix, was a treasurer from 1797 to 1803. Hirsch Nathan

Bendix was a brother-in-law of David Friedlander. , 32. Isaac Esaias Riess was an elder from 1771 to 1774, 1777 to 1780, and 1783 to ,

1786, having previously served as a charity warden from 1753 to 1759 and an assistant

Notes to pages 32-36 207 elder (Tov) from 1759 to 1762, 1765 to 1768. His brother David (Tevele) was a treasurer | from 1783 to 1786 and 1794 to 1797, His son Philipp was an assistant elder (Tov) from 1797 to 1803. 33. After the publication of Hartwig Wessely’s Divre Shalom Ve’emet, when the rabbi of Berlin was planning to take action against Wessely, David Friedlander and his brother-

in-law Isaac Daniel Itzig prevailed on Daniel Itzig to put pressure on the rabbi and thus prevent any action (Altmann, Mendelssohn, pp. 483-484).

Chapter 4 1. Both Maimon and Baruch of Sklov left Berlin after relatively short stays. In the case of Baruch he was in Berlin less than two years. Mendel Lefin, born in Satanov, also spent only a short time in Berlin (1780-1783) and had his main influence on Jews in East-

ern Europe. |

2. Moses Mendelssohn came from Dessau in Central Germany. Dr. Marcus Bloch, a world famous ichthyologist, came from Ansbach in South Germany. David Friedlander was born in KOnigsberg, East Prussia. Hartwig Wessely, the Hebrew poet, was born in Hamburg but spent much of his adult life in Copenhagen, before going first to Amsterdam and then to Berlin. Isaac Euchel was born in Copenhagen and later lived in Kénigsberg before coming to Berlin. 3. In his autobiography, Samuel Lippmann Loewen states that when he came to , Konigsberg all the Jews there were uneducated, dirty, and wore long beards except Joseph Seeligmann and Joachim M. Friedlander (LBI- Valentin Collection I 9 [AR 3820] copy 2, p. 12). 4. In 1780 his assessment of 7 Taler, 19 Groschen made him twenty-second of 471 Jewish taxpayers. 5. The highest assessment ever paid by Lazarus Bendavid’s father was 2 Taler, 6 Groschen, 9 Pfennig, in 1764. Thereafter his assessment was always below 2 Taler (the approximate boundary between high and medium taxpayers). Bendavid’s grandfather reached

| his highest tax assessment in 1754 when he paid 4 Taler, 7 Groschen, 6 Pfennig, one of the highest assessments of the time. Later his assessments gradually declined. Saul Ascher’s assessment of 2 Taler, 16% Groschen in 1789 placed him just within the upper tax bracket. His father’s highest assessment was 2 Taler, 21 Groschen in the same year. Saul Ascher’s paternal grandfather Levin Seligmann served as an elder from 1747 to 1762.

6. The Hebrew poet Hartwig Wessely, by contrast, came from a wealthy family in Hamburg but lost most of his family fortune and had to live as a dependent to others in Berlin. 7. See, for instance, Altmann, Mendelssohn, p. 144, which discusses a letter of Mendels-

sohn mentioning that his business activities left him little time for other pursuits. David Friedlander retired from his business activities in 1804 to devote himself exclusively to

public service. :

8. Illustrative of marriage among physicians 1s the fact that Dr. Marcus Herz married the daughter of Dr. Benjamin de Lemos and Dr. Wolff Davidson married the daughter of Dr. Marcus Bloch. All of the doctors mentioned except de Lemos were authors of Enlightenment works. Among physicians known to have converted to Christianity were Dr. Joseph Fliess (son-in-law of Daniel Itzig) and his nephew Dr. Isaac Fliess, Dr. Ludwig Wilhelm Rintel, and Dr. Pinder. 9. Lazarus Bendavid became the director of the Jiidische Freischule in Berlin: Aron Halle Wolffsohn and Joel (Bril) Loewe were directors of the modern Jewish school in Breslau.

208 Notes to pages 37-39 , 10. See the description by Benjamin Veitel Ephraim of his early education in Chapter 5, p. 51 and note 49. 11. The exceptions include the short-lived Hebrew periodical Kohelet Musar (1750 or 1758). See Chapter 2, note 55. 12. Altmann, Mendelssohn, pp. 346-361. 13. A partial listing of the works written by Jewish Enlightenment writers in Berlin between 1783 and 1797 shows how prolific the writers were in this period: The translations of the Jewish prayerbook into German by Euchel and by David Friedlander—1786 Wessely’s Shirei Tiferet—1789 Euchel’s Biography of Moses Mendelssohn—1789 as well as the same author’s: “Igrot Meshulam ben Uriyah Ha’eshtemodai”—1790 and his play Reb Henoch—c. 1793 Saul Berlin’s Besamim Rosh—1793 and his Ktav Yosher-—-1794—95

Numerous works by Isaac Satanov, especially his Mishle Asaf—1789-92 Aron Wolfsohn’s “Siach Be’eretz Hachayim”-——1794—97 and his play Leichtsinn und Frémmelei—

before 1796 Lazarus Bendavid, Etwas zur Characteristick der Juden—1793 Saul Ascher, Leviathan oder Uber Religion in Riicksicht des Judenthums—1792

14. One exception can be made in the characterization of a moderate older generation and a radical younger one. Saul Berlin, the son of the chief rabbi of Berlin and himself rabbi of Frankfurt an der Oder, was born in 1740, that is between the two generations. His pseudoepigraphic Besamim Rosh, which claimed to be a collection of medieval rabbinic responsa but was in fact his own work, gave some extremely liberal rulings in accord with Haskala desires. He also wrote some strongly antitraditional satires. 15. Somewhat younger writers included Saul Ascher (1767) and Wolff Davidson (1772). 16. From the Bible translation of Mendelssohn, to the literary magazine Hameassef, to the works of Isaac Satanov, to republications of masterpieces of medieval Jewish philosophy (such as Emunot ve-De’ot of Sa’adia Gaon and Kuzari by Yehuda Halevy). 17. The works included in this list were 1. Mendelssohn’s Bible translation

2. Hameassef | :

3. The reprinting of Saadia Gaon’s Emunot ve-De’ot 4. Isaac Satanov’s edition of Sefer Hamidot (Ethics) based on Aristotle

5. Satanov’s Mishle Asaf | 6. Baruch of Sklov’s reprinting of the medieval scientific work Yesod Olam 7. Saul Berlin’s Besamim Rosh

See Chapter 1, note 5 for the exact references. The other works mentioned in that note were not used in the analysis in this paragraph. 18. Of the male taxpayers alive at the time and having a tax bill over 4 Reichstaler at least once, 59 of 69 were subscribers to at least one of the works. Only one of the seven women in the category was a subscriber. I could find only three women’s names among

over 250 subscribers to the seven works listed.

19. Of the 60 persons who paid over 4 Taler taxes and who subscribed to some Haskala works, no more than eleven subscribed to only a single work. Twelve subscribed to two works, 8 to three, 8 to four, 10 to five, 5 to six, and 6 to all seven. 20. For more details on the subscribers to the Mendelssohn Bible translation see Steven } M. Lowenstein, “The Readership of Mendelssohn’s Bible Translation,” Hebrew Union College Annual 53 (1982), 179-213. Among the subscribers in 1780 to the Mendelssohn translation were ten of the fifteen individuals with the title parnas umanhig (indicating that they were incumbent or past elders of the community). 21. They were Daniel Itzig himself, his son Isaac Daniel Itzig, his son-in-law David Friedlander, and his brother-in-law Isaac Benjamin Wulff.

| Notes to pages 39-44 209 22. He actually held the post from 1780 till his death, along with other communal offices (Pinkas, pp. 211-212, section 209, 258-259, section 253, pp. 325, 343). Mendelssohn

, was also on the board of the Beth Hamidrash and was an active participant in the society for dowries for brides. 23. In 1773 Mendelssohn traveled to the spa at Bad Pyrmont with Zacharias Veitel Ephraim, and in 1774 he traveled with Zacharias Ephraim’s sister R6sel Meyer. Mendelssohn also went on business trips with their brother Benjamin Veitel Ephraim (Altmann, Mendelssohn, pp. 279-282; Moses Mendelssohn, Gesammelte Schriften, Jubildumsausgabe (StuttgartBad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag [Giinther Holzboog], 1977) [hereafter Jubildum-

sausgabe], vol 19, letters 173, 196, 124, 195). 24. Altmann, Mendelssohn, pp. 277-278. 25. Joel (Bril) Loewe was the private tutor for David Friedlander’s children. Both Salomon Dubno and Herz Homberg started out as tutors of Mendelssohn’s children. 26. Joel (Bril) Loewe grew up in the home of Aaron (Joresch) Meyer from the age of nine (Shmuel Feiner, “Itzhak Euchel-——Haya’azam shel tenuat hahaskala beGermania’”, Zion

52 [1987], no. 4, pp. 435-436). Israel Samoscz wrote some of his works while living in Daniel Itzig’s home. Marcus Herz and David Friedrichsfeld received some of their early education in the Talmudic academy founded by Veitel Heine Ephraim where Samoscz also found employment. David Friedlander gave aid to Friedrichsfeld and also helped Isaac Satanov find positions as a tutor. The banker Samuel Levy became one of Salomon Maimon’s patrons (Altmann, Mendelssohn, pp. 21-22, 347, 351). 27. See Altmann, Mendelssohn, pp. 20, 97-98. The original letter to Fromet reads (in

Latin letter transcription): “Sie denken zu edel, als dass Sie sich vun einem reichen Berliner einen richtigen Begriff sollte machen k6nnen. . . . So werden Sie alle Gesellschaften mit den hiesigen Aschirim meiden musen, weil Ihr Character sich mit jener Denkungsart nit vertragen will” (Jubildumsausgabe, vol. 19, p. 27). 28. Michaelis was a professor of oriental lauguages at the University of Gottingen.

Quoted in Mendes-Flohr and Reinharz, Jew in the Modern World, p. 43. , 29. “The Enlightenment of the Jews which would have been accomplished by degrees, received a powerful upswing all of a sudden. Through it, the Enlightenment lost in strength what it seemed to gain in time. The unfortunate Seven Years War broke out, in which a large portion of the Jews became rich and one began the Enlightenment among this people at the place where other peoples usually end—-with the cultivation of the external at the expense of the internal” (Lazarus Bendavid, Etwas zur Characteristick der Juden (Leipzig, 1793), pp. 34-35). 30. Ludwig Lesser, Chronik der Gesellschaft der Freunde in Berlin (Berlin, 1842), p. 46.

Chapter 5 1. Alfred Rubens, A History of Jewish Costume (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1967)

has many illustrations of the Sarbal, barrett, and ruff as well as the viereckiger Schleier, e.g., illustrations 180, 181, 182, 186-187, 190, 192, 193, 201, 209. Discussion of the dress of German Jews in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is found on pp. 158, 162, 166, 170, 174, and 178. In an oral communication, Prof. Christoph Daxmiiller (of the Institute for Folklore of the University of Regensburg) put forward the argument that the illustrative material on Jewish costume upon which Rubens and others rely is not completely authentic. Rather it

, comes from a popular type of illustration of various estates and their costumes. It represents a stereotype of how Jews were expected to look and may not have reflected the actual

210 Notes to pages 44-46 ordinary dress of Jews of the times. This provocative idea is worthy of exploration, but, as of now, the pictorial costume material represents our chief source on Jewish clothing of the period. 2. Rubens, Jewish Costume, pp. 166, 170, 174, 178. 3. Pinkas, p. 29, section 45. In Euchel’s Yiddish play Reb Henoch, which dates from the 1790s, one of the old-fashioned characters is represented as having his Schulmantel on his back, “though carrying it on his arms in front” on the way to the synagogue on Friday evening. The costume must have already been worn only by the very religious, since an English-speaking character asks if the man is “your vicar.” The reply is that he is not, but “is dressed in his sadur days Closh” [Saturday’s clothes] (Act 1, scenes 12-13). 4. For instance, Moses Mendelssohn, Daniel Itzig, and Ephraim Marcus Ephraim (see Dolf Michaelis, “The Ephraim Family and Their Descendants (II),” Yearbook of the Leo | Baeck Institute, {hereafter YLBI] 24 [1979], p.233). Nachum T. Gidal’s pictorial history, Die Juden in Deutschland von der Rémerzeit bis zur Weimarer Republik (Giitersloh: Bertelsman Lexikon Verlag, 1988), p. 114, shows Daniel Itzig with a powdered wig and no other

, head covering. On p. 113, Naphtali Herz (Hartwig) Wessely is similarly depicted. 5. Among the men depicted with such garb are Daniel Itzig and David Friedlander, the latter a radical antitraditionalist. In a description of the way Henriette Herz’s father, Dr. Benjamin de Lemos, dressed when visiting patients, it is said that he wore cloth or silk or even velvet clothes decorated

with braid, silk stockings, and a three-cornered hat. At home he wore a a red dressing gown (Schlafrock) and a matching cap (J. Fiirst, Henriette Herz, Ihr Leben und thre Erinnerungen {Berlin: Wilhelm Hertz, 1850], pp. 12-13). 6. See above, p. 21 and note 51 of Chapter 2. 7. Altmann, Mendelssohn, p. 97, reports that “in his thirtieth year he began to wear a wig (Stutzperriicke).” Later in his life Mendelssohn seems to have given up wearing the wig.

8. This description is quoted in many books, among them Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 1, p. 371, and Ruth Glatzer (ed.) Berliner Leben 1648-1806, Erinnerungen und Berichte (Berlin: Rtitten und Loening, 1956), p. 227. 9. This point is mentioned in Heinz Knobloch’s popular biography Herr Moses in Berlin. Ein Menschenfreund in Preussen. Das Leben des Moses Mendelssohn (Berlin: Das Arsenal, 1982), p. 249. 10. Shohat, Jm Chilufe Tekufot, pp. 55-57 and the late seventeenth century poem “Di Beshraybung fun Ashkenaz un Pollack’ reprinted in Max Weinreich “Tsvey Yidishe Shpotlider oyf Yidn,” Filologishe Shriftn 3 (1929), 537-553 (see lines 122-124 on p. 543). 11. “Die Ehrwiirdigkeit des Bartes will ihnen jetzt nicht mehr so einleuchten wie friiher; wenigstens erscheint es denen, welche ihn beibehalten, nicht eigentlich mehr notwendig, sondern sie lassen ihn nur noch wegen des Geredes der Leute stehen.” 12. See the description of the appearance of the orthodox leader Isaac Gerhard in Chapter 6 (p. 65 and note 37). 13. Mendelssohn, like many Jewish men of his day, seems not to have worn a beard until he got married. He did, however, refrain from shaving during the period between Passover and Pentecost and during the three weeks preceding the Ninth of Av as was required by traditional Jewish practice, even before his marriage (Altmann, Mendelssohn, p. 96). 14. Altmann, Mendelssohn, p. 97; Gidal, Juden in Deutschland, p. 134, depicts the mathematician Abraham Wolff bareheaded but with a full beard, and Aron Beer, the cantor of the Berlin community, with a three-cornered hat and only the hint of a beard. 15. In Isaac Euchel’s play Reb Henoch, written around 1793, one of the villains is a Zwicker by trade. 16. Altmann, Mendelssohn, p. 97, where they are referred to as “heilige Kopf-Zeuger.”

Notes to pages 46~47 211 In the portrait of Miriam Itzig nee Wulff (wife of Daniel Itzig), too, a bonnet seems to cover her hair completely (Gidal, Juden in Deutschland, p. 115). 17. Hans Ostwald, Kultur- und Sittengeschichte Berlins, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Verlagsanstalt Hermann Klemm, 1926), p. 587, reproduces the picture of an eighteenth century jiidische Trédlerin. 18. See, for instance, the portrait of Bliimchen Friedlander and its caption in Rubens, Jewish Costume, pp.136—-137, as well as the portraits of the salon women in Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 4-6, 196. 19. A typical passage from 1729 is the following “Be’im es wollt ein b’b (baal habayis)

oder kamo b’b (balebatim) kol a’ (echod) revi’is bosor ke’achas nehmen, aso derfin hane’emonim nit geben wie kol a’ (echod) vor langt, rak soll unter die Vierteil die be’ auso pa’am kosher sein gaurel gemacht werden, gam gar kiichers magin bichlal gaurel sein.” The German equivalent might read “Wenn ein Hausherr oder einige Hausherren ein Viertel Fleisch gemeinsam nehmen, so diirfen die Aufseher nicht jedem geben was er verlangt, sondern es soll ein Los gezogen werden tiber die Viertel, die zu jener Zeit koscher sind, und die Garkiicheninhaber k6nnen in dem Los auch inbegriffen werden.” 20. So, for instance, after 1748 so appears instead of aso, wir first replaces mir (we) in 1745, and double negatives seern to disappear after the 1740s. 21. A passage from a communal declaration of 1745 against coin clipping gives an example of an attempt to approach closer to High German. It is clearly still transitional

and probably closer to Yiddish than to German: “. . . damit lehabo keiner ch’v (chas vesholom) daran nichshol werden méchte, haben sich hoalufim roshim p’um (parnase umanhige) kehilausenu . . . misasef giwesen, un’ ko] charomos vehoarurim . . . konfermirt auf solche Leit die mehayaum vehol’o Gold o Silber Matbeos . . . entweder bischneiden o

be’aufen acher hamatbeos ver gringern o solche kelim so zu bischneiden hamatbeos gibraucht werden wissendlich in ihrem Haus halten” (Pinkas, p. 118, section 125). 22. For instance, the dative plural fiir denen or the use of the genitive case des ausund eingangs. 23. A sentence like the following (1775), “So wahre es ihm unmdglich bei den ihm gemachten decord mis’chiroso al yad alufe 15 anoschim zu bestehn,” while not pure High German, was far closer to High German than any communal record from a generation earlier. 24. The High German zwar first appears in 1745 and becomes common in documents of the 1770s and later. On the other hand, the Yiddish forms losen and musen are still used in the 1770s instead of High German lassen and miissen. 25. The following document dated 1791 is rather typical of these “High German” entries: “In einer ausser ordentliche Asefo mikol alufe hakohol beziruf 32 anoschim benebst noch ein aus Schuss migdaule baalei arochos dikhilosenu ist kehayom haze al pi rov hadeos

beschlossin worden, dass die zwei mahligen gemachten gaurolos al mekaumos beys hakneses , schel alufei hakohol, um das dadurch ein gegangenes Geld jahrlich zur Deckung des Defizits 7 in Absicht der Hachnosos hakehilo angewendet werden soll, weil sie lerov hakehilo missfallen und sie wiinschen dass sie stetig biyedei alufei hakohol noch ferner verbleiben sollin, fiir noll und nichtig erklahrt worden, der Gestalt dass alle die jenige die bischnei gaurolos haniskorim das Geld lekupas hakohol bereits bezahlt, solches mikupas hakohol wiedrum zuruck erhalten, so wie die ausgeloste und noch aus zu losende mekaumos beves hakneses lealufe kohol zuruck fallin und von dem Gewinner wieder gegeben werden muss.” Or the following from 1794 “Nach dem wir nun beasefas kol ho’edo den Antrag des Ober Landes dltesten erwogen und gefinden billig lef’ oer beys hakneses hagdaulo ultau’eles kupas hakohol ist so habin wir dato den Antrag nach obin stehend vun . . . Daniel [Itzig] selbstin gemachtin Bedingung angenommen und bewilligt. Wir habin die offerierten neun

212 Notes to pages 47-49 hundert reichis Taler baar lekupas hakohol erhaltin. Und quittieren hier mit auch tiber den Empfang in Form rechtens . . . Geschenke. .. .” 26. Herbert Paper, “An Early Case of Standard German in Hebrew Characters,” Field of Yiddish 1 (1954), 143-146, deals with a document published in 1765; see also Mordechai Eliav, Hachinuch Hayehudi Begermania biyemei Hahaskala ve Haemanitzipatsia (Jerusa-

lem: Jewish Agency, 1960), p. 21. | 27. It is characteristic that even Friedlander in his pamphlet arguing for High German is guilty of the grammatical lapse of writing “an die deutsche Juden” instead of the correct

, “an die deutschen Juden.” , 28. Aron Hirsch Heymann, Lebenserinnerungen, ed. Heinrich Loewe (Berlin, 1909), pp. 47-48. Heymann seems to be referring to the period around 1800. 29. In Jacob Jacobson’s Die Jiidische Biirgerbiicher der Stadt Berlin, there are a number of citizens (all after 1809) who sign their names in Hebrew script or are stated to be

unable to write their names in German. ,

30. Such objections were recorded in 1744 and 1751. Selma Stern, vol. 3, part 1, pp. 170-71. 31. In Johann Christoph Doederlein’s review of the prospectus to Mendelssohn’s Bible translation, he states, ““We showed the sample [of the translation] to several Jews of considerable learning. They had difficulty reading the German and making sense of it.” Doederlein’s review was published in his journal Theologische Bibliothek (Leipzig, 1782). Whether such observations were also applicable to Berlin cannot be determined. 32. Among the most famous of these are Lazarus Bendavid, Etwas zur Characteristick

der Juden (1793) and Saul Ascher, Leviathan oder tiber Religion in Riicksicht des Judenthums (1792). In the same year Sabattja Joseph Wolff published his anonymous Freymiithige Gedanken tiber die vorgeschlagene Verbesserung der Juden in den Preussischen Staaten (1792). 33. K.W.F. Grattenauer, Erkldrung an das Publikum tiber meine Schrift: Wider die Juden (Berlin: Johann Wilhelm Schmidt, 1803), p. 12. The passage specifically refers to the lectures given by Jews in a disgusting dialect on subjects they do not understand. 34. Varnhagen in his Denkwiirdigkeiten (vol. 1, p. 459) mentions that because he used

unumlauted verb forms for the third person in words like fallt, fahrt, schlagt, and tragt (instead of standard fallt, fahrt, schldgt, and trdgt) Schleiermacher told him he was speaking like a Jew and that some people had already asked whether Varnhagen was Jewish. The description of Henriette Herz’s childhood in the 1760s and 1770s mentions that Herz’s father’s (Benjamin de Lemos) German speech, like that of other Sephardic Jews, was distinguished from the Jargon (i.e., Yiddish) of his coreligionists (Flirst, Henriette Herz, p. 13). Peter Freimark’s article “Language Behaviour and Assimilation. The Situation of the Jews in Northern Germany in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century,” Yearbook of the

Leo Baeck Institute 24 (1979), 157-177, deals mainly with Hamburg. ,

35. See, for instance, Freimark, “Language Behaviour,” pp. 167-168 and Max Weinreich, Geshikhte fun der Yidisher Shprakh. Bagrifn, Faktn, Metodn (New York: YIVO, | 1973), vol. 3, pp. 295-297, 36. Eberty, Jugenderinnerungen, pp. 109, 257. Eberty was the great-grandson of Veitel Heine Ephraim, converted in 1826 at the age of fourteen. Another indication of the influence of Berlin dialect on Berlin Jews is the fact that the minute book of the community transcribes names with G with the Hebrew yod reflecting typical Berlin dialect [e.g., Pinkas, pp. 203~205, section 201 (dated 1762) speaks of Yeneralin Seidlitzin (i.e., Generdlin Seidlitz), Yeneralleitnand (i.e., Generalleutnant).

37. First, Henriette Herz, pp. 87-89. , 38. Altmann, Mendelssohn, pp. 99-100.

Notes to pages 49-51 213 39. Altmann, Mendelssohn, pp. 9, 328. Mendelssohn was unable to attend a performance of Miss Sara Sampson by his friend Lessing in 1756 because he was in mourning for his mother. 40. References to Jewish women and Christian noblemen on promenades in the public gardens are to be found in two vernacular (mixed Yiddish and German) plays by Aron Halle Wolfsohn (Leichtsinn und Frémmelei) and Isaac Euchel (Reb Henoch oder was tut me damit). The Wolfsohn play is reprinted in Zalmen Reisen, Fun Mendelson biz Mendele. Hantbukh far der Geshikhte fun der Haskole-Literatur mit Reproduktsyes un Bilder (Warsaw: Farlag Kultur-Lige, 1923), pp. 37-68. References to the promenades are found on pp. 40 and 42. The Euchel play is printed in Jacob Shatzky (ed.) Arkhiv far der Geshikhte fun Yidishn Teater un Drame (Vilna-New York: YIVO, 1930), vol. 1, pp. 94-146. 41, One such Putzstube of a Jewish family in the early nineteenth century 1s described as follows: Wilhelm Schadow, a friend of the family, had painted the four seasons on one wall in gray on gray with white highlights. There was a beautiful carpet, furniture of light birch wood, a small chandelier, a number of etchings in the style of Raphael. Between the two front windows there were built-in closets for tea, sugar, chocolate, and cloth. When they were alone, the family ate in a small back room rather than in the Putzstube (Eberty,

Jugenderinnerungen, pp. 112~113). 42. Nicolai, Beschreibung, pp. 725-849. 43. The autograph album of Rebecca Ephraim nee Itzig is in the Itzig family collection (AR 114, no. 2) at the Leo Baeck Institute. Also at the LBI 1s the autograph book of Bunette Oppenheim of Kénigsberg, a relative of the Itzigs (AR 1952), See Hertz, Jewish High Society, p. 195.

44. The address list for Berlin in 1812 lists at least 196 Jewish women as maids (Dienstmagd) and 25 as cooks (Kéchin). There were also a number of others listed as serving men or women (Aufwarter).

45. Eberty, Jugenderinnerungen, pp. 116, 121, 253. Eberty states that both the male servants of his aunt Hanne and the servant of Madame Sara Levy wore uniforms.

, 46. See Chapter 9 on the salons including p. 105 for other examples of Jewish social-

ization with non-Jews. 47. Number of Jewish Medical Students Number , Year Registered per Year

1730-54 3 0.1 , 1755-63 13 1.4 , 1764~70 1771-80 28 2.8 21 3.0 ,

| 1781-90 33 3.3 1791-97 15 2.1

Source: Monika Richarz, Der Eintritt der Juden in die akademischen Berufe. Jiidische

Studenten und Akademiker in Deutschland 1678-1848 (Tiibingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1974), pp. 227-229. Most of these medical students were not residents of Berlin. 48. Altmann, Mendelssohn, p. 24. It does seem that Mendelssohn did attend a course in philosophy given by Heinsius at the Joachimsthaler Gymnasium as a guest pupil (Altmann, p. 23). 49. Benjamin Veitel Ephraim, Uber meine Verhaftung und einige andere Vorfaille meines Lebens (Berlin, 1807), pp. 82-86. The Enlightenment works he mentions reading were Montesquieu’s L’Esprit des Loix and Hume’s Discours Politique. Benjamin Ephraim’s

Jewish mathematics teacher, Swa, was a friend of Mendelssohn and a member of the Enlightenment circle.

214 Notes to pages 51-55 50. Among the books he records having read were the Koran, Rousseau’s Emile, Voltaire’s La Pucelle and Therese philosophe as well as Wolff's metaphysics, kabbalistic works, and medical works. 51. Lazarus Bendavid, Selbstbiographie, in (Lowe, ed.) Bildnisse jetztlebender Ber-

liner Gelehrten mit ihren Selbstbiographien (Berlin, 1806), pp. 7, 9-16, 18-22, 31-34, 36-44, 55. The young man whom he accompanied to the university was Isaac Beer Fliess who was graduated from the university at Halle in 1791 (Jacobson, Jiidische Trauungen,

p. 345). ,

- §2. Leo Baeck Institute—Valentin family collection I 9. 53. “mit einer Pensionsanstalt verbundene Schule.”

54. Fiirst, Henriette Herz, pp. 16, 17-18, 20-21. 55. Geiger, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, vol. 1, p. 84; vol. 2, pp. 134-136; Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 2, pp. 345-348, 350, 356-361. 56. Eliav, Hachinuch, pp. 23~24, Geiger, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, vol. 1, p. 84; Moritz Stern, “Der Jugendunterricht in der Berliner jiidischen Gemeinde wiahrend des 18. Jahrhunderts,” Beitrdge zur Geschichte der jiidischen Gemeinde zu Berlin, 5 (1934); Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 2, pp. 538-540, 548-549; Judenkartei—-Evangelisches Zentralarchiv Berlin.

57. The subjects listed are given in a report on the school for the years 1802-1803 (CAHJP HM 9879 [from Merseburg Deutsches Zentralarchiv Rep 76 alt I 540 Kurmark]).

§8. In the case of Mendelssohn it is well known that he observed the Sabbath, the dietary laws, and many other Jewish ritual laws. The evidence illustrating this is voluminous.

59. Altmann, Mendelssohn, pp. 275-276. The decision was that Mendelssohn could ride to Potsdam, but that he would have to walk out of the gate of Berlin before entering the coach and would have to descend from the coach before entering the gates of Potsdam. 60. Nicolai, Beschreibung, p. 852. 61. Quoted in Michael A. Meyer, The Origins of the Modern Jew; Jewish Identity and European Culture in Germany 1749-1824 (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1967), pp. 40. 62. Quoted in Mendes-Flohr and Reinharz, Jew in the Modern World, p. 37. 63. See, for instance, Altmann, Mendelssohn, pp. 403-405. Altmann’s discussion deals with the reasons why Salomon Dubno quit Mendelssohn’s Bible translation project. In a later reflection (1789) Dubno states that one reason was the fact that some of the participants “were .. . under suspicion of having thrown off the yoke of Tora [sic].” Altmann feels that while some of Dubno’s claims may be tendentious, there is no reason not to believe that Dubno had really felt this way about some in the Mendelssohn circle in 1780. 64. The letter, dated September 22, 1783, is found in Jubildumsausgabe, vol. 13, —

pp. 133-134. |

65. See Chapter 8, p. 100 and notes 44 and 45 and Chapter 12, p. 143 for information on observance of the dietary laws; and Chapter 12, pp. 140-141 and note 26 for information on the numbers affiliated with the first reform temple in Berlin.

Chapter 6 1. See Chapter 2, p. 18 and note 39. , 2. The Jewish community had a hostel for poor transients outside the Rosenthaler gate of the city. Before they could be admitted to the city, transients had to submit to an investigation by Jewish officials. One particularly colorful description of the proceedings at the

Notes to pages 55~56 215 hostel is given in entries in The Autobiography of Solomon Maimon (tr. J. Clark Murray) (London: East and West Library, 1954), pp. 96-98, which deal with the period of the late 1770s. The famous incident (which has never been authenticated) of the examination of Moses Mendelssohn at the gates of the city is another illustration of the impact of the restrictions on the popular mentality. 3. To convert a residence permit from a small town to a large city cost 300 Taler. To convert it for a medium city was only 150 Taler, and for a small city 100 Taler. Beginning in 1764 new residence permits (Schutzprivilegien) were to be given only-in exchange for 1,000 Taler in Berlin, 400-500 Taler in other large cities, 200-300 in medium cities, and 100-200 in small cities (Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 60, 61). 4. CAHJP K Ge 2/18.

5. This ranking does not take into account the entire Itzig family, which had been , naturalized in 1791. Including them would have added a few more to those at the top of the status pyramid. 6. See, for instance, Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 40-42, who equates the protected families with the wealthy and states: “One historian claimed that there were 600 Jewish families in the city; other scholars estimated that there were 450. Using the first estimate, 600, as the denominator, the 300 to 400 wealthy protected families would constitute almost half the families. Using the smaller estimate, 450, the wealthy protected families would constitute as much as two-thirds of the community. ... By any measure, the Berlin community was therefore top-heavy with rich financiers able to pay the extensive taxes and still prosper.” Raphael Mahler, A History of Modern Jewry 1780-1815 (London, 1971), p. 139, quotes

, a contemporary description of the Berlin community as consisting of: “50 fabulously wealthy bankers; about 150 well-to-do merchants; 150 rich industrialists and free professionals; and about 100 middlemen-pedlars, ‘court Jews,’ and petty ‘house Jews’ (Hausjuden), the remaining 150 families lived on charity.” Although Mahler stresses the importance of the very poor, he also sees the wealthy as the majority of the community. 7. Among those over 50 in 1812 (born 1762 or earlier), there were 86 men and 31 women who are listed without any other family members, are not listed as widows or widowers, and are not also listed in Jacobson’s Jiidische Trauungen, This would mean that well over one in every four Jewish men in Berlin over the age of 50 had never been married—a figure not found normally in virtually any population. (The percentage of unmarried women over 50 was only about 13 percent). Among those in their forties (born between 1763 and 1772) there were 96 men and 55 women who were unmarried.

The professions (including former professions of the retired) of the unmarried men over 50 show only a few with prestigious professions that might have enabled them to

establish themselves legally: 2 physicians, one dentist, 2 bankers, 1 money changer (Wechsler), 2 leather dealers. No fewer than 17 were listed as Handelsmann or former Handelsmann (petty dealer), at least 16 were commercial employees (Handlungsdiener) or bookkeepers, and 5 were manservants or messengers. Eleven were teachers of various sorts. For the 31 unmarried women over 50, 26 are not listed with an occupation. The five who are listed were all maids. Of the 55 unmarried women in their forties, at least 19 were listed as maidservants. This would seem to indicate that many of the older unmarried Jewish Berliners remained unmarried because they did not have sufficient wealth to acquire residence rights needed for marriage. 8. The following is the correlation between highest tax recorded and “highest” legal status attained for all persons married between 1759 and 1789 (and those of their parents listed in Jacobson’s Jiidische Trauungen) in Berlin:

216 Notes to pages 56-58 Highest Tax Generally Ordinarily Extraordinarily Publique

Over 5 32 29 — — 2-5 18 73 — 2

(Reichstaler) Privileged Protected Protected Bediente

1-2 8 121 11 4 Below 1 (but 2 147 21 22

paying some tax)

This table is based on Jacobson, and on the tax lists in Pinkas. 9. Berlin Jews were actually assessed on only one-fourth of their total property for the Jewish communal taxes (Erech). The official division between middle and lower income for much of the eighteenth century was 1,800 Taler of Erech or 7,200 Taler of total property.

10. The estimates for general income levels in Berlin are very rough ones calculated by Helga Schultz, Berlin. Sozialgeschichte, pp. 150-157. Schultz’s estimates, like my own, are based on a great deal of guesswork and fairly sparse documentation. Interestingly, she, too, calculates the income of merchants on the basis of 5 percent of their capital. Schultz’s figures are for the first half of the eighteenth century, while our figures come from the second half of the century. Because our figures do not take into account inflation, they may somewhat exaggerate the prosperity of the average Jewish taxpayer.

Even though our estimate for average income of Jewish taxpayers far exceeds the estimated income of the average Berliner, it was far lower than Schultz’s estimate of the income of Berlin merchants (3,600 Taler). (Perhaps, there is a tendentiousness in Schultz’s figures, since as an East German she may have wished to emphasize the gap between workers’ income and the income of the bourgeoisie.) Fewer than two dozen Berlin Jews would have had such a high income in 1780 according to our extrapolations from the Jew-

ish tax tables.

11. The calculation was made as follows: In 1780 Jews had to pay their tax amounts 42 times a year. Nine Groschen times 42 equals 378 Groschen, or 15 Taler, 18 Groschen a year. In the 1790s the annual tax was calculated at 1 7/8 percent of the Erech. A tax of 15 Taler, 18 Groschen would mean an Erech of about 835 Taler. The Erech was calculated at one-fourth of total wealth. Therefore the total wealth would have been about 3,340 Taler. If income were 5 percent of wealth, then it would be about 167 Taler a year. 12. In the crisis year of 1809, 22 widows and 19 male heads of household with residence permits were receiving charity from the Jewish community. A report from David Prager to David Friedlander in June 1809 states that these are the number who are widows or “baale batim baale kiyumim mekable kitzvo” (householders with residence permits who are recipients of poor relief) (CAHJP -K Ge 2/18). Of 101 persons listed in the 1770s under the heading “kitzvo” (poor relief), fifty-three seem to have been male household heads and 32 were widows. It is not certain that all of these persons received charity in the same year (LBI-NY Jacobson Collection I 49 pp. 116a— 118a).

In 1812 the sum of 1,200 Reichstaler was asked for grain for Passover food for the poor.

| 13. On the Kronengasse,Probstgasse, Nikolai Kirchgasse, Nikolai Kirchhof, Nagelgasse, Bollengasse, Siebergasse, Eyergasse, and Reetzengasse, 60 Jewish residents were listed.

Of these 11 are listed as on charity, 8 as unemployed, and 12 as domestics (Diener, Dienstmagd, Wartefrau). Other occupations of Jews on these alleys included: old clothes dealer (alte Kleider or Trédler) (6), teacher (5), and commercial employee (Handlungsdiener or Handlungscommis (3). Only three paid any communal taxes, and only 9 were listed on the communal tax lists.

Notes to pages 58-62 217 Ismar Freund, Die Emanzipation der Juden in Preussen unter besondere Beriicksichtigung des Gesetzes vom 11, Marz 1812, (Berlin, M. Poppelauer, 1912), vol. 2, p. 396, quotes a Prussian official in 1811 who states that “in the Ratzen-, Kronen-, Lieber[sic],

Nagel-Gasse almost every house has an old clothes business (alter Kleider-Dormino-

, Handel).”

14. CAHJP - P17-522 (case of Jacob Moses), P17-523 (case of insane woman in workhouse), P17-524 (case of infanticide). 15, And even many of the mansions of the elite were not really private mansions in the modern sense (at least not in 1812). The Itzig mansion on Burgstrasse, for instance, was home to the following mainly unrelated wealthy families: David Friedlander and his son Moses, a banker; Bernhard Lindau, banker; the wealthy Rentier Ruben Gumpertz; and the widow Odenheimer nee Springer. In addition four maids and an apprentice were listed. The Ephraim mansion at Poststrasse 16 housed the merchant Samuel Biitow and his commercial employee Raphael Schlesinger, the jeweler Michel Frankel, the banker Joseph Frankel, and the money changer Joseph Abraham as well as four maids; the Isaac-Fliess mansion at Spandauerstrasse 21 housed the wealthy Rentier Beer Fliess and his bookkeeper as well as his impoverished relatives Fanny Bernhard and (the converted) Philippine Cohen. _ 16. According to Nicolai, Beschreibung, p. 2, the section in which most Jews lived “Berlin an sich selbst,” or Alt Berlin, contained 1,121 front houses and 564 rearhouses (Hinterhduser).

17. The most common occupations listed for modest taxpayers (under | Taler, 1 Groschen) in Jacob Jacobson’s Jiidische Trauungen (marriages before 1813) were Handelsmann (15), Kleiderhandel (10), Backer (5), Drucker/Setzer (5), Goldscheider (5), Pfandleiher (5), Petschierstecher/Wappenstecher (4), Wechsler (4) (total number of modest taxpayers with known occupations—~1 13). Of those listed in 1809 as modest taxpayers (under 25 Taler) or too impoverished to

pay, the following were the most common occupations: Kaufmann (11); Rentier (10), Handelsmann/handelt (9), Alte Kleider (8), Wechsler (7), Pfandleiher (6), Makler/Courtier (5), Lederhdndler (4) (total number of small taxpayers with known occupations—98). The differences between the distribution of occupations can be explained in a number of ways. The restrictions on occupation of the eighteenth century as well as the existence of special categories of communal employees encouraged individuals to list themselves in noncommercial categories such as seal engravers, bakers, gravediggers. Because 1809 was a year of crisis, a considerable number of persons in commercial occupations who might otherwise have been relatively prosperous suffered economically and were listed as modest taxpayers or unable to pay. 18. The following is the correlation between some of the most common occupational

titles and tax amounts in 1809: Tax

Not Listed for 1-49 = 50-74 75-99 100+

Occupation listed no taxes (Taler)

Old clothes 15 2 6 J ~ — Banker 13 4 3 | 2 |

Handelsmann (dealer) 14 2 6 2 — ——

Kaufmann (merchant) 39 4 32 8 6 18

Pawnbroker n) — 8 2 — Rentier 26 4 8 4 l 3 Wechsler (money changer) 23 l 13 2 2 ]

218 Notes to pages 62-64 19, See Chapter 5, p. 46. 20. Government regulations had initially allowed only 40 Jewish families to own hous-

es. After the Seven Years War this was increased to 70, still a small minority of Berlin Jews.

21. See Chapter 3, p. 31. 22. See Chapter 5, note 61. 23. Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 2a, pp. 558-561. The correspondence dates to the year 1773.

24. Maimon, Autobiography, pp. 96-98. At a later date Maimon fell afoul of the “Jewish police officer L.M.” whose job it was to keep track of strangers in Berlin, because Maimon had a copy of Mendelssohn’s edition of Maimonides’ Millot Higgayon (On Logical Terms),

ibid., pp. 107-108. ,

25. Lazarus Bendavid, Selbstbiographie, pp. 53-54. After being given this message, Bendavid packed up his prayer shawl and phylacteries and left the synagogue never to return again. 26. At least two additional subscribers to the Mendelssohn Bible translation (Nachum Pick and Salman Rintel) joined the burial society during the 1780s and 1790s. 27. Of the 45 men who served on the board of the Beth Hamidrash at various times between 1769 and 1783, 16 were subscribers to Mendelssohn’s Bible translation and only nine belonged to the burial society in 1778. 28. See Chapter 12, note 25. 29. The tendency of even quite assimilated Jews to adhere to traditional forms relating to memorializing the dead is not peculiar to the Berlin community. It is a noticeable feature of most modern Jewish communities in the Western world. Many who otherwise never attend services are careful not to miss the memorial service (Yizkor) or to fail to recite the Kaddish on the anniversary of a parent’s death. 30. A systematic study of the epitaphs in the old Jewish cemetery in Berlin would give a good picture of changing Jewish attitudes during the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Although the old cemetery was almost completely destroyed by the Nazis during World War II, the gravestone inscriptions were recorded in great detail by the nineteenth century Berlin Jewish local historian Leiser Landshuth. These transcriptions by Landshuth are to be found in the Jacobson collection at the Leo Baeck Institute. Unfortunately time did not permit me to make such a systematic study of the thousands of such epitaphs. The remarks about the epitaphs here and in the following footnotes are based upon a fairly

small and unsystematic sample. , 31. Just a few samples of such epitaphs can give a picture of their style and of the remnants of traditionalist attitudes: The epitaph of Joseph Ephraim (son of Veitel) in 1786 speaks of him as a pious and upright man (ish kosher veyoshor), a warden of the society for poor brides, and as learned (hataurani). {[Landshuth catalog number 662 (hereafter: L)] The expression hataurani is found frequently in epitaphs of the last quarter of the eigh-

, teenth century and seems to indicate a layman with traditional learning. Another similar expression also found even in the early nineteenth century, horaboni, seems to have a similar meaning. The epitaph of Loeb Samuel Helfft (died 1800) is another example of a very traditional style. It reads: “An upright man who walked in perfection (ish yoshor holach betomim)

went early and late to the synagogue (hishkim veheriv leveis hatefilo).” [L1059] , Women’s epitaphs also long expressed very traditional ideas, An example is the tombstone of Résche nee Samson wife of Secharia Veitel Ephraim who died in 1803: “A precious and upright woman (/sho yekoro viyeshoro), a woman of valor and glory of her

Notes to page 64 219 husband, a God-fearing person from her birth (Yiras h’ hoyso meodoh), she supported the poor with her gifts.” These late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century epitaphs seem little different from earlier epitaphs such as that of Salman, son of hataurani Wolff Bruch, who “walked

1742. [L 877] ,

in the ways of the perfect and set aside times to study Torah nights and days, who sat among the learned and occupied himself with good deeds and charity for the many”—died

32. A few translated examples of these poetic epitaphs suffice to show their mixture of traditional and modern sentiments: The epitaph of Dr. Markus Herz (1803): A poor child of an obscure family (Chashuchim) was I born, Suffering the burden, weak from youth, I studied I sought the truth, I investigated knowledge and thought (mezimo) And in the garden of the trees of life I planted sprouts of knowledge I poured the juice of their harvest to all who sought it Some drank and became wise and some I gave life and strength I was kind to those who loved me, in their hearts they too loved me Those jealous of me opened their mouths—-but in their hearts they respected me If I tasted the delights of princes and bitter difficulties They are both vanity, but I worked my full share And the work became hard for 1t was much and my powers were small My body returned to the dust and the living God gathered my spirit [IL 612]

Epitaph of Ephraim Veitel (1803): Oh passerby, weep upon this stone For here they have brought a precious man to the grave For many years his charity ruled But woe for those who received it, his goodness has now gone On his lips was engraved charm He was a shield for the poor and for the needy a shelter A good father, a dependable husband, a deliverance for his relations He lived by his trustworthiness, he took care to avoid wrong doing And blessing remains, he strengthened the teachers of knowledge He married off the daughters of the sick, rescuing the poor Those who knew him why do you cry because he is gone? His soul returned to God, who will still give him life [L 636]

Some of the epitaphs are known to have been written by well-known leaders of the Enlightenment. For instance, the epitaph of Isaac Daniel Itzig written by his brother-inlaw David Fried]nder (in Hebrew): Patrician son of patrician (shua ben shua) Who was brought up upon scarlet (amin aley tola) Brought up upon the knees of righteousness and knowledge His soul emptied the cup of the strong wine In his youth he drank from a full cup Alas he also drank its dregs. O passerby take it to heart Do not take up a song of woe (al tiso kino)

, If in the evening he lies down with tears | In the morning, [he rises] with song! [Psalm 30, 6] [L 680/2746]

33. The first epitaphs in German in Hebrew letters seem to come from about 1811. The sentiments in such German epitaphs are often of a different type than the earlier tradi-

220 Notes to pages 64-66 tional ones, although they too sometimes include traditional elements. Among the noticeable changes found in nineteenth century epitaphs, different from almost all eighteenth century ones, are the frequent mention of birthdates or age (rarely found before 1812), and the use of such stereotyped phrases as “Here lie the earthly remains of . . .” (Hier ruht die

irdische Hiille von .. .). | ,

Also quite noticeable in the nineteenth century epitaphs is a sentimental style that was virtually absent in the earlier century. This sentiment is especially common in women’s epitaphs. For example: Here lies Hanna Lipmann widow Mertens. Died February 10 eighteen hundred and twenty three in her seventieth year. She possessed all the virtues of her sex and was the tenderest mother (die zdrtlichste Mutter) of her children who mourn her

loss deeply [L 2154]

Bliimchen Friedlander, the daughter of the worthy Daniel Itzig, wife of David Friedlander. Born 17 Iyar 5512, died first day of Shavuos 5572 (1812). Fear of God, benevolence, good manners formed the beautiful soul, her countenance and form announced their pure radiance (deren holden Glanz). Here lie her earthly remains. The earth is diminished by one noble one, heaven has increased by one angel. After a happy and undisturbed relationship of forty-two years, her husband engraved these words of truth on her memorial stone, with emotion, thankfulness and devotion [L 615]

34, CAHJP - K Ge 2/120. ,

35. Ruben Gumpertz, an important leader of early reform, was Rendant (paymaster) of both the Bikur Cholim society for care of the sick and of the Zanduko for circumcisions

for the poor. The later reformer Samuel Nathan Bernsdorff was an officer of the Beth Hamidrash, and Liebermann Schlesinger was head of the Ohel Jescharim. 36. Adam’s relative Abel who sees that he will not eat without his hat and that he ate

, only kosher, advises him to eat in a kosher Speisehaus. He told him, “I would have given you, but you won’t want to eat nonkosher yet” (Du wirst doch noch kein Treif essen wollen). He also told him, “If you plan to remain in Berlin, you won’t remain like this long” [Jacob Adam memoirs (Memoir #2 /M.E. 317 in Leo Baeck Institute), pp. 21-22, 23]. 37. Adam, Memoirs, p. 16. In the memoirs he is referred to merely as “Bankier Goever,” but the Pinkas shows that the head of the Talmud Torah was Eisik Gewer, a banker, who later took the name Isaac Moses Gerhard. (For the name change see Jacobson collection I 82 individual G16/46.) 38. Adam, Memoirs, pp. 20-21. 39, Because Fraenkel had so many prominent relatives in Berlin, the community had to appoint an additional member of the rabbinical court, since the new rabbi was disqualified from cases involving relatives (Pinkas, pp. 108-109, documents 111-112).

40. The leading families also quite commonly sent their sons for training as doctors in the late eighteenth century (this is especially true of the descendants of Moses IsaacFliess whose son and grandson were both physicians) but almost never trained them as rabbis. This was quite different from earlier traditional patterns. Among leading Berlin families with physicians as sons-in-law were the Itzigs (Daniel , Itzig’s son-in-law, Joseph Fliess), Marcuses (Abraham Marcuse was father-in-law of Dr. Jeremias Wolff), Moses Bernhard (partner of Moses Mendelssohn, whose daughter Hitzel married Dr. Isaac Beer Fliess; they later divorced and each married a Christian), and Bendixes (Hirsch Bendix’s daughter married Dr. Abraham Herz Bing). 41. Adam, Memoirs, p. 22. The identification of Lazarus Horwitz as Leiser Zilz comes from Pinkas, p. 510. Horwitz was born in 1747 and died in 1818. Jacob Jacobson, in Die

Notes to pages 66-72 221 Judenbiirgerbiicher der Stadt Berlin (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1962), p. 148, lists Jacob Adam’s relative as Joachim Hirsch Fromm, merchant, Rosenthalerstrasse 54; born in Chodziesen (Grand Duchy of Posen) in 1776. Originally called Joachim Hirsch Abel. Married on May 26, 1817, to Frommet, daughter of Lazarus Horwitz, member of the Jew-

| ish court.

42. A detailed analysis of the relative social characteristics of orthodox and reform will be given in the chapter on the reform movement. Table 3 excludes those who were either exempt from taxation or whose tax amounts

are unknown. The figures in each case are the highest recorded tax amounts per person. , Table 3 also does not give a complete picture of all the traditionalists in Berlin. Some traditionalists, notably the members of the board of the Beth Hamidrash were noticeably richer than the members of the burial society. Others, like the wardens of the traditional charity funds Eretz Israel, Hebron, and Talmud Torah, were somewhat poorer:

| Tax N % N % N %o 4 Taler or more 10 14.7 15 34.1 l 4.8

, Burial Society Beth Hamidrash — Charity Wardens

2 Taler--3 Taler, 23 Groschen, 11 Pfennig 8 11.8 12 27.3 4 19.0 1 Taler~1 Taler, 23 Groschen, 11 Pfennig 18 26.5 14 31.8 9 42.9

Some tax but less than 1 Taler 32 47.1 3 6.8 7 33.3

Total who paid any tax 68 44 21

43. Heymann, Lebenserinnerungen. Excerpts from these memoirs have been printed in volume one of Monika Richarz (ed.) Jiidisches Leben in Deutschland (Stuttgart: Deutsches

Verlag Anstalt, 1976). Heymann, who was born in 1802, depicts a community in which the older generation speaks almost exclusively in Yiddish, in which the Jewish teachers are often Polish Jews, and in which Jewish religious practices are strictly observed. Heymann may exaggerate some of his stories for comic effect, but the picture he draws of the credulous, often superstitious Jewish inhabitants of Strausberg sounds more like a description of a Polish shtetl than of a community just outside Berlin in the first decades of the nineteenth century.

Part III , 1. Henri Brunschwig, Enlightenment and Romanticism in Eighteenth Century Prussia (trans. Frank Jellinek) (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1974) [original

title La crise de l’état prussien a la fin du XVIIle siécle et la genése de la mentalité romantique (Presses Universitaires de France, 1947)]. 2. According to Kant, human reason was capable of having definitive knowledge only

, about matters of which it could have experience. Metaphysical questions such as whether the universe had a beginning or was eternal, or whether the soul was immortal were beyond , the possibility of rational proof. So, for instance, the Critique contained a section refuting Mendelssohn’s arguments in Phaedon that had attempted to prove the immortality of the soul based on Wolff’s and Leibniz’s systems. 3. Brunschwig depicts the emergence of Romanticism in the 1790s as much more than a mere literary movement. “More than a literary movement, the first generation of Romantics in Germany is a moral and psychological phenomenon largely caused by the social crisis”

(p. 245). Brunschwig attributes much of the air of crisis to economic problems caused by , overpopulation, which the Prussian government and Prussian society were unable to cope

222 Notes to pages 72-80 with. Whether or not this explanation is totally satisfying, he does adduce evidence for a sense of crisis and “miraculous thinking” in many aspects of popular mentalities and not merely in literary expression. Brunschwig depicts the early Romantic writers, especially the Schlegels, as radicals in all things. “In their endeavor to create this new world, Schlegel’s friends did not think of literature first. This world must be endowed with all its needs. It must be given a religion , to replace that of a world in dissolution, a morality to take the place of the conventions on which society is based, a new political constitution. Within this paradise literary masterpieces would later come into being as a matter of course” (p. 233).

Chapter 7 1. Soon after the appearance of Dohm’s work, several European states made partial attempts to improve the status of the Jews. Among these actions were the Toleranzpatent of Joseph IT of Austria (1781), laws in Baden in 1782, and the Lettres Patentes for the Jews in Alsace issued by the French government in 1784. 2. It is characteristic, for instance, that when the Count de Mirabeau wrote his essay in favor of Jewish rights he entitled it Sur Moses Mendelssohn, sur la reforme politique des juifs et en particulier sur la revolution tentée en leur faveur en 1753 dans la Grande Bretagne (London, 1787). Mendelssohn and those like him were proof that political change would have the desired effect on Jewish life and make the Jews at large a useful part of

50. }

society. 3. Reinhold Lewin, “Die Judengesetzgebung Friedrich Wilhelms II,” Monatschrift fiir

Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, neue Folge, 21 (1913), 86-87. 4. Lewin, “Judengesetzgebung,” pp. 87-88. 5. Freund, Emanzipation, vol. 1, pp. 37-45; Lewin, “Judengesetzgebung,” pp. 88-91. 6. Lewin, “Judengesetzgebung,” pp. 213-214; Freund, Emanzipation, vol. 1, pp. 49-

7. Freund, Emanzipation, vol. 1, pp. 48-49; Lewin, “Judengesetzgebung,” pp. 216-

220.

Additional provisions of the report included a partial abolition of mutual responsibility, improvement of Jewish education through use of the German language, the hiring of native teachers, and the setting up of a teachers’ seminary. Jews would have to keep their commercial records in German and close their businesses on Sundays. Jews could enter agriculture only on vacant lands and enter only certain crafts and only with the approval of the guilds. Certain crafts, especially those that worked on orders such as carpenters, masons, tailors, shoemakers, blacksmiths, locksmiths, saddlemakers, and wagonmakers were to remain closed to them. Those taking up agriculture or crafts were to be forbidden all trade. 8. These included the creation of a Jewish commercial guild, the abolition of special taxes, the submission of the Jewish community to all the regular courts, and the opening of all crafts to Jews. 9. Lewin, “Judengesetzgebung,” pp. 223-227; Freund, Emanzipation, vol. 1, pp. 50-54. 10. Ludwig Geiger, “Ein Brief Moses Mendelssohns und sechs Briefe David Friedlanders,” Zeitschrift fiir Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland 1 (1889), 262. 11. Among the numerous passages mentioning the reform plan are the following:

: Act 1, Scene 4 SHAMOSH (Communal beadle): Es is wieder was vun die Kammer gekummen machmas a neien Reform [a message has come from the Chamber about a new reform]

Note to page 80 223 HENOCH: Sau lang sellen meine Sonnim Chaule Rosch haben, sau lang daraus nix werin werd [May my enemies have a headache as long as nothing will come of it]. ZWICKER (beard trimmer) [a traditionalist and villainous character]: Da her ich noch a mohl reiden wie a Jid. Worum nit lieber gor schmadn? [Now I hear you talking like a Jew. Why not just convert (if you’re going to have a reform like that?)]|

Act I, Scene 7 ,

DOKTOR [the Enlightened hero]: Bravo! Bravo! Das ist eben was wir wiinschen. . . . Ist die

solarische Verbindung aufgehoben, steht jeder fiir sich unter unmittelbare Aufsicht.des Staats. Der wird sicher schon Mittel finden, unseren Fehlern entgegen zu arbeiten, ohne alle Bande aufzulésen, die jedem gutdenkenden Menschen heilig sein mtissen. Mégen sie jetzt immerhin schreien wie sie wollen, in der Folge werden sie doch wohl einsehn, das diese neue Verfassung eben die kraftigste Stiitze des Judenthums sei [Bravo! Bravo! This is just what we desire. ... Once collective responsibility 1s abolished, everyone will be on his own under the direct supervision of the state. It will certainly find the means to work against our failings without abolishing the bonds that must be holy to every right thinking person. Let them scream now as much as they wish; in the end they will understand that this new constitution will be the most powerful support of Judaism]. Act 1; Scene 12 ‘CHAUSOM STECHER (seal engraver—-a traditionalist): Was gibts Chiduschim? [What’s the news?] ZWICKER: Er fragt mir, klomer vun den neien Reform wisst ihr nischt? [He’s asking me, as if you don’t know anything about the new reform]. ZWICKER: Sau viel kenn ich eich sagen, es is wieder a Geseire gekummen. Die Chadoschim,

_.. ruhen noch nit, alle Morgen sitzt Kahal [I can tell you this much. Another evil decree has come. The new fashioned ones don’t rest. The community council has to meet every morning]. CHAUSOM STECHER: Ich hab kahn Maure. Ich hab heint erscht a Chausom bei a Srore abgebracht

... hab ich a Sche in die Vorkammer warten gemusst, hab ich mir derweil a bische mit den Eved in Schmues in gelost, un ihr weisst doch bei a Orel i kan Sod... . Sau viel kennt ihr mir nachsagen, sie sennen mit all ihr Chochmes nisht pauel. R’ Sender, R’ Kalmen

, uchedaume lau, losen sichs Auscher schel Kaurech koschten, um die Geseire mewatel zu sein. Ich sag immer sehr gleich, al shlausho deworim hoaulom aumed, al Geld, al Geld, al Geld” [I have no fear. Just today I brought a seal to a high official . . . and I had to wait an hour in his antechamber. So in the meantime I got into a conversation with his servant, and you know a Gentile can’t keep a secret. . . .You can repeat this much of the story. With all their cleverness they won’t accomplish anything. Reb Sender and Reb Kalmen

and others like them will spend the fortunes of Korach (a legendary treasure) to annul the , evil decree. I always say the clever proverb: the world stands on three pillars—on money,

| on money, and on money]. |

, Act 5, Scene 10 NATHAN: Mittler weile kommt wills Gott die Reform zu Stande, und dann kann er sich selbst etablieren [In the meantime if the reform goes through, with God’s help, he can establish himself]. HENOCH (schadenfroh): Der wird wills Gott nit zu Stand kommen, das wahss ich besser [It won’t go through, with God’s help. I know better]. NATHAN: Wohl Ihnen sie ware schohn langst zu Stande, sie hatten vielleicht alle die traurigen

Vorfalle nicht gehabt [It would have been good for you if it had gone through long ago, then you wouldn’t have had all these unfortunate occurrances].

224 Notes to pages 80-81 HENOCH: Wenn die Jieden Baal Meloches un Baal Milchomes sennen, werden keine Pauschim

unter sie sein? Wem wellt ihr das anreden? [If the Jews are craftsmen and soldiers, there won't be any evildoers among them? Whom are you trying to talk into believing that?] NATHAN: Mein lieber Freund! Ich kann freilich nicht behaupten dass es besser sei ein Schuhflicker als ein Bankier zu sein; sehe wohl ein, dass es bequemer ist auf einem Sopha zu sitzen, als Schildwache zu stehen. Ist aber doch alles besser als betteln und betriigen. Nicht wahr, wir miissen doch nun einmal zu sehen, den Zustand unsers Volks zu bessern, und wir k6nnen unmdglich die Rechte des besseren Biirgers erlangen, wenn wir nicht auch seine Pflichten tibernehmen [My dear friend! I certainly can’t claim that it is better to be a cobbler than a banker. I’m well aware that it’s more convenient to sit on a sofa than to stand guard. But all of that is better than begging or cheating. Isn’t it true that we have to see how to improve our people’s position? And we can’t possibly acquire the rights of the solid citizens if we don’t take on their duties as well]. See Chapter 5, note 40. 12. Only three of the twenty-seven were not in the upper quarter of the Berlin tax list. Three of the petitioners (Isaac Nathan Liepmann [Liman], Abraham Nathan Liepmann [Liman], and Abraham Caspary, and perhaps a fourth, Marcus Robert-Tornow, brother of Rahel Varnhagen), later converted, and at least ten others (Moses Salomon Levy, Joel Samuel

van Halle, Wolff Levy, the widow Chaie Marcus [mother of Rahel Varnhagen], Hirsch | Nathan Liepmann [Liman], Aron Wessely, Abraham Friedlander, Liebermann Schlesinger, Marcus Marcuse, and Benjamin Veitel Ephraim) had children who later converted. This seems to represent an even larger proportion of conversion than was the norm for the Berlin elite. , The petitions are printed in Ismar Freund, “David Friedlander und die politsche Emanzipation der Juden in Preussen,” Zeitschrift fiir die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland, 6

(1936), 86-92, and Freund, Emanzipation, vol. 2, pp. 91-96.

13. This feeling that the old system favored the poor unduly is expressed in several of the petitions of the protesters. It seems also to have reflected government intentions. The official government proposal of January 24, 1792, states that “the completely propertyless Schutzjuden pay nothing, the majority of the rest pay much less than would come out from an equal division, so that the Schutzjuden in Berlin alone . . . pay about one half of the whole sum and in Berlin again only a few rich families pay the greatest part of this half ... Which those with property will not be able to bear in the long run.” (Freund, Emanzipation, vol. 2, p. 79). It would also seem that the new assessment system was intended to be based on income to a lesser extent than had been the traditional taxing system. The new tax assessments

were to last for life and would not change even if the taxpayer’s income rose or fell. Friedlander’s letter to Meier Eger, in February 1792, seems to imply that the new tax assessments might not be based on income but on other considerations. He writes: “Z.B. wenn auf mein Loos fallt 10 Thaler jaéhrlich in die Kasse des K6nigs zu geben, so gebe ich 10 Thlr. jahrlich so lange ich lebe (Geiger, “Brief Moses Mendelssohns,” p. 265). 14, Freund, Emanzipation, vol. 2, pp. 95-96. 15. The naturalized Jews had paid a substantial proportion of the overall taxes of the

Berlin Jewish community. In 1792 the twelve naturalized taxpayers had annual taxes of 5,642 Taler, 2,700 Taler of which were earmarked for government taxes. By comparison, the communal budget of 1811 set aside 25,435 Taler for payments to the government out of a total of 39,454 Taler (CAHJP- P17-466, pp. 9-10). The community negotiated an agreement with the naturalized families by which each family would make a voluntary

Notes to pages 81-83 225 contribution for ten years. Several years after the agreement ran out there was a great dispute about whether the family members would continue their contributions (see CAHJP-

| P17/641-642).

16. See Geiger, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, vol. 2, pp. 147-150. 17. See, for instance, Meyer, Origins, pp. 61, 69. 18. In 1793 Friedlander had written to the Prussian official Schrétter that those Jews who would not serve in the army were not entitled to the rights of citizenship (Meyer, Origins, pp. 196-97, note 29). 19. In one case David Friedlander himself actually handed in a request on behalf of his absent relative Wolf Friedlander of Kénigsberg (Freund, Emanzipation, vol. 1, p. 64)— the date was April 26, 1793. 20. In 1810, when the naturalized descendants of Daniel Itzig objected to paying regular annual contributions to the Jewish community on principle, David Friedlander (who was a communal elder at the time) was the only member of the family who disagreed. He , was even willing to pay the contributions assigned to his sons so they would not be denied the rights of community members (especially the rights of burial) CAHJP- P 17-641). 21. The chief critic of Friedlander is the Israeli historian Raphael Mahler, who is influenced both by Marxist principles tending to identify ideology with economic positions and by Zionist ideals offended by Friedlander’s desire for assimilation. He claims they looked out only for their own interests and cared little for the interests of the common people among the Jews. Michael Meyer rightly characterizes most of these criticisms as unfair. One often detects rather resolute and even defiant answers to government proposals and attitudes behind the “most humble pleas.” If one assumes that the Berlin elite (including the twenty-seven protesters mentioned earlier) were only following their economic interests, one is left with the complicated question of where their interests really lay. On the one hand, they would certainly benefit from the abolition of solidarity for taxes since that placed an extra burden on solvent families. On the other hand, it is not completely clear that the abolition of the power of the Jewish community over the individual would be an unmixed benefit for them. After all, it was members of the elite (for instance, Friedlander’s relatives the Itzigs) who controlled the communal apparatus. Making most communal functions voluntary (something Friedlander clearly favored, as shown by his letter to Meyer Eger) might weaken the power of the elite families over others. Still it would benefit them in giving them more personal autonomy. This value of personal autonomy was important to members of the Berlin and K6nigs-

berg elites. The power they wielded in the corporate structure no longer seemed worth-

| while to them if it made them subservient to communal norms. It was their desire for freedom to live their lives in the unconventional ways that they had begun to adopt that | was at least as important to them as freedom from paying the taxes for the insolvent poor. There may have been another motivation, equally subtle compared to economic considerations. The elite did want to distance itself from other Jews, not so much to receive specific advantages as to improve their social standing in the eyes of the non-Jews. This consideration may have been a reason why certain elite families pursued their own individual naturalization. The fact that they did so does not, however, mean that they had no desire to help their fellow Jews achieve equal rights. Rather they thought that if the achievement of equal rights for all could not yet be achieved, at least they personally wished to benefit from them. 22. Pinkas, pp. 348--349, includes an entry thanking Wulff for his efforts in procuring the abolition of the “subsidarische Verbindung.”

226 Notes to pages 83-86 23. Sendschreiben an Hochwiirden Herrn und Oberconsistorialrat und Probst Teller

von einigen Hausvdtern jiidischer Religion.

24. Jacob Katz, Out of the Ghetto, The Social Background of Jewish Emancipation, 1770-1870 (New York: Schocken Books, 1973) pp. 85~86, 237, indicates that Grattenauer wrote an earlier pamphlet Uber die physische und moralische Verfassung der heutigen Juden (Berlin, 1791), which made some of the same arguments he was to make in his later work Wider die Juden (1803). The earlier pamphlet did not gain nearly the interest or circulation of the 1803 book, however. 25. Haman, the villain of the biblical Book of Esther, became the archetype of Jew-

haters. , ,

26. The original proposal is printed in Freund, Emanzipation, vol. 2, pp. 228-244. Paragraph 8 stated “all native Jews possess the same civil rights as the Christians in so far as this law does not contain provisions which deviate from this.” The law then details many restrictions. Among the restrictions in the proposal were exclusion from public offices, restriction of residence to the cities except for farm laborers, subjection to the military conscription “in the strictest manner possible,” prohibition of early marriages, restriction in the permitted number of Jewish merchants to a stated percentage of the total number of merchants, prohibition of selling second-hand goods, and limitations on land purchase and on the possession of mills or taverns, etc. 27. Freund, Emanzipation, vol. 1, pp. 165-166. 28. Freund, Emanzipation, vol. 1, pp. 91-95 (restrictions on the right to settle of the descendants of second children), 213, 216-217 (collection of back taxes and silver deliveries); vol. 2, pp. 414-419. 29. Most noteworthy in this regard is the oft-quoted memorandum of David Friedlander of January 18, 1811, listing 50 Jews who had converted in recent years. Friedlander’s view of such conversions (despite his earlier letter to Teller) was quite negative. He writes, “Wenn das Ubel ist (und fiir die Judenschaft ist es in Absicht der Moralitét und in finanzieller Riicksicht ein sehr grosses Ubel) so war es meine Pflicht . . . hieriiber furchtlos meine

Angabe zu beweisen” [If this is an evil (and for the Jewish community it is a great evil , with regard to morality and to its financial aspect) then it is my duty ... to prove my claim without fear] Freund, Emanzipation, vol. 2, pp. 421-422. 30. In 1822, the government revoked its permission for Jews to hold academic posts (Freund, Emanzipation, vol. 1, p. 239). 31. Paragraph 29 of the Emancipation law of 1812, which abolished the competence of special Jewish courts, made an exception permitting the court assigned to Jews in Ber-

lin to remain in force temporarily. | 32. Examples of eighteenth century use of multiple surnames and nicknames: Moses Mendelssohn was always referred to in Hebrew letter documents as Moshe Dessau. Daniel Itzig was called Daniel Jaffe or Daniel Berlin. Jewish communal documents were alpha-

betic by first name. ,

The descendants of Veitel Heine Ephraim took the family names Ebers, Eberty, and Edeling. Members of the Bendix family became Bendemann, Bentheim, and Bernsdorff. Changes in first names sometimes occurred before the 1812 Emancipation Law. Examples are already found in Euchel’s play of the 1790s Reb Henoch in which several characters have both Jewish and German names: “Herzche-Hartwig,” “Elke-Elisabeth,” “HodesHedwig.” Moses Mendelssohn’s daughter Brendel took the German given name, Dorothea in 1794, while married to Simon Veit. An example of an orthodox Jew who Germanized his name is Isaac Gewer (Eisik Gewer

in Hebrew) who became Isaac Moses Gerhard. ,

Notes to page 86 227 , In translation the satirical verses by Heinrich Heine read: So I straightway Took a droshky and rushed to the Court Investigator Hitzig, Who was formerly called Itzig.

Back when he’d been still an Itzig, He had dreamed a dream in which he Saw his name inscribed on heaven With the letter H in front. What did this H mean? he wondered—

Did it mean perhaps Herr Itzig, ° Holy Itzig (for Saint Itzig)? Holy’s a fine title—but not Suited for Berlin.

Heine, Heinrich, The Complete Poems of Heinrich Heine. A Modern English Version (trans. Hal Draper) (Boston: Suhrkamp/Insel, 1982) p. 674. The quote is from “Jehuda ben Halevy,” iv, stanzas 38-42 (part of book 3 [Hebrew Melodies] of Heine’s Romancero). 33. Extensive examples of Friedlander’s minutes and correspondence in Hebrew script from the years 1809 to 1812 when he served as a communal elder can be found in CAHJP P 17-451, P 17-522, K Ge 2/89 and K Ge 2/18. Examples of curt German replies to impas-

sioned letters from the Jewish communities of Zempelburg and Krojanke in 1813 in Hebrew ,

and Judeo-German can be found in CAHJP K Ge 2/119 (see also note 34). , 34. The letter from Zempelburg in Hebrew was dated 10 Adar 1813 (March 1813); the letter from Krojanke in German in Hebrew script was dated March 11 of the same year.

The letter from Zempelburg in flowery and emotional words speaks of “the greatness of the evil [tzoro] that has come upon us” when it speaks of conscription. “Woe

, and woe [oy va’avoy] the Jewish children without power .. . will be scattered away from the holy [Jewish] communities, they will sit in God’s secret places hearing the

noise of the flocks, great the troubled hearts of their parents and teachers. .. . The sun , has become darkened for us at noon, we who live in a land salted with the poverty of its inhabitants.” They asked the Berlin community to intervene in classic “shtadlan”

fashion “perhaps God will change the heart of the king and his officers to the good and , will take away the uniforms of war [machlotzos haneshek] from the congregation of Israel... . We will not stint our property ... to give ransom for our souls all that is

assessed upon us.” , The letter from Krojanke speaks of how the new military rules are a violation of the Jewish religion and asks the Berlin community ‘to use their influence. They, too, offer to pay any amount necessary to cancel the military regulations. They declared their willing-

ness to make any sacrifice on the altar of the fatherland, except where it contradicts religion “the true purpose of our existence” (CAHJP K Ge 2/119).

, The answer to these two letters (in German!) was a curt refusal and advice to deal directly with the authorities. The contrast between the two West Prussian communities who wished to retain their exemption from the army even at the expense of special taxes and those of the Berlin leadership who rejoiced in their new citizenship is glaring. The Jews of Krojanke and Zempelburg saw the new situation of army service as a “catastrophe” not as a final free-

dom from oppression. ,

228 Notes to pages 86—87 , 35. Martin Philippson, “Der Anteil der jiidischen Freiwilligen an dem Befreiungskriege 1813 und 1814,” Monatschrift fiir die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 50 (1906), 220-247.

36. See Jacobson, Judenbiirgerbiicher, pp. 55-93.

37. The address list of Berlin Jews in 1744 can be found in Leo Baeck Institute, Jacobson Collection I-37. The 1812 address list is in CAHJP P 17-508. The following are figures per police district for Jewish taxpayers in 1812: (Districts 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 22, 23, and 24 had no Jewish taxpayers and a total of only 20 resident Jewish individuals listed.)

, 1 2389 101 31

Number of

District Jewish Taxpayers

4Total 651-4 286 | 5 16 6 | 6 74

8 3 9 2 12 ! 16 ]

20 3 | 21 l 17 25 19 2 Total 5-24 64

Total overall 350 Jewish families on back alleys and back streets (including Rosenstrasse and the back alleys Probstgasse, Nikolai Kirchstrasse, Bollengasse, Kronengasse, Siebergasse, and Reet-

zengasse) in 1744 numbered 179 but only 12 taxpayers (though there were many poor

Jewish nontaxpayers) in 1812. ,

Jiidenstrasse had 46 Jewish households in 1744 and 24 Jewish taxpayers in 1812, Spandauerstrasse had 56 and 58, respectively. The more prestigious streets (Burgstrasse, , Poststrasse, Neue Friedrichstrasse (not built until 1746), Heilige Geiststrasse, and K6nigstrasse had a total of 28 Jewish households in 1744 and 145 taxpayers in 1812. 38. In the address lists of 1812, 118 persons are listed as merchants and 112 as Handlungsdiener (commercial employee). One hundred ninety-six women are listed as maids and 28 as cooks. There were 27 bookkeepers and 29 petty traders (Handelsleute). Only 88 persons were listed as free professionals, 45 of them as teachers, and there were an additional 73 students. In 1764 there are 14 of 416 taxpayers listed as exempt. By 1780 they were 30 of 471,

Notes to pages 87-92 229 which jumped to 106 of 477 by 1789. In 1809 the number of those listed but paying no tax had risen to 141 of 491.

Chapter 8 1. There were, for instance, the crises of the years immediately after the Seven Years War (1763, 1770-1774). During the crisis of 1763, Moses Mendelssohn wrote his friend

Nicolai:” Wenn zu den 16 Banquerouten die sich schon geaussert haben, noch 16... , hinzukommen, so ist der 33. ganz gewiss, Ihr Freund Moses Mendelssohn” [If sixteen more bankruptcies join the 16 which have already happened, then the 33rd will surely be your friend Moses Mendelssohn] (Schultz, Berlin. Sozialgeschichte, pp. 298-299; Rachel-Wallich, vol. 2, p. 451). 2. The average tax of the twelve bankers listed in all tax lists between 1769 and 1789

went from 5 Taler, 18 Groschen, 6 Pfennig in 1768 to 8 Taler, 4 Groschen, 6 Pfennig in 1780 and 8 Taler, 10 Groschen, 11 Pfennig in 1789. The average tax of the eight pawnbro-

, kers went from 1 Taler, 9 Groschen, 4 Pfennig in 1768 to 1 Taler, 12 Groschen, 6 Pfennig in 1780 and then declined sharply to only 20 Groschen, 3 Pfennig by 1789. The average taxes of four listed as silk manufacturers also declined sharply in the 1780s from 3 Taler, 4 Groschen, 6 Pfennig in 1780 to 1 Taler, 14 Groschen in 1789. (If we include velvet manufacturers, and include also those who appear in only one or two of the tax lists, the average declines from 5 Taler, 13 Groschen, 10 Pfennig [12 individuals] to 3 Taler, 15 Groschen, 4 Pfennig.) Only the two Bernhard brothers and David Friedlander still were substantial taxpayers among the silk manufacturers in 1789. 3. Selma Stern, vol. 3, pp. 191, 195-202, 205-208, 212; Rachel/Wallich, vol. 2, pp. 280. The firm of Bernhard and Mendelssohn claimed in 1782 that its founder Bernhard Isaac had employed as many as 120 looms (they do not give any date) (Selma Stern, vol. 3, pt. 2a, p. 659). In 1783 they employed 39 looms in Potsdam and 38 to 40 in Berlin. 4. Several members of his family had been active in communal affairs in Berlin in the eighteenth century. 5. Liepmann Tausk (Wulff) is listed as a subscriber to Mendelssohn’s Bible translation, Sa’adia’s Emunot ve-De’ot, Saul Berlin’s Besamim Rosh, Satanov’s Mishle Asaf and his edition of Aristotle’s Ethics, as well as Shalom Hacohen’s Mata’ei Kedem al Admat Tzafon. He was not, however, a subscriber to Hameassef. 6. Rachel/Wallich, vol. 2, pp. 393-429. Beer was the fifth wealthiest taxpayer in the Jewish community in 1809 and the second wealthiest by 1814. Beer was born in Frankfurt an der Oder. Besides his sugar business he also made much money from banking and commerce. 7. Wulff was first chosen a charity warden in 1777, a treasurer in 1780, and an elder from 1783 until his death. 8. Stefi Wenzel, Jiidische Biirger und Kommunale Selbstverwaltung in Preussischen Stddten 1808-1848 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1967), pp. 37, 40-42; Rachel/Wallich, vol. 3,

, pp. 27-52. One of Baron Delmar’s parties 1s said to have cost 5,000 Taler. 9. Rachel/Wallich, vol. 3, pp. 98-108. 10. Schnee, Hoffinanz, vol. 1, p. 173; Rachel/Wallich, pp. 373-375. 11. Rachel/Wallich, vol. 2, pp. 362-380.

12. Rachel/Wallich, vol. 2, pp. 338, 341, 343-353. 13. They were Zacharias Friebe, the son of Veitel Ephraim’s granddaughter Rosette

230 Notes to pages 92-94 Frankel, Zacharias’s aunt Réschen, the wife of his mother’s brother Heimann Z. Ephraim; and Veitel Heymann Ephraim, later known as Victor Ebers. 14. They were Mendel Oppenheim, husband of Daniel Itzig’s daughter Henriette, and

Moses Friedlander, son of Itzig’s son-in-law David Friedlander.

15. The daughters of Moses Isaac-Fliess (Rebecca and Bliimchen), who converted in 1780 to marry noblemen (Lieutenant von Runkel and Kammerassessor von Bose), got into a lawsuit over their father’s inheritance with their still Jewish brothers. Although the brothers won, at least one later converted, as did children of the others. Both Joseph Fliess (son of Moses) and his nephew Isaac were physicians; both later converted to Christianity. Joseph had several children by his Christian mistress, Louise Luza, while still married to Daniel Itzig’s daughter. After his wife’s death he converted and married his mistress. His brother Beer, who remained Jewish, had at least two illegitimate children. Another son of Moses Isaac (Meyer Moses) had already been disinherited during his father’s lifetime because his

father disapproved of his style of living. He converted in 1787 (Warren I. Cohn, “The Moses Isaac Family Trust. Its History and Significance,” Yearbook of the Leo Baeck Institute 18 (1973), 267-279; Rachel/Wallich, vol. 2, pp. 380-388). 16. Her letter to the elders of the Jewish community of January 19, 1813, asks them for a certificate of poverty so that her court expenses could be paid (CAHJP P 17-523). See also Jacobson, Jiidische Trauungen, p. 151, note to marriage 210, and Varnhagen,

Denkwiirdigkeiten, vol. 1, p. 288. |

17. Eberty, Jugenderinnerungen, pp. 107-109. 18. From the position of assistant elder (ikkur) to the more minor post of a low level treasurer (Scharrne Gova). 19, Ellen Littmann, “David Friedlanders Sendschreiben an Probst Teller und sein Echo,”

Zeitschrift fiir die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland, 6 (1935), 92-112. Other members of the family may have felt similarly. On August 11, 1799, Julius Eduard Hitzig became the first descendant of Daniel Itzig to convert to Christianity, only shortly after the death of his grandfather, who had died on May 21 of the same year. Jacob Jacobson, “Von Mendelssohn zu Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Yearbook of the Leo Baeck Institute 5 (1960), p. 254. 20. Ludwig Geiger, Berlin 1688-1840. Geschichte des Geistigen Lebens der preus- —

sischen Hauptstadt (Berlin: Verlag der Briider Paetel, 1895), vol. 2, pp. 243, 287-288; Hertz, Jewish High Society, p. 251.

21. CAHJP P17-466, esp, pp. 8-9, 15-46; K Ge 2/18. , 22. CAHJP P17-489. The elders issued a three-page printed open letter to all mem-

bers of the community. Among other things they state: | It is truly a difficult office to hold; difficult at all times, but even more difficult in the position in which we find ourselves at present. We carry heavy [financial] burdens and are very much limited in our occupations. The war, through the reduced property of many a head of household, through the almost totally disrupted business [Gewerbe] of our members, has made these burdens much more difficult. The community is in arrears with its public taxes; poverty has increased; food is becoming more expensive. The charity foundations will probably not have sufficient income from their old sources.

The document continues by lamenting the decline in religion, morality, and feelings of solidarity in the Jewish community, the increased anti-Jewish agitation in print, and the

conversions of wealthy community members.

They proceeded to demand a statement in writing giving them authority to do all that was necessary for the sake of the community. 23. Rachel/Wallich, vol. 3, pp. 296-297; CAHJP P 17-466, p. 41. 24. The four were Zacharias Friebe, Victor Ebers, Mendel Oppenheim, and Moses

Notes to pages 94-97 231

male line. |

Friedlander, only one of them (Ebers) a descendant of one of the coin millionaires in the 25. This study gives considerable weight to the struggle for Emancipation (along with the death of Mendelssohn) as a factor in bringing about the radicalization of the Berlin Haskala. A recent study by Reuven Michael, “‘Hahaskala bitekufat Hamahepecha Hatzorfatit —Haketz le ‘Haskalat Berlin’?” [The Haskala in the era of the French Revolution—the

end of the ‘Berlin Haskala’?] Zion 56, no, 3 (1991), 275-298, tries to argue that the , radicalization was brought about by the influence of the French Revolution. The article, which is based mainly on Hebrew literary sources, especially reports in Hameassef, does not appear to me to give sufficient evidence for Michael’s position. 26. The theory of a moderate Hebrew Enlightenment and a radical German one is put forth in an especially strong form in Isaac E. Barzilay, “National and Anti-national Trends in the Berlin Haskalah,” Jewish Social Studies 21 (July 1959), 165-192 and Isaac EisensteinBarzilay, “The Treatment of the Jewish Religion in the Literature of the Berlin Haskalah,”

, Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 24 (1955), 39-68. Moshe Pelli, The Age of Enlightenment. Studies in Hebrew Literature of the Enlightenment in Germany (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979) quotes Barzilay’s arguments with approval (p. 26) The whole question of who was radical and who was moderate is often a matter of

controversy. Although scholars generally agree that Wessely and Mendelssohn were more | moderate than David Friedlander, they often differ widely in their evaluations of other figures. This is especially noticeable in treatments of Isaac Euchel. Barzilay, for instance, writes, “Euchel, except for a degree of caution, did not differ in substance from the more extreme Maskilim” (“Treatment of Jewish Religion,” p. 40). Pelli, pp. 193-194 states, “While the

vast majority of the students of Euchel’s writings consider him an extremist from a religious standpoint,three scholars, representing two different periods [Isaac Samuel Reggio, Meir Letteris, and Bernard Weinryb], are of the opinion that Isaac Euchel is rather a moderate maskil.” Pelli himself is of the opinion that “Euchel’s Haskalah views are rather

moderate” (p. 201). A similar view is expressed in Shmuel Feiner’s article on Euchel in Zion (1987), p. 461, in which he describes Euchel as “much more moderate than , them [Friedlander, Wolfsohn, and Bendavid].” On the other hand, in the same year and in the same journal, Meir Gilon refers to Euchel as “an extreme deist” (in his review of Yehuda Friedlainder’s Hebrew Satire in the Age of the German Enlightenment, p. 212). An example of the dichotomy between “maskilim” and “deists” can be found in Feiner’ s

article, pp. 457-458. Pelli, pp. 24, 26-32 also argues that the Maskilim were only partly influenced by deism. In addition he makes distinctions between “constructive and destructive deism.” 27. See David Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry, 1780-1840 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 67-78, for a discussion of the implications of the difference between Mendelssohn’s concentration on “natural rights” and David Friedlander’s “argument from utility.” Friedlander was far from the only writer looking to the state as an agent for improving the Jews. Among others who held such views was Isaac Euchel, as can be seen, for instance, in the excerpt from his Reb Henoch quoted in note 11 of Chapter 7, especially in Act 1 Scene 7. 28. “Nachal Habesor” (introductory announcement) Hameassef 1 (1783), p. 6. In 1788 Wessely’s “Chikur Hadin” was published in Hameassef 4 (Tevet and Adar Rishon 5488).

At the end of his article defending traditional ideas on the afterlife, Wessely explicitly criticizes the editors of the journal for not having heeded the advice he had given five

years earlier (p. 165). See below, note 50.

232 Notes to pages 97-99 29. The volumes edited by Wolfsohn included Esther, Ruth, and Lamentations issued in 1789, Job (1790), and Kings (1800). Joel (Brill) Loewe worked on Jonah, which appeared in 1788. David Friedlander’s Ecclesiastes appeared in German characters in 1788. Zinberg and the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1903 give slightly conflicting dates of publication. 30. See Israel Zinberg, A History of Jewish Literature, ed. and trans. Bernard Martion (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, and New York: KTAV, 1976), vol. 8, p. 186. According to the Christian Hebraist, Franz Delitsch, Satanov combined modern and traditional traits in his personal appearance. He wore a beard and modern German clothes under

an East European Jewish kaftan (ibid.) On Saul Berlin’s even more radical pseudoepigraphic work Besamim Rosh, see p. 99. 31. Pelli, pp. 207-211. Among the persons who wrote on the subject besides Euchel and Herz were Joel (Bril) Loewe. 32. According to Mahler, History of Modern Jewry, Hameassef replaced the rubric ‘commentaries on Holy scripture’ with a section on natural science after the publication moved to Berlin in 1787. This ts somewhat of an overstatement. Although sections on natural science were common in the later years of the journal, there continued to be dis-

| cussions of difficult passages or expressions in the Scriptures from time to time (for instance, the discussion of a word in the Kaddish in the Cheshvan 5548 issue). 33. Most scholars think the anonymous rabbi is modeled on Raphael Cohen of Hamburg or Ezechiel Landau of Prague, both old enemies of the Maskilim. Maimonides denies knowing the famous Polish rabbis who endorsed “Ploni’s” book. Nor does he understand their flowery endorsement written in rabbinic style. The rabbi interprets Maimonides’ work only in narrow pilpulistic ways and understands neither the philosophy nor the grammar of the work he is commenting upon. Maimonides thinks about the rabbi: “Now the mask is removed from him and he appears naked before me just as he left his mother’s womb. But what should I do? Leave him alone and go on my way? But then will he not remain with his false opinions?” (Hameassef 7 [1794] p. 66). Maimonides rejects those Talmudic opinions offered by “Ploni” as supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. A large section of the dialogue is a commentary on the Talmudic statement “a scholar [Talmid Chacham] without intelligence is worse than an animal’s carcass [nevela]’— the same statement that aroused so much rabbinic opposition when used in Wessely’s Divre Shalom Ve’emet. Maimonides also seems to state that certain commandments were rational only in the time that they were given and that “except for their time and place, perhaps

they would not have been commanded at all” (p. 146). Maimonides reacts to a pas-

(p. 149). ]

sage from the Zohar quoted by Ploni by calling it “speaking an abomination about God”

In a German addendum Wolfssohn speaks mockingly of a community 1n which the superstitious buried a carp in the belief that it was the reincarnation of a righteous man. 34. Berlin’s Ktav Yosher was published around 1794 but was originally written around , 1784. The work mocks such customs as Kaparot (the slaughter of a rooster on the eve of Yom Kippur), making noise during reading of the Purim Megillah, shaking the palm branch on Sukkot, etc.) (see Pelli, p. 177, note 18). The work satirically “defends” Wessely’s tract in favor of modern education by claiming that it was really a Kabbalistic work that had not been properly interpreted as the deeply mystical work it was. In so doing Berlin pokes

fun at the farfetched way traditional rabbis had interpreted earlier sources. : Berlin’s Mizpeh Yoqgte’el was published in 1789 and is another attack on Rabbi Cohen (Pelli, p. 174, note 7). Berlin also seemingly wrote some articles in Hameassef in a similar vein (“Vikuach Shnei Re’im”’—1789 and a review of Cohen’s “Marpe Lashon’’).

35. See p. 96 and footnote 26 of this chapter for a more detailed discussion of the differences between Hebrew and German Jewish Enlightenment writers.

Notes to pages 99-100 233 36. One can find many traces of Mendelssohnian ideas even in Friedlander’s most extreme work, his letter to Teller. His tombstone (as translated by Michael Meyer) reads

according to his own wish: , Burial place Of David Friedlander, born in K6nigsberg, December 6, 5511

, The son of Joachim Moses Friedlander

, | Moses Mendelssohn

True disciple and friend of the philosopher Died December 25, 5595 (Meyer, Origins, p. 84)

37. In 1786 Friedlander had translated the traditional prayerbook into High German. Although his introduction to the prayerbook was written in the spirit of the Enlightenment, he made no changes in the text of the prayers. In 1786 Friedlander also published a commentary on Psalm 110, which he had heard from Mendelssohn (see Meyer, Origins, p. 59). 38. Following the date in Meisl’s publication of the original Hebrew-character letters in Historishe Shrifin 2, 390-412. In Geiger’s edition the letter is dated 1792. 39. Geiger, “Brief Mendelssohns,” 258-268. 40. See Chapter 6, p. 63 and footnote 25. 41. Pelli, Age of Enlightenment, p. 196, note 14, quotes Leiser Landhuth, Toldot Anshei Hashem, vol. 1 (Berlin: 1884), p. 113, who claimed that Rabbi Hirschel Levin stated that

formerly pigs ate acorns (Eicheln), now Euchel (probably pronounced Eichel) eats pigs. , Pelli feels that the story is both unauthenticated and unreliable. Its authentication is, of course, impossible; but it would seem from other evidence about Berlin Jewry at the end of the eighteenth century, that the story is far from impossible. Euchel’s membership in the Wednesday society, where meals were served, would tend to indicate that, unlike Mendelssohn, Euchel did not observe the dietary laws (Gilon, p. 216). 42. Jacobson collection I 91. The meetings of March 16 and March 23, 1792, were held on Friday at 5 p.m., which would very likely have led them to continue well past the beginning of the Sabbath at that time of year. The second of the meetings was continued the following day, Saturday, March 24, at 3 p.m. Minutes were taken at these meetings as at all others. At the March 23 meeting it was voted twelve to six that the “Revers” [minutes?]

should be signed. It is not clear if this refers to the issue of writing on the Sabbath or simply about how records are to be made official. At the March 23 meeting one of the club officers (Bernhard D. Wessely) was absent because he was conducting a concert. 43. Wolff Davidson, Uber die biirgerliche Verbesserung der Juden (Berlin: Ernst

| Felisch, 1798). 44. Even if only those are included in the discussion who paid some communal wealth tax (and thus are not excluded from the meat tax only because they were too poor to pay

taxes), only 177 paid the kosher meat tax as against at least 165 who did not. 45. It is difficult to make precise inferences from the tax list to actual religious practice. Not all those who paid the kosher meat tax necessarily bought kosher meat all the , time. On the other hand, appearance on the list without any kosher meat tax amount could indicate many things other than not keeping kosher, including being too poor to buy meat and eating together with parents or other relatives. The tax list is to be found in CAHJP P 17-466 pp. 47-66. The dating is based on the death dates of persons on the list who have no listing next to their names. The total list includes 572 names. Of these 180 have amounts in the space next to the name and 31 others (almost none of them regular taxpayers) have numbers behind their names. Two

ments. ,

hundred sixty-one names have dashes after their names indicating no kosher meat tax pay- ,

234 Notes to pages 101-102 46. Feiner, “Itzhak Euchel,” p. 466, quoting Shalom Hacohen, Ktav Yosher (Vienna: 1820). A longer excerpt of the letter is given in Zinberg, vol. 8, pp. 138-139. Hameassef was in fact revived in the years 1808 to 1811 but with a very different circle of contributors, many of them not 1n Berlin, and with a more moderate stance than that of the 1790s. 47. Jacob Katz, Out of the Ghetto, pp. 154, 248; Shmuel Feiner, “Itzhak Euchel,” pp. 463-464, 466; Zinberg, vol. 8, pp. 212—213. Nachman also known as Nachman ben Simcha Br’’sh br’A was the son of Samuel Aron Simon (1741-1814), who was a moderately well-off taxpayer (Jacobson, Jiidische Trauungen, p. 120). En Mishpat praises Moses Mendelssohn but compares Mendelssohn’s followers’ violations of Torah after his death to the followers of the first Moses who became worshippers of the Golden Calf. Zinberg mentions other former Maskilim who attacked the growing radicalism of Hameassef in the 1790s including Mendel Lefin and Baruch Jeiteles (Zinberg, vol. 8, p. 103). Isaac Satanow also got involved in disputes with Hameassef during its last years. Some of

the Meassfim suspected that he was the author of En Mishpat (Nehama Rezler-Berson, “Isaac Satanow, An Epitome of an Era,” Yearbook of the Leo Baeck Institute 25 (1980), p. 83. This is also evidenced from a passage in Hameassef 7 (1797) that attacks the book and states that the Biblical verse “when Isaac waxed old his eyes could no longer see” was applicable (since old Isaac Satanov rather than young Nachman Berlin was the real author).

48. See Chapter 5, note 40. 49. Ludwig Geiger’s Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, vol. 1, pp. 115, speaks of “Halbbildung” (semieducation) as having unhappy moral and intellectual consequences. He quotes David Friedlander who stated: “Es haben sich Untugenden unter uns verbreitet die unsere Vater nicht kannten, und die fiir jeden Preis zu theuer erkauft werden. Irreligion, Uppigkeit und Weichlichkeit, dieses Unkraut, das aus dem Missbrauch der Aufklérung und Kultur hervorkeimt, hat leider auch unter uns Wurzel gefasst” (Geiger, p. 116). I. M. Jost uses the term “halbgebildet’ to refer to the extreme attitudes of Berlin Jews in this period of which he does not approve (Geschichte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Maccabéer bis auf unsre Tage (Berlin: Schlesingsche Buchhandlung, 1828], vol. 9, pp. 103, 107-110).

, The distinction between “true” and “false” Enlightenment 1s also discussed by Feiner, pp. 459-460. 50. Zinberg, vol. 8, pp. 93-94, states “Chikkur Hadin” was published by Hameassef | to assuage the orthodox who were disturbed by the growing radicalism of the journal. In the introduction to volume 4 of Hameassef (dated Cheshvan 15 5548 [October 1787]), the , editors specifically state that the article was published because Herz (Cerf) Beer of Strassburg

had sent a letter objecting to an earlier article rejecting traditional views of Hell. 51. Although Friedlander does not seem to have been influenced much by the “Kantian” revolution in rationalist philosophy, many of his fellow Berlin Jewish intellectuals were leaders of the Kantian school. Most noteworthy as followers of Kant were Salomon Maimon, Lazarus Bendavid, and Isaac Euchel. 52. Nicolai was severely ridiculed in the satirical “Xenien” published by Schiller and Goethe in the Musenalmanach of 1797. (See the essay by Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann, “Nicolai oder vom Altern der Wahrheit,” in Bernhard Fabian, Friederich Nicolai 17331811. Essays zum 250. Geburtstag [Berlin: Nicolaische Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1983].) The nasty mockery of Nicolai as the “Proktophantasmist’” in Goethe’s Faust, Part I, lines 4144— 4147, 4158-4163, and 4165-4170 dates to about the same time. A few years later there appeared Fichte’s very negative Nicolais Leben und sonderbare Meinungen (Tiibingen: 1801)

with a foreword by August Wilhelm Schlegel.

Chapter 9

Notes to pages 104-107 235 1. Petra Wilhelmy, Der Berliner Salon im 19. Jahrhundert (1780-1914) (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1989), pp. 19-20; Hertz, Jewish High Society, p. 98. For a use of the term Hausfreund in a somewhat different context, see Chapter 10, note 11. 2. Wilhelmy, Salon, pp. 25~26. Not all would agree with these definitions. Deborah Hertz, for instance, includes in her list several salons led by men. 3. Davidsohn, Biirgerliche Verbesserung, p. 86. Rachel/Wallich, vol. 2, p. 335, quote the remarks of the non-Jewish Dr. Heim from the same year: “I ate with court agent [Ephraim Veitel] Ephraim and a group made up only of Jews [/auter Juden] and I enjoyed the food.”

| 4. In Euchel’s Reb Henoch, act 2, scenes 1 and 8, the young Jewish Hedwig dines with Gentiles in a restaurant. When her father finds out he faints (act 3, scene 11; act 4, scene 4). In her memoirs (Fiirst, Henriette Herz, pp. 87-88) Henriette Herz speaks of traveling to Leipzig together with Rahel Varnhagen and her parents around 1786 where they ate at the best hotels and at the famous Auerbach cellar (mentioned in Goethe’s Faust). 5. See, for instance, Fiirst, Henriette Herz, pp. 100—103, in which Herz talks both about the Lesegesellschaft at the home of Dorothea Veit attended mainly by Jews as well as the mixed Lesegesellschaft founded in 1785 in which Herz and her husband as well as leading non-Jewish intellectuals participated.

6. See, for instance, Hertz, Jewish High Society, p. 100. The quote from Henriette Herz appears in Hertz, p. 100, note 54. Schadow’s description is cited by Wilhelmy, Salon, pp. 50-51. © 7. Around 1800 Rahel and her brothers took the new family name Robert-Tornow. 8. Wilhelmy, Salon, p. 19. 9. Wilhelmy, Salon, pp. 97, 141-142, 719-722; Eberty, Jugenderinnerungen, pp. 252255, writes at length about Sara Levy. 10. Karl August Varnhagen von Ense, Denkwiirdigkeiten des eignen Lebens, ed. Konrad Feilchenfeldt (Frankfurt am Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1987), vol. 1, pp. 233235, 239-293; Wilhelmy, Salon, pp. 70-71, 623-625. 11. Wilhelmy, Salon, pp. 144-150, 605-609, 674-680. 12. Deborah Hertz lists the following individuals as “salon women” even though they

were not hostesses of their own salons: Rebecca Ephraim (a daughter of Daniel Itzig), Julie Saaling (later the wife of Karl Heyse and mother of the author Paul Heyse) and Marianne Saaling-—both sisters of Regina Frohberg, Bliimchen Moses [Isaac-Fliess] (later von Bose) and her sister Rebecca (later von Runkel); Marianne Devidel (later Schadow);

Esther Bernard nee Gad; R6sel Frankel nee Spanier; Hitzel Ziilz [Bernhard] (later von Boye), , the sister of Philippine Cohen; Fradchen Liebmann nee Marcuse; and Jente Stieglitz nee Ephraim. 13. So, for instance, Henriette Herz is listed among the guests of Philippine Cohen,

Sara Grotthuss, Sara Levy, and Rahel Varnhagen. Rahel attended the salons of Amalie , Beer, Philippine Cohen, Henriette Herz, and Sara Grotthuss. Sara Levy was a guest at Henriette Herz’s gatherings (Wilhelmy, Salon, pp. 915, 926, 953). 14. Wilhelmy, Salon, pp. 626, 637, 733, 787, 816, 864. 15. Of the twenty salon women listed by Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 192-193, thirteen had fathers who had been assessed for at least 10 Taler taxes. This would put them in the top 5 percent of Berlin Jews. Another two women had fathers assessed between

5 and 10 Taler (still in the top 8 percent of Berlin Jewry). Of the remaining five, three came from outside Berlin (Esther Gad Bernard, Résel Spanier Frankel, and Marianne Devidel | Schadow) and the other two were the daughters of men exempt from taxes: Benjamin de

236 Notes to pages 107-110 Lemos, doctor of the Jewish community (father of Henriette Herz), and Moses Mendelssohn (father of Dorothea Veit). 16. Of the 20 salon women listed by Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 192-193, seven

were divorced from their first husbands and six married Christians in their second marriages. At least fifteen eventually converted. (Rebecca Itzig Ephraim, listed by Hertz as converted, did not convert together with her husband, David Ephraim; on the other hand, Jente Ephraim Stieglitz, whose conversion is listed by Hertz as uncertain, probably did

convert together with her husband.) Another distinctive characteristic of many of the salon hostesses was that their first marriages were quite early, on average at age 18, six years younger than the average Berlin Jewish woman (Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 196-197). _ 17, The lists of attendees at the salons of Henriette Herz and Rahel Varnhagen given by Wilhelmy (Salon, pp. 683-687, 868-873) include a total of 153 names. Out of these, 14 were women of Jewish origin and only 12 were men of Jewish background (Ludwig Borne, David Friedlander, David Ferdinand Koreff, Philipp Veit, four members of the Beer family, Eduard Gans, Heinrich Heine, Julius Eduard Hitzig, Ludwig Robert). Several of these men seem to have attended Varnhagen’s second salon. Only the Beers and David Friedlander remained Jewish. Deborah Hertz counts 12 Jewish women among 31 in “female salon society” and 8

: Jewish men among 69 in “male salon society” (Hertz, Jewish High Society, p. 114). 18. See Hertz, Jewish High Society, p. 114, Figure 8. 19, Varnhagen, vol. 1, p. 256, states his agreement with Friedrich Schlegel’s statement in the Athendum that “Fast alle Ehen sind nur Konkubinate, Ehen an der linken Hand.” 20. Rahel Varnhagen was engaged to Karl von Finckenstein before she met Karl August Varnhagen von Ense, but Finckenstein eventually broke off the engagement (Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 131—135, 183, 184). For a short time she was also engaged to Don Raphael d’Urquijo, a Spanish diplomat (Wilhelmy, Salon, pp. 75, 809, 873).

| 21. Hertz, Jewish High Society, p. 92; Wilhelmy, Salon, p. 53. Another seemingly platonic relationship was that between Henriette Herz and Friedrich Schleiermacher. 22. Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1895), vol. 5, pp. 422-425. In speaking of Herz’s relationship with Schleiermacher, Graetz writes: “Their conspicuous intimacy was mocked at by acquaintances, even more than by strangers. Both parties denied somewhat too anxiously the criminality of their intimate intercourse. Whether true of not, it was disgrace enough that evil tongues should even

suspect the honor of a Jewish matron of good family.” , 23. Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 254-258. 24, See, for instance, K.W.F. Grattenauer, Erkldrung an das Publikum iiber meine Schrift: Wider die Juden (Berlin: Johann Wilhelm Schmidt, 1803), pp. 12—13, 21 [‘should a turkey-snouted, black haired, dirty, short, fat Jew dare to take her (the muse of humanity) to a concert, or to recite to her in the most abhorrent dialect various treatises which he wrote about things of which he understands nothing?”] and Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 259-264. See also Chapter 7, p. 83. 25. Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 258-259. Wilhelmy, Salon, p. 97, remarks that Achim von Arnim and Bettina Brentano’s engagement in 1810 had taken place in Sara Levy’s garden. Wilhelmy’s description of the fight between Achim von Arnim and Sara Levy’s nephew Moritz Itzig plays down the anti-Semitic nature of the incident (Salon,

pp. 498-499, note 231). , , , 26. Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 271-275, Wilhelmy, Salon, p. 106. Wilhelmy claims

that members of the Tischgesellschaft continued to attend Jewish salons even after the founding of their anti-Jewish club.

Notes to pages 110-112 237 27. Hertz, Jewish High Society, p. 270. See also Wilhelmy, Salon, p. 133, which quotes

Rahel Varnhagen as saying about the period before 1806: “Die ganze Konstellation von Schdnheit, Grazie, Koketterie, Neigung, Liebschaft, Witz, Eleganz, Kordialitét, Drang Ideen zu entwickeln, redlichem Ernst, unbefangenem Aufsuchen und Zusammentreffen, launigem Scherz, ist zerstiebt.”

28. Deborah Hertz quotes an 1810 letter by Wilhelm von Humboldt that explicitly connects these two seemingly contradictory phenomena. Humboldt wrote that he “was working with all my might to give Jews civil rights so that it would no longer be necessary, out of generosity, to go to Jewish houses” (Hertz, Jewish High Society, p. 280).

Chapter 10 1. For a recent discussion of the Veit-Schlegel liaison see Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 106-107. For discussions of the baptism of Mendelssohn’s children see, for example, Meyer, Origins, chapter 4, (pp. 85-101). Of the six children of Mendelssohn who survived him, only Joseph Mendelssohn (b. 1770) and Recha Meyer (b. 1767) died as Jews. The other four children were Dorothea Veit (b. 1764, baptized 1802), Henriette (b. 1775, baptized 1812), Abraham (b. 1776, baptized 1822), and Nathan (b. 1782, baptized 1809). There are many reasons for invalidating the use of Mendelssohn’s family as indicative of the influence of Enlightenment ideas as a contributor to conversion. The three youngest children, all of whom converted, were still quite young when their father died, and he influenced their education far less than the older children’s. Of the older three, only one converted, and her decision to leave her husband, Simon Veit, twelve years after her father’s passing and later marry her Christian lover, Friedrich Schlegel, was certainly not the result

of her early upbringing. :

, 2. These figures come from an analysis of the marriages listed in Jacob Jacobson’s Jiidische Trauungen in Berlin 1759-1813. Only those couples who actually lived in Berlin for some time after their marriages are included. Since Jacobson gives exact figures for marriage dates for each couple but does not always give divorce dates, the figures based on date of marriage are more accurate than those for date of divorce. Of those women who are listed by Jacobson as marrying in Berlin and who later lived in Berlin the following numbers eventually divorced:

1760-69 194 4 2.1 1770-79 109665.0 5.5 , 1780-89 120 1790-94|r» 61 384,9 | 5 1795-99 78 3 6.4 1800-04 83 12 14.4 Number of Number who Percentage

Date Married Marriages Divorced Divorcing

{i 17 ha. 1805-09 57 5 8.8 1810-12 59 1 1.7

Of the 125 marriages listed by Jacobson for the years 1800 to 1804, 83 involved women who married for the first time (and are thus listed in my database under the years 1800 to

238 Notes to page 112 1804), 7 were remarrying (and were thus listed for earlier periods), 26 moved away from Berlin after marrying and did not return. For 9 marriages there is no information at all. The exact numbers of divorces by decade divorced is much more difficult to specify, but the following seem the most accurate estimates based on those married between 1759 and 1812:

1760-69 2 divorces

1780-89 7 1790-99 5 | | 1770-79 2

| 1800-09 14 1810-19 8 1820-22 3

In the list of all Jews in Berlin in 1812, there were about twenty persons listed as separated. Several of them are not included in Jacobson’s lists, presumably because they were not married in Berlin. A list of all Jews divorced in Berlin between 1813 and 1847 (Jacobson collection, LBI-

NY I -61) does not seem to indicate a very high divorce rate. The numbers listed are:

1813-17 divorces | 1818-22512

1828-32 9 | 1823--27 7

1833-37 7

1838-42. 12

1843-47. 9 Considering the growth of Jewish population in Berlin, especially in the 1830s and 1840s, these figures would seem to indicate a decline in the divorce rate after 1823. 3. Unfortunately, I was unable to find directly comparable figures for divorce rates in Berlin or Germany in general for the period studied here. The earliest information on Berlin given in William H. Hubbard, Familiengeschichte; Materialen zur deutschen Familie seit dem Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts (Miinchen: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1983), p. 87, 1s for the period 1875 to 1880, when it was approximately 4.5 percent. In those years the Berlin rate was almost 50 percent above that of Saxony. The Saxon rate from 1836 to 1840 had been 2.6

percent, slightly lower than the 1875 to 1880 rates.

A study of marriages in Leiden, Holland, seems to indicate a high rate of separations, reaching a peak of 14 percent in the period from 1791 to 1794, but a much lower rate of divorces (Donald Haks, Huwelijk en gezin in Holland in de 17de en 18de eeuw (Utrecht:

Hes Uitgevers, 1985), pp. 188, 202. , 4. Jewish tax lists are complete only for the years up to 1789. In order to get information on the wealth of those who divorced after 1789 we have to look at the information on

the taxes of their parents. Such information is available for about half of the divorced

persons, including many married after 1790. Those divorced persons who themselves appear on the pre-1789 tax lists fall into the following categories:

Notes to pages 112-113 239 Highest Tax Number

Over 4 Taler 7

2-4 Taler 4 1-2 Taler 3 Under 1 Taler (but not exempt) ] Of those divorced persons whose father’s pre-1789 tax is known, the following is the distribution:

Married Married Married Highest Tax : — -: 1760-89 1790-99 1800--12

Over 4 Taler 11 ] 6 2-4 Taler 6 3 4

1-2 Taler 2 8

Under 1 Taler (but not exempt) 5 3 3

The tax amounts of about one-third of the fathers are not known, mainly because they did not live in Berlin. 5. The divorce rate among couples marrying between 1759 and 1789 was 8.0 percent for those paying over 4 Taler in taxes, 4.4 percent for those paying 2 to 4 Taler, and under 1 percent for those paying some taxes but less than 1 Taler.

, 6. The four sets of siblings who divorced their spouses were David and Michael Frankel; Merle Meyer and Frommet Alexander (daughters of Liepmann Alexander); Cacilie Wulff and Rebecca Ephraim (daughters of Daniel Itzig); and Benjamin and Jacob Wulff. Except for the Frinkel brothers, all were the children of parents paying over 4 Taler in tax. 7. Among the marriages and divorces listed by Jacobson there are three cases of women converting without their husbands and receiving divorces—Sara Meyer, later von Grotthuss

(married 1778), Brendel Mendelssohn, later Dorothea von Schlegel (married 1783), and } Rebecca Friedlander, later Regina Frohberg (married 1801). There are also four cases of men converting alone—Levi Moses Levi (married 1765), Loeb Bresselau, later Michael von Bressendorf (married 1772), David Ephraim (married 1784); and Julius Moses (married 1792). On marriages to nobles see Chapter 11, p. 131. 8. The cases in which prenuptial conceptions were clear are the marriages of: Martin Heinrich Mendheim and Sarchen Nauen on June 4, 1795—-daughter Rebecca born five months

and eight days later (November 12, 1795) Dr. Abraham Herz Bing and Rechel Bendix on November 26, 1801-—daughter Hanna born 5 months

and 22 days later (April 18, 1802) Samuel (Siegfried) Lazarus Neudorff and Fradche Ezechiel on June 5, 1803 —-daughter Cheile born

four months and 21 days later (October 26, 1803) |

Veitel Joseph Ephraim (Eberty) and Jeanette Friedlander on January 13, 1805—daughter Edel (Ida) born two months and one day later (March 15, 1805). (The date 1806 given in the 1812 list of Berlin Jews agrees neither with the birth record in the Alte Familienregister nor with the baptismal records both of which list March 15, 1805, as her birthdate) Casper (Aron) Arnstein and Rechel Fiirst on August 28, 1806—son Adolph born 6 months and 7 days later (March 4, 1807) Moses Levin (Moritz) Friedberg and Gitel Itzig on September 21, 1806——son Mendel (Magnus) born

2 months and 23 days later (December 14, 1806) |

The case of David Wulff who married Mirel (Wilhelmine) Nathan on November 6, 1803, is ambiguous. Though the Alte Familienregister lists their oldest son as Levin born April 14, 1804, the 1812 list mentions him (now called Louis) as born April 15, 1805. It also lists an older daughter Roese born August 8, 1804, that is just nine months after their marriage. There are only 8 months

240 Notes to pages 113-114 and 7 days between the birthdates of Roese and Louis, which seems to be close to physically impossible. Another uncertain case is that of David Samuel Strauss and Rahel Philippi who married on January 31, 1805. Their oldest child is listed in the Alte Familienregister as Bela born September 2, 1805, seven months and 2 days after their marriage. This child could have been premature or conceived before marriage. Another complication is that the 1812 list but not the Alte Familienregister lists

| another child, Rike, born January 26, 1804, that is a year before their marriage.

, Some of these couples, notably the Mendheims, Bings, and Ebertys, were from quite wealthy families. Rechel Fiirst Arnstein’s father was also rather wealthy. Later baptisms of these couples include (among parents) Martin and Sara Mendheim, and Jeanette Friedlander, as well as children of the Bings and Neudorffs. 9. Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 218-219. 10. In Isaac Euchel’s Reb Henoch, the pseudo-Enlightened married daughter of the old-fashioned Henoch sneaks out of her home on a Friday night for a rendezvous with her lover, a Prussian army officer. Aron Halle Wolfsohn’s Leichtsinn und Frémmelei deals with a similar theme. Here the pseudo-Enlightened daughter writes to her noble admirer to save her from marriage to the villainous Polish Talmud tutor Josephche. Instead he sells her to a house of prostitution. Wolfsohn’s rather heavyhanded moral is that both the hypocritical fanaticism of the orthodox and the pseudo-Enlightened rejection of all values lead to disaster. Both the hypocritical Josephche, who frequents the brothel, and the Christian noble admirer are to be avoided, and only the truly Enlightened represented by the play’s hero can lead the younger generation to a properly moral and modern future. Both Euchel’s and Wolfsohn’s plays are written in the Hebrew alphabet but in the spoken vernacular. In each play the old-fashioned characters speak Yiddish dialect, while the more modern ones speak High German. Both plays date to the early 1790s. Euchel’s play seems to have been written in 1793 or shortly thereafter, while the first printing of Wolfsohn’s

_ play was in 1796 (see Zinberg, History of Jewish Literature, vol. 8, pp. 140-150). 11. “Das einzige, was ihnen einiges Ansehen geben kann, und wodurch wenigstens ein toleranter Hausfreund sich bewegen lasst, die Frau oder die Tochter eines Juden zu verfiihren, und seinen Wein mit auszutrinken, [ist] der Reichtum” (Davidson, Burgerliche Verbesserung), p. 84. It is worth noting that the word Hausfreund is one of the terms often used in the period for a habitue of a salon. 12. The overall illegitimacy statistics for Berlin come from Hubbard, Familiengeschichte, Table 3.28, p. 109. Schulz, Berlin. Sozialgeschichte, pp. 265-268, gives somewhat lower figures for the years 1770-1800 (8.4 percent for the baptisms she studied, and about 10 percent for Berlin in general). She claims much higher rates, however, for intellectuals and officials (10 to 17 percent), and nobility (14.3 percent), but not among the “Handels- und Manufakturbourgeoisie” (7.3 percent). For Jewish illegitimacy rates see this chapter, Table 5 and note 27. 13. The so-called Judenkartei is a card index, made under Nazi auspices, of Protestant baptisms of persons of Jewish origin in Berlin. Now deposited in the Evangelisches Zentralarchiv in Berlin, it covers virtually all Protestant churches in Berlin with the exception of the military churches and the French church. The Judenkartei uses Nazi racial criteria to determine who should be included. It therefore includes a number of persons who had never been members of the Jewish community in the first place (for instance, children of Jewish fathers and Christian mothers baptized at birth, or the children of persons converted to Christianity long before the baptized infant was born). 14. On the relative numbers of Jewish men and Jewish women among parents of ille-

gitimate children see Chapter 14, pp. 164-165. | 15. Of 312 children born out of wedlock to mixed couples between 1770 and 1830,

Notes to pages 114-115 241 111 were born to couples who had more than one out-of-wedlock child. Of the 237 couples involved, 36 had more than one child out of wedlock. 16. Of 125 children born to mixed couples out of wedlock between 1770 and 1799, only some 15 were later legitimized by the marriage of their parents (12 percent). Of the 238 born out of wedlock between 1800 and 1829, at least 55 were later legitimized (23.1 percent). The children born out of wedlock to mixed couples between 1810 and 1819 were

especially likely to be legitimized (26 of 66, or 39.4 percent). | The parents of illegitimate children known to have converted were the following. (All are listed with their dates of conversion. Those known to have married the parent of their children are marked with an asterisk): 1783—Nucha (Renata) Simonin*; 1789——Geist Riess (Johann G. W. Berger); 1790— Christiane Jacobin[?]; 1793—Christiane Wilhelmine Leberecht; 1795—-Jacob Siegismund Sussmann*; 1796—Heymann Riess (Eduard W. Heymann); 1797—Joachim M. Simonsohn; 1798—Friedericke Leberecht; 1799-—-Christiane Dankengott Ernstin (father of child was Jewish); 1799-——Johanna Anspachin (Grantzow)*; 1803—-Johann Zedort Michaelis*; 1803— Aron Bloch*; 1804—Joseph Fliess*; 1804——Henriette Langen*; 1805——-Carl A. W. Léwenthal*: 1805——Karoline Levi; 1806——Mathilde Wilhelmine Dankengott Wolf; 1808—Ludwig Arendt*: 1809——Isaak Nathan Liman*; 1811—Friedrich Wilhelm Vaudel and E. T. Davie

, (converted and married each other); 1811—-Johanna Louisa Josepha*; 1812—-Mirjam Gabriel (Charlotte F. W. Christiani)*; 1812—Emilie Nauendorf (married 1830); 1812—August B. W. Brandes*; 1814—(Christiane) Henriette Liepmann*; 1816—-Gerhard Friedrich Eschwe*; 1816—Alexander Wallber; 1816—-Johanne Heimann*; 1818—Henriette Jere| mias*; 1819—Johanne Samuel; 1821—-Benjamin Fliess; 1822—-Wilhelm Frankel (Franke)*; 1824——-Ludwig Hirschberg*; 1825-—R6se Moses (Henriette Friederike Bennezet)*; 1825—

August E. J. Levi*; 1827—-Marie B. Schulz*; 1828—Ernestine L. Siissmund* (husband also converted); 1829—Henriette A. F. Meier*; 1830—-Samuel Moser[?]* In several cases, Jews who later married had out-of-wedlock children after their conversion but none before. These cases include Ludwig Eppenstein, baptized 1801, married 1822; Johann A. L. Fiirstenthal, baptized 1822, married 1824; Johann Heinrich Julius Simoni, baptized 1809, married 1813; Caroline Heymann, baptized 1792, out-of-wedlock child born

, later that year; Charlotta Bernauin, baptized 1788, children born later. , The dates of legitimization of the children of Therese Salome and Friedrich Wilhelm Hoffmeister (children born 1803 and 1809) and of the children of Charlotte Henriette Schmidt (children born 1793, 1794) are unknown. 17. Among the members of the Gesellschaft der Freunde who figure as fathers of children out of wedlock are Carl Adolph Ernst Neo, Enoch Manche, Ludwig Arendt, Ben_ jamin Fliess, and (perhaps) Leffmann David. 18. One example of these fairly rare liaisons was that between the banker Isaac Liman and the noblewoman Friederike Amalie Theresa von Winterfeld, who had a daughter in April 1802. Liman converted to Christianity and married von Winterfeld (the widow of a Herr Detroit) in 1809. 19. For statistics on the social background of the Christian fathers of illegitimate children born to mixed couples, see Chapter 11, note 40, Table C). All of the out-of-wedlock children with Christian soldiers as fathers were born before 1795. 20. The following are some among the few descriptions of the social backgrounds of Jewish mothers of out-of-wedlock children being baptized: Handelsmannstochter aus Strelitz—-1784

, Daughter of a Schutzjude in Dessau-—1790 Daughter of a Schutzjude in Berlin—1796 : Maed bei Dr. Bloch (two out-of-wedlock children)-—1797, 1799

242 Notes to pages 115-116 ,

p. 460). , 21. This was the case of Esther Bdhm nee Krautheim who married Joseph Bohm in January 1804. Her husband was imprisoned for several years. In September 1807, she had an out-of-wedlock child with the Theaterlieferant Joseph Oppenheim. After her divorce from Bohm in 1812 she married the restauranteur Adolph Philipp Wallerstein and supplied kosher food for the Jewish association Magine Re’im (Jacobson, Jiidische Trauungen,

22. The list of Jews in Berlin in 1812 specifies the ages of both mother and illegitimate child in 17 cases. Of these the youngest mother was 18 when her child was born and , the oldest was 40. Eleven of the mothers were between 20 and 27, with the median age at

| 24 (only slightly younger than the average first legitimate birth among Berlin Jews). It is more difficult to get ages of parents from the baptismal records, since parents’ ages are generally available only if they later converted (and not always then). Of ten men whose ages were known, the youngest fathered an illegitimate child when he was 21; the oldest was 47. Carl Franke, who fathered eleven children out of wedlock, was 23 years old when the first was born and 43 when the last one was born.

_ 23. The baptismal record of Mariane Flies, daughter of Benjamin Flies (listed as jiidischer Kaufmann), and Scharlotte Friderike Wilhelmine Plato (daughter of a merchant in Frankfurt) states “Vater mit d. Mutter abgefunden bis zum 16. Jahr” (Sophienkirche, July 25, 1799). Joseph Riess and Carolina Rosenblum are listed at the following different addresses upon birth of their children: 1787—-Miinzstrasse, 1792, 1794—-Scho6nhauserstrasse, 1799—

neben den Ziegenhof; their son born in 1796 was listed with the address “Bankertshaus”’ (bastard house). The baptism of children of mixed parentage at the orphanage (Waisenhaus Rummelsberg) seems to have been a bit more common when the mother was Jewish than when the father was Jewish. Some examples of such cases were the children of: Christian Mankert and Reichel Wulf (1793) Lieutenant von Theler and Zimche Mosis (1794)

Gottlieb Bechert and Sprinze Liepman (1795) The journeyman tailor Gemeinert and Jitte Salomon (1796) Johann Hunzinger and Sprinze Aron (1797 and 1799).

24. Table 4 somewhat understates the suddenness and rapidity of the drop in illegitimate births. In 1804, 14 of the 32 baptisms of Jews in Berlin involved illegitimate children of mixed couples. In 1805 it was 16 of 33—the highest number of illegitimate children of Jewish background ever baptized in one year. In 1806 this tumbled suddenly to 6

of 20 and in 1807, 6 of 30. ,

25. See Chapter 9, pp. 109-110 and Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 251-285. 26. A Jewish communal report (CAHJP, P 17-522) states that in the year 1810-11 seven Jewish children were born out of wedlock. The same report seems to indicate that 39 children were born in the Jewish community altogether during this period, though the report is confusing since it also lists the number of Jewish children born in 1810 as 33. Whichever is the exact number of Jewish children born in the year, it would indicate an

illegitimacy rate of about 20 percent. |

The 1812 list of all Jewish residents in Berlin reports only 21 illegitimate children under the age of 12 living with their mothers. This is only a very small percentage of the 721 children listed in the same age group overall. Even for the year with the largest number of children born out of wedlock according to the list (1809), there were only five such cases (between 7 percent and 8 percent of all Jewish children born in 1809). The low number of out-of-wedlock children in the 1812 population list 1s by no means proof that the Jewish illegitimacy rate was low. First of all, out-of-wedlock children were

Notes to pages 116-118 243 more likely to be stillborn or to die in childhood than were legitimate children with two parents to bring them up. Second, if the mother of the child married, the illegitimate child would probably have been legitimized and thus excluded from the statistics. Finally, it is quite likely that the Jewish communal authorities made life difficult for unwed mothers and perhaps forced some to emigrate. (On the other hand, unwed mothers might have come to relatively anonymous Berlin to have their babies, though it is hard to see how they could have gained residency rights.) 27. LBI, Jacobson Collection I 42-43. All these figures include only children brought up as Jews. All had Jewish mothers, and, in most cases, Jewish fathers were also listed for them. Illegitimate children of mixed couples not brought up as Jews are listed elsewhere

, (in the baptismal records and Judenkartei). 28. Among the maids listed in the 1812 list of Jews in Berlin who had out-of-wedlock children were Taube Aron—child Roeschen born 1811 Bette Abraham—child Mahle born 1809 Zipora Abraham—child Jacob Glogau Michaelis born 1800

Hanne Abraham—child Beer Fraenkel born 1812 |

| Hanna Caspar—child Mariane born 1808 Hanne David—child Jette Levin born 1801 Rebecca Gabriel——child Abraham Fiirstenberg born 1802 Jette Itzig—child Jette Philipp born 1808 Liebe Moses—child Rebecca born 1802

In almost all these cases the father of the child was probably Jewish. It is noteworthy that

both the mothers and their illegitimate children had traditionally Jewish names. , In the birth records of the Jewish community for 1812 to 1840 (Jacobson collection I 42-43) the clear majority of those bearing illegitimate children were listed as maids. This is especially true of those who had children out of wedlock in the earlier part of the period. In 1814, for instance, 9 of the 14 mothers of illegitimate children are listed in the birth records themselves as maids and a tenth is listed as a cook. Two of the remaining four are listed as maids in the list of all Berlin Jews in 1812. The following occupations for Jewish fathers of out-of-wedlock Jewish children are listed for the years between 1813 and 1820: cigarmaker (also listed as cigar worker and manufacturer [Fabrikant]), Krankenwdrter (medical orderly), journeyman tailor (2), journeyman hat maker, dealer (Handelsmann) (4), lacquerer (Lackierer), commercial employee (5) (Handlungsdiener), worker (Arbeitsmann). Of more prestigious occupations only the following are found: merchant (Kaufmann) (2), lieutenant, banker. This would indicate 16 fathers with nonprestigious occupations and only 4 with prestigious occupations. The occupations of one father could not be determined. 29. For instance, the lacquerworker Michel Brinkmann and Sara Aron (2 children out of wedlock) and the cigarmaker Salomon Lesser Cohn and the servant Friedricke Kaufmann (3 children out of wedlock). 30. Some of the factors that help explain why liaisons between Jewish men and Chris-

tian women are rarely mentioned by contemporaries are discussed in Chapter 14, p. 165. The one mention in contemporaneous literature of liaisons by Jewish men is given by Karl August Varnhagen, who was a tutor in the home of the wealthy Cohen family. He describes Cohen as “devoting his attentions to one Mademoiselle Seiler, a singer,” while Cohen’s wife seems to “have been carrying on a flirtation” with Varnhagen (quoted by Hertz, Jewish High Society, p. 201).

244 Notes to pages 118-122 31. “Die ausserehelich beschwangerte Personen so wohl Dienstmagde welche bei hiesigen Hausvatern in Kondition stehen, als auch fremde Schwangere die anhero kommen, der Gemeinde und ihren wohltatigen Anstalten ungemein zu Last fallen. Es miissen also,

in Ansicht der Ersten Massregeln genommen werden, wie ihre Unterhaltung nicht mehr der Gemeindekasse aufgebiirdet werde, und in Ansicht der Zweiten solche Vorkehrung die ihren Auftritte in der Stadt verhindern” [original in Hebrew script] (From minute book of | the Berlin community March 9, 1809 - P 17-451 at CAHIJP).

, 32. “Solche Patrum obscurorum die aber als Kinder hiesiger Herkunft als solche betrachtet, und zum Genuss der Wohlthate der Gemeinde zugelassen, werden miissen” (Stern Collection P17-523, CAHJP). _ 33. Whereas the Jewish illegitimacy rate fell from 14 percent in 1813~—15 to 6 percent in 1816-18 and was only about 2 percent in the years after 1819, the general rate in Berlin

fell only from 18.3 percent in 1816-20 to 16.6 percent in 1821-25 and 15.3 percent in 1826-30. (See Hubbard, Familiengeschichte).

34. Whereas the rate of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and prenuptial conceptions in Bavaria during this period was frequently well over one-third of the total, the Jewish illegitimacy rate was closer to 3 percent. Despite the fact that the Matrikel laws forced Jews to delay their marriages, and despite the model of peasant illegitimacy, Bavarian Jews seem to have rarely resorted to extramarital conceptions and children out of wedlock (see

Steven M. Lowenstein, “Voluntary and Involuntary Limitation of Fertility in Nineteenth Century Bavarian Jewry,” in Paul Ritterband (ed.), Modern Jewish Fertility (Leiden: 1981).

Chapter 11 1. See, for instance, the discussion in Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 223-224. Graetz

claimed that one-half of Berlin Jewry converted.

2. The letter to Teller seems not to have been typical of Friedlander’s attitude toward baptism during the rest of his life. The very fact that Friedlander’s son Benoni waited till

after David Friedlander’s death before he converted is one proof of this attitude. On Friedlinder’s 1811 memorandum to the Prussian government opposing conversions see Chapter 7, note 28. 3. See Abraham Menes, “The Conversion Movement in Prussia During the First Half of the 19th Century,” YIVO Annual 6 (1951) 187-205. 4. In her dissertation The Literary Salon in Berlin 1780-1806: The Social History of an Intellectual Institution (University of Minnesota, 1979) and in Jewish High Society.

5. See Chapter 10, note 13. |

6. Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 232—233 and figures 15 and 16 on pp. 234-235. Hertz states that from 1770 to 1804 women were 60 percent of all converts but only 43 percent in the following half century. As will be seen, a study of adult converts shows that the changing gender imbalance was even greater than Hertz indicates. 7. Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 228-235. 8. Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 236-237. 9. Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 230-232. 10. Of the 1,429 persons in the Judenkartei between 1770 and 1830 whose age at baptism can be determined, 584 were under one year old at baptism, 121 more were between one and fifteen, 114 between fifteen and twenty, 407 were in their twenties, 140 in their thirties, and only 63 were forty or above.

Notes to page 122 245 11.

Number of Jews in Various Age Groups Living in Berlin in 1812 Who Converted

Birthdate Total Numbers Later converted % Converted

Before 1770 808 10 1.2

1770-74 26511 9 3.4 1775-79 253 4.3 1780--84 355 362 24 13 6.8 3.6 1785-89 1790-94 353 42 11.9 1795--99 284 32 11.3 1800--04 281 41 14.6 1805—~09 260 38 14.6 1810~12 160 21 13.1

Unknown 99 3 3.0 When we look at specific years, we find two birth years in which over 20 percent of those born later converted (1793 and 1804). 12. Looking at the Judenkartei gives the same impression as this look at the 1812 name list, namely, that those born nearest the turn of the century were the most likely to convert. Excluding babies baptized soon after birth, we find that those born in the years 1781 to 1810 made up the vast majority of those baptized between 1770 and 1830. The largest numbers are found in the years 1795 to 1806. In those twelve years, 309 persons were born who were baptized after infancy. This encompasses three-eighths of all noninfants

baptized over a sixty-year period (309 of 831). 13.

Conversion in Families Marrying in Berlin 1759-1813 —

Persons Whose Persons With

Persons Later Children no Children Converting Converted Converted

Year Married Persons Marrying N %o N %o N Jo

1759—79 990 8 0.8 96 9.7 886 89.5 1780-89 225 11 4.9 39 17.3 175 77.8 , 1790-99 269 22 8.2 52 19,3 195 72.5 1800-13 39] 38 9,7 68 17.4 285 72.9 All 1,875 79 4.2 255 13.6 1,541 82.2 14. A total of 629 persons listed in the Judenkartei were baptized after 1812 but born before 1812. They would thus have been listed as residents of Berlin in 1812 if they lived there. However, only about 150 of the 629 persons so listed are also to be found on the 1812 list. The others presumably migrated to Berlin at a later date. The reason that only some 150 persons are both in the Judenkartei for 1770 to 1830 and on the 1812 list is that at least 44 of the 250 baptized on the 1812 list were converted after 1830, several were converted to Catholicism and thus not in the Judenkartei, and some others were converted outside of Berlin. 15. The two main sources for baptized Jews beyond the Judenkartei are Jacobson’s list of Jewish marriages in Berlin and the 1812 list of Jews in Berlin (Jacobson, Jiidische Trauungen and LBI Jacobson collection I 82).

246 Notes to pages 122-123 16. Among these persons are Henriette Herz baptized in Zossen, Julius Eduard Hitzig in Wittenberg, Joseph Fliess (son-in-law of Daniel Itzig) in Stolpe near Oranienburg, the Isaac-Fliess sisters, the Meyer sisters (later von Grotthuss and von Eybenberg) in Wensicken-

dorf near Niederbarnim, and Dorothea Mendelssohn-Veit Schlegel in Jena. 17.

Number of Baptisms Index of Increase

Year Listed in Judenkartet (previous decade = 100)

1770-79 39

1780-89 77 197 1790-99 136 177 1800-09 240 176 1810-19 397 165 1820-29 615 155 18.

| Total Baptisms Illegitimate

1770-74 19 3 16 1775-7939 2015 6 14 1780-84 24

Year | Listed in Judenkartei Children All Others

1785-89 38 18 20 1790-94 52 29 23 1795-99 84 53 31

1800-04 96 | 52 44

19.

Male Converts Female Converts

Year (over 2 years old) (over 2 years old)

1770-89 15 46 1790-99 20 27 1800-04 28 35 Total 63 108

20. Of 73 females above the age of two who were baptized in Berlin between 1770 and 1799, only two are known to have been born in Berlin, as compared to 8 of 35 males in the same age group and period. 21. Those baptized outside Berlin before 1806 included a number of people who were assessed over 10 Taler (or their fathers were), including Joseph Fliess and his two sisters, Bliimchen and Rebecca, David Ephraim, and Sara and Marianne Wulff. 22. Among Jewish men who were ennobled after their baptisms before 1805 were Michael von Bressendorf, baptized 1796, and Joseph Adam von Arnstein (of Vienna, married in Berlin), baptized 1798. Isaac Nathan Liman, who converted in 1809, married a noblewoman. Jewish women who married noblemen after their conversions included Bliimchen IsaacFliess, who converted in 1780 and married Kriegsrat von Bose, and her sister Rebecca who converted at about the same time and married Lieutenant von Runkel. The sisters Marianne and Sara Meyer converted in 1788, were forced by family pressure to return to Judaism, and then definitively converted around 1797. They became, respectively, Frau von Eybenberg (wife of Prince von Reuss) and Frau von Grotthuss. Hitzel Bernhard mar-

ried Major von Boye, probably before 1800. Besides these five women who married

Notes to pages 123-125 247 noblemen, there was Brendel Mendelssohn whose second husband was eventually ennobled as Friedrich von Schlegel. 23. Most notably the lengthy court battle between the converted daughters of Moses Isaac-Fliess and their as yet unconverted brothers over their father’s 750,000 Taler inheritance. See Chapter 8, note 15. 24. On the Hitzig conversion see Chapter 8, note 19.

25. See Chapter 7, note 28. |

26. Many, but probably less than half of the persons listed by Friedlander, also appear in the Judenkartei. The list covers mainly the years 1806 to 1810, though it does include

a few persons baptized as far back as 1800. Quite a few of the persons listed were baptized , outside of Berlin. Among the elite families listed by Friedlander are the Itzigs (#4, children of Elias Itzig and #5, the Bartholdy brothers), the Levys (#1, 2, and 23, the children, brother, and granddaughter of Martin Salomon Levy-—some of them later ennobled as Barons Delmar), the Isaac-Fliesses (#13, Dr. Fliess, grandson of Moses Isaac), the Ephraims (#34, the family of Veitel Ephraim’s daughter Résel Meyer; #40, David Ephraim, Veitel Ephraim’s grandson and son-in-law of Daniel Itzig; and #50, children of Benjamin Veitel Ephraim in Paris and Hannover), the von Halles (#3), J. W. Julius, son of the former chief elder Jacob Moses , (#28), two daughters of Mendelssohn’s employer Moses Bernhard (#30), and finally the children of Moses Mendelssohn (#48). 27, K Ge 2/18 “Berlin Jiidische Gemeinde Steuern 1809-1810” and P 17-466 in CAHIJP-

Jerusalem. The total tax income of the Jewish community in 1809 was 26,664 Reichstaler tax on property (Erech) and 8,595 Reichstaler head tax (Schutzgeld) for a total of 35,259 Reichstaler.

28. The number of baptisms listed in the Judenkartei for the years immediately be- , fore and after the Emancipation decree of March 1812 were as follows:

1809 35 1810 44 1811 42

,| 1813 1812 24 4] | 1815 4] 1814-28

1816 60 1817 42

! If we count only adults baptized above the age of 20, the figures are: | 1811 23 1812 18 1813 13 1814 13 1815 21 The drop in baptisms is not immediate after the decree was proclaimed in March 1812. In fact, there were more baptisms in the second half of 1812 than in the first half. 29. This phenomenon will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 13. 30. The following is the distribution of persons over the age of two who were listed in the Judenkartei of baptisms in Berlin:

248 Notes to pages 125-126 , Known to Be from Outside Berlint

1770-99 36 11,27 69 63.9 1800-09 24 48 44.4 1810-19 69 68 116 45.3 1820-24 60 3937 35189 89 54.6 1825-29 65.6 1830 11 4 26 63.4 Year Known to Be from Berlin* Birthplace Unknownt N : %o

*This category includes all those whose birthplace is clearly listed as Berlin as well as persons whose birthplace is not listed but one of whose parents was born in the city. This category includes all persons for whom there is neither information about their birthplace nor about their par-

ents’ birthplace.

+This category includes not only those for whom a birthplace other than Berlin is listed, but also 142 persons whose birthplace is not listed but at least one of whose parents is known to have been born outside Berlin.

between 1819 and 1830: 1819 42 77 21.2 16.7 , 1820 33 1821 42 71S16.7 1822 , 48 31.3 | 1823 57 15 26.3 1824 54 16 29.6 31. The following are the figures for male converts aged eighteen to twenty-nine

. Males between 18 and 29 Year All Converts in Judenkartei N %

1825 75 18 24.0 1826 : 73 18 24,7 1827 62 22 35.5 1828 79 33 29| 36.7 1829 92 35.9

1830 67 20 30.0 | 32. In the 1820s, 75 of those baptized were from Posen or Silesia. This represented almost one-third of all converts in the decade not born in Berlin. By way of contrast, migrants from these two provinces were only 15 percent of migrants baptized before 1800 and 20 percent of migrants baptized between 1801 and 1820.

Brandenburg | , | 1770~1800 6 40 2210 4 15 1801-1820 23 35 . 1821-1830 72 58 9 75 Birthplace of Migrants Baptized in Berlin

Year Posen, Silesia Central Germany* Bavaria, Hesse All Others

*Central Germany includes the territory later incorporated into the “German Democratic | Republic” plus the eastern sections of Pomerania and Brandenburg.

Gender Division of Baptized Migrants to Berlin Brandenburg

Male 82 | 57 12 86 Female 19 63 Wi 39

Posen, Silesia Central Germany Bavaria, Hesse All Others

| Notes to pages 126~127 249 33. There were 4 students baptized before 1820 and 24 after that date. For the occupational distribution of migrants versus native Berliners who converted see footnote 40, Tables A and B. 34, Meyer, Origins, pp. 178-179, discusses the Prussian Cabinet-Ordre of August 1822 (announced in December 1822) restricting academic posts to Christians, as well as an earlier decree (June 1822) excluding Jews from the higher ranks in the army. A similar discussion is to be found in Heinz Moshe Graupe, The Rise of Modern Judaism, An Intellectual History of German Jewry 1650-1942, trans. John Robertson (Huntington, New York: Robert E. Krieger, 1978), p. 139. See also Freund, Emanzipation vol. 1, p. 239. The decree of December 1823, forbidding all innovations in the Jewish religious service is often described as a factor causing some despairing Jews to convert to Christianity, since there was no longer hope of an internal reform of Judaism. This factor is unlikely to have influenced the rise in baptisms of people coming from the eastern provinces, however, since its most direct effect was in Berlin itself. (See Chapter 12 on the controversy about religious reform.)

35. Examples of “mass baptisms” in the 1820s are the baptisms in the Bethelehem , church on May 7, 1829, of six young men born between 1804 and 1810. Their birthplaces,

, respectively, were Bojanowo in Poland, Grothingen in Courland, Stargard in Pomerania, Danzig, and Hanau near Frankfurt. Other cases took place in the Sophienkirche on March 12, 1823 (three young men, two of them students from the Ukraine), in the Neue Kirche

, on September 15, 1824 (three teachers at the Cauer institute), in the Parochial church on August 10, 1828 (three young men, two of whom later became professors). 36. On the clustering of conversion in certain families, see Chapter 13. 37. One way to measure the wealth of the families of converts is to look at the tax assessments of their parents (before 1789). The following information is based on the date of conversion of the first child who converted only:

Over 4 3 12 5 2 I 1 2-4 2 5 3 3 l 1 1-2 0 1 3 3 5 2 Under 1 | 0 ] 0 0 2 Tax (Taler) Before 1800 1800-12 1813-19 1820-24 1825-29 After 1830

Another set of statistics, this time taking persons who were children in 1812 and who converted later, yields similar results. In this case the tax amounts are based on their parents’ 1809 assessments: Date of Conversion

Over 100 9 7 4 5 5 75-99 1 1 3 \ —

Tax (Taler) 1812-19 1820-24 1825-29 After 1830 Unknown

50~74 4 32 83 33 — — 25-49 4 1-24 4 2 6 5 — No tax 12 9 24 24 8 % over 100 26.5 29.1 8.3 12.2

| % over 50 38,2 41.7 20.8 22.0

38. a

250 Notes to pages 127-129 Legal Status (individuals who married)

General | Publique ,

Privilege Ordinarii Extraordinarii Bediente |

Number who later converted 19 23 5 ]

Number whose children converted 61 115 9 6 Total with conversion in family 80 138 14 7

Total in legal status group 189 948 109 101

% with conversion in family 42.3 , 14.6 12.8 | 6.9 39. Among 20 communal elders who served between 1780 and 1824, at least seven had children who converted. They were Jacob Moses (son converted before 1811), Ephraim Veitel Ephraim (son converted around 1806), Liepmann Alexander (sons converted 1816 and 1820), Isaak Benjamin Wulff (daughter baptized 1823), Hirsch Samuel Bendix (son

baptized 1811), Heimann Veitel Ephraim (sons baptized 1816 and 1828), Salomon Nathan, Jr. (at least three children and widow baptized, one son converted before 1811), David Friedlander (son converted 1835). (Only the elders [Parnassim], who generally numbered only three to six at a time, have been included in this list; if less high ranking officers had been included the number would have been even higher.) Among communal officers who themselves converted were Zacharias Friebe, assistant treasurer of the community chosen in 1808 (baptized in 1817), Martin Hirsch Mendheim, chief treasurer of the community chosen in 1808 and 1814 (converted 1816), and Victor Ebers, assistant elder chosen in 1814 (baptized in 1828). Many of the communal elders who had no children who converted had grandchildren

who did so, among them Daniel Itzig and Juda Veit. ,

40. The following tables describe the occupational background (own or father’s) of various types of converts listed in the Judenkartei: A. Percent Known to Be Born in Berlin, Above Age Two When Baptized

| 1770-99 1800-09 1810-19 1820-24 1825-29

Banker —— 19 27 25 28 Kaufmann (merchant) 40 67 53 31 39 Handelsmann (dealer) 20 — — 6 | —

Physician ——234 Student/teacher/intellectual — 4 = 6 8 . Other 40 1] 18 31 21 | | , | (N = 5) (N = 27) | (N = 49) (N = 36) (N = 53)

Banker — 9 5 6 5 Kaufmann 9 45 26 29 4l B. Percent Known to Be Born Outside Berlin, Above Age Two When Baptized

Handelsmann 9 79 3214 8 7 | Physician — 9 Student/teacher, etc. 9 — 10 24 13

Other | 73 27 31 30 31 | (N=11) (N#=1)) (N=42) (N= 63) (N = 109)

Notes to pages 129-130 251 C. Illegitimate Children, Christian Father

Kaufmann 2 2 Handelsmann Number % of Total Known occupations

Tailor 171415 Shoemaker 13

Craftsmen: (all = 64) 58

22

Mason 7 24 6 Other crafts 26 Soldier or officer 7 6 All other 35 32 . Known 110

Total occupations

Unknown 8 : , D. Mlegitimate Children, Jewish Father , | | ‘Number % of Total Known Occupations

Handelsmann 1] 10 Bookkeeper 13 12 or servant or (Diener) Physician dentist 76 66 Commercial employee (Handlungsdiener)

| AllKnown others10927 25 | Unknown 47 Total occupations

41. Of 1,968 names on the address list of Berlin Jews in 1812, only 370 lived outside

, the first four of the twenty-four police districts into which Berlin was divided. Fifty-five of 137 individuals who were later converted (40.1 percent) and 26 of the 81 families that had members who later converted (32.1 percent) lived outside the first four districts. Those who lived outside the first four districts were more likely to convert within a few years after the address list was made in 1812. Of those 28 individuals who were children in 1812, whose addresses in 1812 were known and who were baptized between 1812 and 1819, 19 (over two-thirds) lived outside the first four districts. Of those baptized in the 1820s the percentage was less than a quarter and only 2 of the 29 who were baptized after 1830 (and whose address is known) lived outside the Jewish neighborhood in 1812.

42. | District NG N % = N % Residence of Members of the Merchants Guild—182]

Born Christian Converted Jews Unconverted Jews

Districts 1-4 (Alt Berlin) 218 25.6 7 19.4 126 64.3 Districts 5~8 (prestigious western area)* 324 39.3 20 55.6 38 19.9

Other ee 309 36.30 25.0 32 16.3 *AltKG6lln, Friedrichswerder, Dorotheenstadt, and northern Friedrichstadt. (Unter den Linden was in district 7.)

43. Jacobson, Jiidische Trauungen, p. 505, note.

252 Notes to pages 130-135 44. Quoted in many places including Mendes-Flohr and Reinharz, The Jew in the Modern World, pp. 222-223. 45. See for instance, Meyer, Origins, pp. 95, 96-97, 98, 101, 204 note 37. 46. Varnhagen, Denkwiirdigkeiten des eignen Lebens, vol 1, pp. 242~—243, 252, 284— , 287. Among those mentioned as being at the Cohens who later converted are Mariane Saaling, the Edeling family and Rahel Levin (later Varnhagen’s wife). 47. All the varieties described by Eberty are kosher fish. There 1s some reason to believe that he is describing Friday night dinners, since he talks about the two lights in the room (next to two bowls of fruit). 48. Eberty, Jugenderinnerungen, pp. 111, 116, 117, 172, 202, 252-255. There are some cryptic remarks that after Eberty’s return from Wittenberg as a teenager, there was no room for him in his parents’ small apartment. It would seem hard to imagine that this was related to his baptism, since that must have occurred with his parents’ approval. 49. In 1821, for instance, the officers of the merchants guild included the unbaptized Joseph Mendelssohn, as well as three baptized Jews: Wilhelm Zacharias Friebe, Martin Heinrich Mendheim, and Friedrich Gottlieb von Halle. In his humorous memoirs A.H. Heymann writes about how he raised money for a poor Christian teacher and his family by soliciting funds from converted Jews at the stock exchange, since they wouldn’t “shut their Jewish hearts to their Christian brother,” an obvious indication of continued relations between the converted and their ex-coreligionists (Heymann, Lebenserinnerungen, pp. 228-229). 50. Wilhelm Cassel, who converted in 1809, was Vorsteher (president) from 1805 to 1811 and from 1814 to 1820. Among later presidents were Paul Mendelssohn-Bartholdy (c. 1851)—the younger brother of Felix. Its Oeconom (in charge of food for organizational functions) was Moritz Volkmar, another converted Jew (Lesser, Gesellschaft, pp. 41, 58; Heymann, Lebenserinnerungen, pp. 304-306). 51. Among the converted members were August and J. N. Liman, Joseph Mendheim, and Ludwig Robert. Many other members converted later. 52. Time did not permit making a systematic analysis of the Judenkartei for marriages involving converted Jews found at the Evangelisches Zentralarchiv. The analysis here is restricted to information found in the baptismal records as well as in Jacobson’s volumes Jiidische Trauungen 1759--1813 and Judenbiirgerbiicher. 53. We could trace about 54 marriages of female converts to Gentile commoners and about the same number of males. At least twelve of the husbands of converted Jews were craftsmen, especially tailors. Of the female converts at least 10 were marrying the fathers , of their out-of-wedlock children (most of whom were craftsmen). At least twelve of the

men were also marrying the mothers of their children. , Chapter 12 1. The names of the newly elected elders and assistant elders (Tovim and Ikkurim) who signed an appeal for support from the community in December 1808, were Liepmann , Meyer Wulff, Samuel Nathan Bendix (Bernsdorff), David Friedlander, Ruben Gumpertz, Liebermann Schlesinger, Juda (Jacob) Herz Beer, Abraham (August) Bendemann, Michael Mendel (Mendheim), and Zacharias Frankel (Friebe)—all of them (except for Wulff) out-

spoken supporters of innovation.

2. Geiger, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, vol. 1, p. 160. 3. A customary subsidy of 500 Reichstaler annually had been set aside to support 40

Notes to pages 135-136 293 yeshiva students (bachurim). In February 1809, the elders asked the heads of the Talmud Torah to introduce the thirty students who were still in Berlin to the elders so they could

judge if they were worthy. In March 1809, David Friedlander proposed the end of all sub- | sidies to yeshiva students from out of town. (“Bei der Uberzeugung in welcher alle rechtliche Leute sind, dass der Unterricht der fremden Bachurim aus fremden Stadten, véllig unzweck-

missig ist, der Unterhalt dieser Bachurim ktinftighin wegfallen und der Gemeindekasse , nichts dazu bei getragen werden soll” (CAHJP—P 17-451)]. By August 1809, the Talmud Torah had agreed to a reduced list of 15 bachurim, which the elders accepted with some conditions. The amount of the subsidy seems still to have been 250 Reichstaler per half year.

By the end of 1812 the elders were attempting to cut the subsidy of 500 Reichstaler a , year by stating that it was for the education of the poor not necessarily just for those in the Talmud Torah. (In a report to the city government of Berlin in 1812 David Friedlander informed them of the decision to cut the 500 Taler subsidy to the Talmud Torah. He states that the subsidy had only been instituted because the bonds that had formerly supported the institution no longer brought in income.) The elders demanded a list of those being supported before they would pay the subsidy. In January 1813, the Talmud Torah wrote that they supported a Talmud Torah school and also gave subsidies to ten poor parents for educating their children. Since discretion - was needed, they refused to give a list. The elders then refused the subsidy. One traditionoriented elder protested, but Friedlander stated the money was being denied not to the needy children but to the officers of the Talmud Torah who were acting in an arbitrary

, manner. After all, he continued, they were in league with vice-chief rabbi Weyl who was only causing trouble. (“Nicht den armen Kindern welche Unterricht bedtirfen soll das Lehrgeld entzogen werden sondern den Herren Vorstehern, welche nach Willkiihr dariiber

disponiren, und nicht einmahl nur, den Aeltesten die Nahmen der Empfanger wollen wissen | , lassen. Es ist unerh6rt, wie sich Gaboim unterstehen kénnen, dergl. Antrége zu machen. Aber sie sind es auch nicht; da halten sie sich in Gemeinschaft mit dem V.O.L. Rabbiner so einen Kahlmauser der ihnen die Ideen angiebt, und nur Sottisen schreiben:das Handwerk muss thnen gelegt werden”) (CAHJP—P17-523). After much discussion the community granted a semiannual subsidy of 100 Reichstaler and the Talmud Torah presented a list of eight names. The personal conflict between the orthodox Weyl and the radical reformer Friedlander

, also shows itself in other incidents, not all of them directly related to the conflict over the | reform service. Thus Rabbi Weyl wrote the elders on another occasion that the govern, ment was investigating a Jew for tax evasion and had asked for an attestation to his finan, cial situation. He turned to the elders for the information. Friedlander wrote in the margin, “Herr Weyl nimmt sich Dinge heraus, die wir nicht dulden miissen” (“Mr. Weyl takes on things we need not tolerate”) (CAHJP-——P 17-523).

| 4. Meyer, “The Orthodox and The Enlightened. An Unpublished Contemporary Analysis of Berlin Jewry’s Spiritual Condition in the Early Nineteenth Century,” Yearbook of | the Leo Baeck Institute 25 (1980), 101. Much of the description of the controversy between reformers and orthodox in Berlin , in this chapter relies heavily on Michael A. Meyer’s intensive research on the subject. The results of this research can be found in the previously mentioned article (pp. 101—130), and even more so in his “The Religious Reform Controversy in the Berlin Jewish Commu-

, nity, 1814-1823,” Yearbook of the Leo Baeck Institute 24 (1979), 139-155, and Response to Modernity, A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism (New York and Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1988), pp. 43-53.

254 Notes to pages 136-138 5. The pamphlet was titled Uber die, durch die neue Organisation der Judenschaften in den Preussischen Staaten nothwendig gewordene Umbildung 1) ihres Gottesdienstes in den Synagogen, 2) ihrer Unterrichts-Anstalten, und deren Lehrgegenstdnden, und 3) ihres Erziehungs-Wesens tiberhaupt (Berlin: 1812). The pamphlet was reprinted by Moritz Stern in Beitrdge zur Geschichte der jiidischen Gemeinde zu Berlin, 6 (Berlin: 1934). One hundred and seventeen petitioners signed the original document granting power of attorney (Vollmacht) to Friedlander, Samuel N. Bernsdorff (Bendix), and Ruben Samuel Gumpertz to make arrangements to create a modern religious service. Later nineteen additional persons signed a Nachtrag. From the order of the signatures it would seem that the petition was circulated from house to house (since it is in geographical order). 6. On the reforms of the Westphalian consistory see Meyer, Response, pp. 28-40. The main change in religious law made by the consistory was the permission to consume such legumes as beans and peas on Passover (Meyer, Response, pp. 36-37). 7. Meyer, Response, pp. 40-43. 8. Meyer, Response, p. 44; Lazarus, “Das K6nigliche Westphalische Konsistorium der Israeliten,” Monatschrift fiir die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums (1914), p. 93-— 95. The letter dated September 21, 1808, was addressed to the Jewish Enlightener Aron Wolfsohn. 9. Meyer, “Religious Reform,” p. 139. 10. Meyer, “The Orthodox and the Enlightened,” pp. 101-102; Meyer, “Reform Controversy,” p. 140. The two conservative representatives were the traditionalist rabbi of Berlin, Meyer Simcha Weyl, and the banker Salomon Veit (whose brother Simon had been the husband of Dorothea Mendelssohn). 11. On the incident see Meyer, “Reform Controversy,” p. 140 and Response, p.45. Rabbi Weyl’s responsum forbade mixed seating of men and women and the participation

of women in the choir and also restricted the participation of Christian men in the service. | He also objected to the use of German prayers. A copy of Weyl’s responsum dated October 14, 1814, is found in CAHJP P-17/533. In the same file is a copy of a letter from the elders to the Gesellschaft der Freunde dated October 18, 1814, detailing all the restrictions on their use of the synagogue. 12. Meyer, Response, pp. 45-46. Beer lived at Spandauerstrasse 72 not far from the main Berlin synagogue. Jacobson’s letter to the elders of the community announcing his intention of making his permanent home in Berlin is dated December 30, 1814 (CAHJP P 17-467). A list of private synagogues in Berlin at the beginning of 1816 begins with an entry for ““Geheimer Finanzrath Jacobson at Burgstrasse 25”—the Itzig mansion (CAHJP— P 17/578). In 1812 the inhabitants of that building had included a number of leaders in the reform movement including David Friedlander and Ruben Samuel Gumpertz. The same document lists a private synagogue in the home of “Herz Beer,” but the location of that service is not at the familiar Spandauerstrasse 72, but rather at Behrenstrasse 47 outside the Jewish neighborhood in the prestigious area near Unter den Linden. Both the confirmation itself and information on the services in Jacobson’s home and later in Beer’s house are described in an article in Sulamith 4. Jahrgang, 2. Teil pp. 66-70. 13. Meyer “Religious Controversy,” pp. 139, 141. 14. An orthodox petition to the elders asking their intercession against an order of the Ministry of Interior forbidding Hebrew prayers dated March 1816, can be found in CAHJP— P-17-532. In the same file (pp. 127-128, 131) there is a petition by Bendemann, a leading reformer for a decision implementing the decree requiring prayer in German—November 1816.

15. Meyer, “Reform Controversy,” pp. 142-143.

Notes to pages 138-14] 255 16. The traditionalists wanted renovations with no changes, while proreformers wanted

repairs only if a German service were instituted (CAHJP—P17-532). The dates of the deliberations on the form of the repair work are from June to October 1816. By January 1817, the proreform elders were claiming that the synagogue needed the building of an annex (Anbau) so that simultaneous services in Hebrew and German could take place. This was approved. Meanwhile, by August 1817, reformed services were again being held (Meyer, “Religious Controversy,” pp. 143-144). When shortly thereafter a confirmation was held in the Beer temple, this came to the attention of the king, who took steps against religious innovations but did allow the service in Beer’s home to continue. The orthodox, now convinced that the royal government favored them, complained to

the officials about the sectarian nature of the reform service and asked that a commission , of rabbis decide on its permissibility. The reformers in turn sent a closely reasoned defense of their service. In 1818 the proreform elders of the community delayed completing the repairs of the main synagogue pending government decision on whether to allow a second synagogue or an Anbau for simultaneous services by the two religious factions. The orthodox then raised money for completing the repairs without an Anbau. A considerable amount

(at least 1,950 Taler) was raised from a small number of wealthy traditionalists in May and June of 1819 (CAHJP—-K Ge 2/81 [2]). The reformers tried to stop them, but eventually a temporary truce was called with the orthodox using the almost completed synagogue and the reformers remaining at Beer’s house on Spandauerstrasse. 17. Meyer, Response, pp. 48--50. 18. On holidays the traditional service was to end at 11 a.m. A boys’ choir was instituted for the supplemental German service consisting mostly of poor boys from the Freischule. After the supplemental service was prohibited, the boys petitioned the community for payment for the Sabbaths they had served (CAHJP—-K Ge 2/81 [2])—February 2, 1824.

19. “Dass der Gottesdienst der Juden nur in der hiesigen Synagoge und nur nach dem hergebrachten Ritus ohne die geringste Neuerung in der Sprache und in der Ceremonie, Gebeten und Gesdngen, ganz nach dem alten Herkommen gehalten werden soll” (Geiger, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, vol. 2, p. 233-234). 20. Meyer, “Religious Controversy,” pp. 147~150 (CAHJP—K Ge 2/81 [2)]).

| 21. As acorollary to this inferior status, in 1825 the Prussian government forbade the Jewish community from continuing the traditional tax on kosher meat. The government stated that this tax was an illegal consumption tax, which only governments could levy. They did offer to use government enforcement for the regular communal property assessments, however (CAHJP—P 17-453, Stern Collection). 22. Geiger, Geschichte, vol. 2, p. 213. 23. Meyer, Response, p. 52; Geiger, vol. 2, pp. 235-238. 24. Geiger, Geschichte, vol. 1, pp. 152-154; vol. 2, pp. 193--199. 25. Of 69 identified orthodox Jews in the period after 1812 only 7 were also listed among the participants in the reform service or as proreform petitioners. As against these 7 who are listed among both groups, 238 male heads of household were listed as reformers who were not to be found on lists of Orthodox supporters or of the burial society. This is less than half the overlap of the 1770s (see Chapter 6, p. 63). 26. The list is to be found in the CAHJP- Jerusalem in file K Ge 2/83. It is unlabeled but must be the list of reform congregants from 1818 since the numbers in each category are identical to the numbers in a report dated November 25, 1818, which says how many persons there were in the Neue Gemeinde (“new” congregation) (CAHJP-—P17-454). 27. The sample used for the orthodox in this study consists of a combination of the

256 Notes to pages 14]—-142 membership of the burial society in 1813 and the signers of two antireform petitions in 1816 and 1817. The numbers listed there are much smaller and perhaps can be taken as

including only the orthodox leadership. | 28. See Meyer, “Reform Controversy,” p. 146, including note 27. The larger number is claimed in an orthodox petition of 1819, while the other figure comes from a newspaper article in 1820. 29. The 108 members of the reform community listed in the tax list of 1809 averaged 75.5 Reichstaler in annual tax, while the 71 orthodox averaged 40.3 Reichstaler. 30. On Liepmann Meyer Wulff, the wealthiest orthodox Jew in Berlin, see Chapter 8,

pp. 90-91. ,

Fewer than 20 percent of the surviving orthodox activists paid 80 Taler or more in annual taxation (as compared to about 40 percent of reformers). Two of the 13 Orthodox activists (members of the burial society or antireform petitioners) who paid over 80 Taler in taxes were also on the list of reform affiliates. Only about 30 percent of reform families on the tax list paid 25 Taler a year or less (as against almost 60 percent of orthodox leaders). 31. Of those affiliated with the reformed service, 23 are listed as bankers in Jacobson’s Jiidische Trauungen,; five others are listed as Wechsler. In the list of Berlin Jews in 1812 there are 19 bankers (and eight Wechsler) with the same reform affiliation. In the list of members of the reformed service itself there are no fewer than 50 individuals listed as bankers. Twelve others are listed as having money-changing businesses. 32. In the 1812 list of Berlin Jews at least 50 of the affiliates with the reformed service were listed as Handlungsdiener. At least 16 additional persons, almost all of them recent arrivals in Berlin, are listed as Handlungsdiener in the reform list itself. 33. Other relatively common occupations among the reformers were leather dealer, cotton dealer, pawnbroker, bookkeeper, broker, rentier, and general cloth dealer (Warenhandlung). Three different documents list the occupations of people affiliated with the reformed services. Often the occupation listed for the same individual differs from one list to the

other. ,

Jacobson’s Jiidische Trauungen lists five later reformers as Baumwollhdndler (cotton dealer) and 8 as Kattunhdndler, 4 as brokers (Courtier or Makler), 7 as leather dealers, and five as pawnbrokers. The 1812 list of Berlin Jews lists 10 later reformers as bookkeepers or ex-bookkeepers, 6 as brokers, 6 as leather dealers, 10 as living off capital (rentiers and Particuliers), 4 as pawnbrokers. The list of reform affiliates lists the following as common occupations: bookkeeper-7, Kattunfabrik (calico factory)-9, broker-11, leather

dealer-5, living off capital-21, Warenhandlung-31. | Of the intellectual professions only the following are listed—in Jacobson: one physician, one dentist; in the 1812 list: 2 dentists, 1 Jewish scholar, 8 teachers, 3 physicians, 3 artists, 2 school directors; the reform list includes 1 educator, | doctor, 5 medical students, | music teacher, 1 Ph.D., 4 school directors, 1 Gelehrter, 1 doctor of laws, 4 physicians, 1 artist. 34. In Jacobson’s pre-1813 marriage list there are 5 orthodox listed as bankers and 9 as merchants (Kaufleute). Together these make up only about one-third of all orthodox whose occupations are listed. Of reformers listed in the same source, the 23 bankers and 31 merchants make up almost 44 percent of all whose occupations are listed.

In the same source there are 6 orthodox listed as dealers (Handelsmann) and 4 as pawnbrokers. Among those orthodox listed in the address list of 1812 there were 18 merchants and four bankers (and 4 money changers [Wechsler]), but also 6 old clothes dealers, 4 dealers

(Handelsleute), and 6 pawnbrokers. ,

Notes to pages 142—]43 257 35. It would seem that at least 123 persons who had either signed reform petitions or were affiliated with the reform service belonged to the Korporation der Kaufmannschaft in 1821. This is the majority of all members of the Korporation who were born Jewish. Of the 197 unbaptized members of the Korporation, no fewer than 114 had been previously affiliated with reform in some way. The orthodox members of the Korporation are somewhat harder to document, but their numbers seem to have been fewer than ten. 36. On Burgstrasse, Poststrasse, and Heilige Geiststrasse there were twenty-four reform affiliates and two orthodox leaders. On Jiidenstrasse and Stralauerstrasse there were five reformers and twenty orthodox. The distribution of orthodox and reform taxpayers by district was as follows:

. District N % N % 1 12 19.4 34 35.8 Orthodox Reform

2 25 40.3 22 23.1 9 14.5 43 11 17,7 10 11 10.5 11.6 Total Districts 1-4 57 91.9 77 81.1

5~8 — 0.0 10 10.5 9-16, 18-24 2 3.2 ~— 0.0

17 3 4.8 8 8.4

Total Districts 5~24 5 8.1 18 18.9

Total for city 62 95

37. Districts 5-8: Alt K6lln, Friedrichswerder, Dorotheenstadt, and northern Friedrichstadt. These areas were either close to the royal palace or to Unter den Linden. 38. For a comparison of residential distribution of Berlin Jews in 1744 with their dis-

, tribution in 1812, see Chapter 7, footnote 36. ,

39. Eight of the thirteen orthodox activists who paid at least 80 Taler in annual taxes lived in the second police district where orthodox Jews tended to concentrate, and only one of these on one of the streets where the wealthy were common (Burgstrasse). Of the

, 28 reform members who paid less than 25 Taler whose addresses are known, four were wealthy men exempt from taxation. Of the others, 3 lived on the “poor and orthodox” , Stralauerstrasse and 3 on the wealthy Burg- or Poststrasse; 3 lived in wealthy districts far to the southwest of the Jewish neighborhood; and 3 lived in district 17 just northeast of the

| four Jewish districts. A total of 4 of the 24 “poor reformers” lived in the second police district and four in the similarly modest third district. 40. If we take those orthodox and reformers who were listed as taxpayers in 1809 (a procedure that probably reduces the actual age difference), we find that the average reform affiliate was born in 1766, seven years later than the average orthodox leader. 41, When we look at a full list of all male reform heads of household we find an even younger group with an average birthdate in the early 1770s. The average birthdate of male heads of household affiliated with the reformed service in 1818 was approximately 1773 (for an age of about 45) (N = 209). The average birthdate of their wives was four years later (N = 117). Single males affiliated with the service were born on average around 1778 and widows around 1772. If we include dependent children we find the average age of reform affiliates in 1818 was 30 to 31 (N = 716).

, 42. Among male heads of households in 1812 the following were the percentages of later reformers:

258 Notes to page 143 Birthdate All Reformers Percentage

After 1780 59 2) 35 ~ 1770-79 130 50 38 1760-69 127 39 31

1750-59 104 27 26 } 1740-49 55 3 5 Before 1740 13 — —

If we take the entire Jewish population of Berlin we also get the highest percentage , among those born in the 1770s (except among the very young dependents): Reformers

Birthdate All (including dependents) Percentage

After 1800 735 197 27

, 1790-99 637 130 20 1780-89 717 128 18 1770-79 518 131 25 1760-69 350 78 22 1750--59 257 42 16

1740-49 153 8 5

43. Among the reformers the younger household heads tended to be wealthier than those born before 1760. Among the orthodox there was little difference in wealth between the old and the young.

| Born Before | 760 Born 1760 or Later Taxed (Taler) Reform Orthodox Other Reform | Orthodox Other

Under 25 7 12 29 12 10 19 | 25-99 7 8 20 34 6 37 Over 100 9 4 15 23 4 8 44, The tax list is to be found in CAHJP—P 17-466, pp. 56-66. The list is not itself labeled, though the last page, which adds up the totals, includes references to “Rindfleisch,” “Kalbshachse’’[?], “Rind,” “Fett” (in Hebrew script), etc. There are also very high amounts listed for a number of people who in other documents state that they buy large amounts of meat for their restaurant or catering businesses. The document is undated but can be assumed

to be from about 1814 because it lists “Grushas Joseph Behm” (the divorcee of Joseph Bohm), who we know was divorced in July 1812, and remarried in November 1813. The name of “the widow of Isaac Euchel” is crossed out in the list. She died on April 11, 1814. We have other information showing that persons who attended the reformed service also observed other traditional Jewish practices. Among persons who were sworn in as citizens of Berlin were several individuals whose records state “refused to sign because of the Sabbath.” Among these persons was Joseph Wolff, who is also listed as attending the

reformed service.

In general the social patterns of kosher meat taxpayers differed somewhat from those of the orthodox. They tended not to be poorer than nonkosher taxpayers. The amount of capital tax (Erech) paid by the kosher meat purchasers was almost identical to those of the nonkosher purchasers. Within each ideological group, however, the kosher meat taxpayers were wealthier than nonkosher taxpayers. Reform kosher meat taxpayers who paid any tax on capital averaged 109 Reichstaler annual communal taxes (N = 34), while reform non-

Notes to page 143 259 kosher taxpayers paid only 84 (N = 48). Among the orthodox the figures were 52 (N = 46)

and 5 (N = 4), respectively. This is not surprising, since the ability to buy enough kosher meat to have it taxed would be higher among the wealthy than among the poor (CAHJP— P 17-466). There were also a larger percentage of kosher taxpayers than orthodox living in the first police district, an area in which there were a considerable number of reform affiliates who kept kosher. Kosher Taxpayers by “Religious Affiliation” and Residence

Orthodox Reform

317-2483 212 66 4 Paid Did Not Pay Paid Did Not Pay

Kosher Kosher Kosher Kosher . Police District Meat Tax Meat Tax Meat Tax Meat Tax

i 10 2315 19 2 23 9 12 47138

5-16 — — -— 10

45. Among all persons who were on the kosher meat tax list, the older taxpayers were

slightly less likely to pay the tax. This seems to be mainly a result of the fact that many of the older taxpayers were poor and may not have paid any tax. If we count all but the smallest taxpayers we find that older taxpayers who paid some taxes were more likely to pay the kosher meat tax than others. Persons Paying 10 Taler

All Taxpayers or More in Taxes

Paid Did Not Paid Did Not

Birthdate Meat Tax Pay Meat Tax Meat Tax Pay Meat Tax

|

After 1780 6 10° 5 7 1770-79 34 34 29 26 1760-69 45 $2 40 36 1750-59 38 41 28 25 1740-49 28 25 23 8 Before 1740 9 .10 6 2

If we look at taxpayers affiliated with the reform service we see a remarkable pattern with younger reformers much more likely to pay the tax than older ones. Had we considered only reform Jews who paid at least 10 Taler in communal taxation there would have been little difference from this overall pattern. All Reform Taxpayers

Paid Did Not Pay Percentage Birthdate Meat Tax Meat Tax Who Paid Tax

After 1780 4 3 57 1770-79 12 16 43 1760-69 14 24 22 37 1750-59 5 18

1740-49 2 1 67 Before 1740 — ~~ -~

260 Notes to pages 144-152 , 46. The later members of the Beer-Jacobson temple supplied the following numbers

of subscribers to Haskala works or works published under Haskala auspices:

Mendelssohn’s Bible translation 4

Hameassef (1785) 8

, Emunot ve-De'ot (by Sa’adia Gaon) 9

Besamim Rosh 9 Mishle Asaf 1S Aristotle, Ethics (Satanov edition) 17 Mata’ei Kedem by Shalom Hacohen 17

Imre Shefer by Herz Homberg 10

Of those who were either members of the burial society in 1813 or signed antireform

petitions the figures are as follows: ,

Hameassef | Emunot ve-De’ot — Mendelssohn’s Bible translation l

Besamim Rosh 6 Mishle Asaf 34 Aristotle, Ethics Mata’ei Kedem 4 Imre Shefer 1 These raw figures overestimate the degree to which the reformers had been more likely than the orthodox to subscribe to Haskala works, since the total sample of orthodox is only

53 and the total number of reform heads of household is 127. The percentage of reformers | in the sample who subscribed to at least one Haskala work was 29.1 percent as against 24.5 percent for the orthodox. However, the later reformers were much more likely to subscribe to more than one Haskala work than were those who remained orthodox. The leader of the attack on the Beer-Jacobson temple, Gottschalk Helfft, had subscribed to Satanov’s Mishle Asaf and to his edition of Aristotle’s Ethics. 47. One cannot, of course, extrapolate from our evidence that younger families were

more likely to pay the kosher meat tax than older ones to an assumption that they were therefore automatically less radical ideologically. This is certainly not the case of some of the younger, unmarried, ideologues like Zunz and Jost for whom the older leaders were too moderate. 48. Of the founders, Isaac Levin Auerbach was born in 1788, Isaac Markus Jost in 1793, Leopold Zunz in 1794, Moses Moser in 1797, and Eduard Gans in 1798. Joseph Hillmar, a bookkeeper born in 1767, was significantly older. Joel List was slightly older, born in 1780 (Jacobson, Biirgerbucher, p. 206). Auerbach and Zunz were both preachers at the reform temple, of which Jost and List were also active members. Auerbach had arrived in Berlin in 1806, Hillmar in 1809, Moser and List in 1814, and Zunz in 1815. 49, Ruben Gumpertz, Joseph Muhr, and Samuel Bernsdorff are listed as payers of the kosher meat tax in 1814, but such other reform leaders as August Bendemann, Jacob Herz Beer, Liebermann Schlesinger, not to speak of David Friedlander, are not.

Chapter 13 1. Especially in his volumes Jiidische Trauungen in Berlin 1759-1813, Jiidische Trauungen in Berlin 1723-1759, and Die Jiidische Biirgerbiicher der Stadt Berlin 1809-1851. 2. These figures refer to relationships among male heads of family alone. Inclusion of

Notes to pages 152~—153 261 the numerous spouses and unmarried children living with parents would inflate the figures for family ties among reform members much more. In addition there were numerous reform heads of family who had more distant relatives (such as nephews, nieces, or first cousins) within the reform congregation. 3. In most cases in which siblings converted, they were between 17 and 30. Of those residing in Berlin in 1812 who were later converted and who had a sibling who also converted, the age at baptism was as follows:

| 16 and under 17-2016 20

21-25 18 26-30 20

31-35 7 36 and over 2

The number of those who converted before the age of sixteen would be increased if we included those born after 1812 who were baptized together with their parents. The total number of children between ages 2 and 16 baptized in Berlin between 1813 and 1830 was 74, most of them baptized together with siblings. Some of their families, however, arrived in the city after 1812.

4. There were three cases of couples converting without children (six persons), nine | cases of parents converting together with their children (35 persons), 8 cases of parents , who converted after their children (35 persons), 2 cases of parents who converted before their children (5 persons), one case where the relative dates of conversion of parent and child were unknown (2 persons), and at least 16 cases of siblings who converted (40 per-

| sons).

Those listed in the Judenkartei had similar patterns to those on the 1812 list who later were baptized: about one-half had at least one sibling or a parent who likewise converted.

| 5. Of about 350 couples that had at least two children who married Jews in Berlin between 1759 and 1813, the vast majority (about 230) had no children who converted and

, no children whose children converted. Ten couples had a single child who converted and 64 had a single child who had at least one child who converted. The remaining approximately 45 had more than one child who converted or whose children converted. These patterns of multiple descendants who converted took various forms. In some cases a child converted and children of unconverted siblings also converted (i.e., the nieces and nephews of the converts); in others several siblings converted, while in others none of the children converted but several had children who converted (i.e., the converts were cousins to each other). When we go one generation further back and look at grandparents of persons who married in Berlin we find few cases of persons who converted without some other rela-

, tives also converting. 6. None of the fifteen children of Daniel Itzig converted but among his grandchildren we know that the following converted: four of the children of Isaac Daniel Itzig, one of the children of Bliimchen Friedlander, three of the children of Bella Bartholdy, one child of Fanny von Arnstein, eight children of Elias Daniel Hitzig, two children of Benjamin D. Itzig, at least one of the children of Hanne Fliess, and four children of Henriette Oppenheim—a total of at least 24. The total number of Itzig grandchildren who probably remained Jewish is only eight. At least four of the children of Moses Isaac-Fliess converted. Among the children of the unbaptized children were at least six additional persons who converted. A majority of the great-grandchildren of Veitel Heine Ephraim also eventually became Christians.

262 Notes to pages 153-156 , See Steven Lowenstein, “Jewish Upper Crust and Berlin Jewish Enlightenment—The Family of Daniel Itzig,” in Frances Malino and David Sorkin (eds.), From East and West. Jews in a Changing Europe 1750-1870 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), pp. 182-201. 7. See, for instance, the pattern of conversions among the descendants of Abraham | and Jachet Leffmann (Chapter 14, p. 168 and Genealogical Table 4), and of Nathan and Sara Liepmann (Chapter 13, p. 158 and Genealogical Table 3). Additional cases with several conversions within the family were the five converted children of Joel Samuel von Halle (baptized between 1806 and 1835) as well as the grandchildren of Joseph Hirsch Frankel (three converted grandchildren and three other grandchildren whose children converted) and Marcus David Riess (two converted grandchildren and nine other grandchildren whose children converted). 8. These six orthodox individuals had, between them, eight sons who were listed among the heads of household belonging to the reform temple. 9, Children’s Ideological Affiliation in 1810s Correlated with Parent’s Ideological Affiliation in 1770s ’ Subscribers to Mendelssohn Members of Burial

Bible Translation Society—1778 (number traceable = 93) (number traceable = 68)

Daughters or Daughters or

Children’s Affiliation Sons Sons-in-law Sons Sons-in-law

Reform 25 24 11 17 Orthodox 3 6 8 5

Note the tendency for the daughters to join the opposite ideological camp more often than the sons, probably under the influence of their husbands. See the discussion in Chapter 14. 10. Another sign that the trend over the generations was away from orthodoxy. 11. The thirteen who later converted were Carl Julius, Victor Ebers, Albert Edeling, Carl Simon, Marcus Robert-Tornow, Georg von Oppenfeld, Otto Nauen, Ferdinand Oppert, Eduard Meyer, Friedrich Schadow, Siegesmund Liebert, Heinrich Liebert, and Leopold Liman. It is unclear whether Martin J. Schlesinger, who later converted, was one of the

245 heads of household listed for the reform temple or not. The 42 with children who converted (not including the above listed converts who also had children who converted) had at least 60 children who later converted. There were also at least 2 wives of (converted) heads of reform families and 4 independent single men from the reform list who later converted. One widow on the list had a converted child as well. 12. These included Joachim Ephraim, Joseph Mendheim, Martin Heinrich Mendheim, and Joseph Neuburger. Martin Riese and Ludwig Rintel, who signed the reform petition in 1812 and were not listed as reformers in 1818, converted in the 1820s. At least four of those who signed the petition but were not later listed as affiliates of the reform service had children who converted (Abraham Friedlander, Ruben Goldschmidt, Martin Heinrich Mendheim, and Martin Riese). Between them these four had 11 children who converted. 13. These seven were Moses David Benda, Daniel Salomon Levy, Isaac Moser, Heimann Liebmann, Meyer Moses Meyer, Joseph Jonas, and Elkan Jonas. The first two named were both members of the orthodox burial society and reform heads of household. Whereas many reform parents had several baptized children, only one of the seven orthodox parents had more than one child who converted (Meyer Moses Meyer who had two converted children). In addition to those listed above, Jonas Keiser, who had a baptized daughter, may have been a member of the burial society. —

Notes to pages 156-158 263 14. All of the seven children of the orthodox whose baptismal date is known were baptized after 1826 as against 33 of 63 traceable children of reformers. The average age of children of orthodox at baptism was 31 as against 25 for the children of reformers. 15.

Closest Converted Relative among Reformed and Orthodox Jews

in Early Nineteenth Century Berlin* |

Reform Orthodox

, Converted Relative N % N % Converted themselves 13 5.3 _ —

At least one child 42 17.1 7 9.1

Sibling 11 4.5 4 5.2 Niece or nephew 31 12.6 15 19.5 Cousin 13 5.3 5 6.5 Other relativest 7 2.9 4 5.2 Sister-in-law or brother-in-law 9 3.7 2 2.6

: No converted relatives known 119 48.5 40 51.9

Total | ' a 245 7

*This table includes only the unduplicated closest relative (in the order given , in the table). So, if a person converted, he or she is not listed among those with converted children. A person with both a converted nephew and a con-

verted cousin is counted only for the nephew. | tSon-in-law or daughter-in-law, aunt or uncle, grandchild.

16. The tendency toward baptism was even greater among the children of those who subscribed to the Haskala journal Hameassef in Berlin. There were 55 such subscribers in Berlin of whom we can trace 40. Of these forty, 4 were later baptized and 18 others had children who converted—a clear majority. 17. Approximately 99 members of the Gesellschaft der Freunde from Berlin families joined the organization during its first year of existence (1792). Of these, at least 17 (C. A. FE. Neo, Wilhelm Cassel, Levin Arendt, J. M. A. Neo, Abraham Mendelssohn-Bertholdy, Benoni Friedlander, Louis Levy (Delmar), Heinrich Fliess, Bernhard Wessely, Ludwig Rintel, Gerhard Eschwe, Julius Eduard Hitzig, Dr. Boehm, Ephraim Cohen, Abraham Crelinger, M. C. D. Meyer [Oberhiitteninspector], and Anton H Bendemann) converted sometime during their lifetime. The baptism of Gumpel Meyer is probable. Of the 24 members who married Jews in Berlin before 1813, seven converted and seven had children who converted. The number of conversions in the second generation is probably much higher. 18. The contrast is increased slightly if we remove from consideration those persons who belonged to the burial society and also subscribed to the Mendelssohn Bible. We then arrive at the following figures:

, Mendelssohn Bible Burial Society Both N|%N%N% No conversions 51 65 52 95 10 77

, Children converted 28 35 3 5 2 15 Converted themselves — — J 8

19. Nathan Liepmann’s son Isaac converted in 1809 and took the name Isaac Nathanael Liman. Isaac’s brother Abraham converted four months later and took the name Carl August Liman. One of their sisters, Henriette, married August Wilhelm Leffmann who converted one month after Isaac. She hesitated to convert and divorced her husband, but never-

264 Notes to pages 158-160 theless finally converted in 1813. Another sister, Vogelchen, married Salomon Nathan, Jr. Shortly

after his death in 1817 she converted to Christianity along with her daughter and took the. name Fanny Solmar. Several children of Isaac Liman who did not convert together with

, him did convert after reaching adulthood. Wilhelmine, the daughter of Heinrich Liman, one of the few of Nathan Liepmann’s children who did not convert, received baptism in 1816. 20. These include all who are listed as gabbai (warden) of the following: Talmud Torah, Eretz Yisrael (land of Israel), and Hebron. 21. The average “highest tax” paid by members of the burial society in 1778 was 2 Taler, 4 Groschen, 12 Pfennig (N = 68), compared to 4 Taler, 6 Groschen for trustees of the Beth Hamidrash (N = 45), and 1 Taler, 11 Groschen, 4 Pfennig for wardens of traditional charities (N = 23). 22. Rates of Conversion of Descendants of Various Groups of Traditional Jews

Burial Society Beth Hamidrash Wardens of

N % N % N | as Members Trustees Traditional Charities

No Conversion, no converted children 62 91 36 80 21 91

Convertedthemselves children 51 ]7— 9 20 Converted — 29 Of their children who married in Berlin

No conversion, no converted children 121 80 86 62 25 77

Converted children 24 15 36 26 7 21

Converted themselves 7 5 16 12 | 3 23, Relative Rate of Conversion of Children by Ideology and Wealth Subscribers to

Mendelssohn's Burial Society Bible Translation Members

N%N%

Assessed for 4 Taler or above

No conversion, no children converted 22 55 7 70

Children converted 18 45 3 30 | Converted themselves — — Assessed for less than 4 Taler : No conversion, no children converted 33 72 55 95 Children converted 12 26 2 4 Converted themselves I 2 | 2 24. Conversion among Descendants of Reform Jews

Paid Kosher | Did Not Pay Meat Tax Kosher Meat Tax

N % N To No conversion, no children converted 27 73 36 56

Children converted 9 24 25 39 Converted themselves 1 3 3 Ss

Notes to pages 160-16] 265 Since virtually all orthodox Jews who did not pay the kosher meat tax did so because of poverty there is no reason to distinguish between those orthodox Jews who paid the tax (58) and those who did not (13). 25. One particularly striking case of this phenomenon was the conversion of the nine children of Heinrich Carl Heine and his wife, Henriette nee Mertens, on May 1, 1825. Although both parents lived the rest of their lives as Jews, they had their children, aged one to fourteen, baptized together. 26. The definition of orthodoxy of these two mothers is unclear, especially since there is evidence that Rahel Varnhagen’s mother ate nonkosher food. 27. Of 174 persons who resided in Berlin in 1812, were born in Berlin, and were later baptized, and about whom we have some information about their parents:

Both parents were alive at time of baptism 33

Both parents were deceased 4]

Father was deceased and mother was alive 25 parents Father was alive and mother was deceased 11 never One parent was known to be alive, the other unknown 5 baptized

One parent was known deceased 10

, At least one parent was alive and later baptized 49 , 28. Of the four children of the orthodox whose parents’ death dates can be traced, two

, had both parents alive and two had both parents dead. Among children of reformers 24 had both parents alive and only 7 had both parents dead. Fifteen of the children of reformers who converted had at least one parent who also converted. Of the remaining eighteen,

some had one parent alive and the other dead and some had one parent whose date of death is unknown. 29. Benoni Friedlander was baptized on February 23, 1835, together with his wife, Rebecca nee von Halle. His father had died on December 25, 1834, and his mother twenty years earlier. Although it would seem that Benoni did not join the church during his father’s lifetime out of respect for his father, this did not prevent Benoni and Rebecca from having their four children baptized during David Friedlander’s lifetime. Their ages at baptism respectively were 20, 20, 18, and 13. Certainly the baptism of the youngest could only have been at the behest of the parents. David Friedlander remained on goo terms with his grandchildren despite their baptism.

The other persons who were baptized shortly after the death of their parents were: Lea Bellcourt (Fliess) nee Wulff whose mother died on May 6, 1823. She was baptized on August 13 of the same year. Her father had died in 1802. Moritz Wallach, the son of Dietrich Moritz Wallach, was baptized on October 18, 1828,

. less than one month after his father’s death. The elder Wallach had belonged to the reform congregation. Moritz’s mother had died in 1809. Siegesmund Liebert was baptized on December 20, 1816, eight and a half months after

, his mother’s death. His father had died in 1799, Johann Oppert was baptized in 1821; his father died in 1821.

, The only child of orthodox Jews to be baptized shortly after her parents’ death was Emilie Jonas, baptized on April 4, 1829. Her parents died on January 23, 1828, and August 8, 1828. In a few cases in which a baptism took place within a year or two after the death of a parent, the other parent was still alive at the time of baptism: Debora Friebe (mother Vogel Levy died 20 years later) Carl Friedlander (mother died seven years later) Moritz Hillmar (mother died later)

266 Notes to pages 161-164 In two or three cases a parent died within a few months after the baptism of a child. Although one might speculate that some of these deaths were hastened by the child’s bap-

tism, there 1s no evidence to prove this: ,

Julie Jacoby baptized August 12, 1830; mother died November 18, 1830. Amalie Neuburger baptized March 16, 1810; father died April 4, 1810.

Chapter 14 1. Sometimes historians have seemed to go to the opposite extreme of the usual historiography and to concentrate exclusively on the women in isolation from the men. This chapter attempts to compare the two genders rather than treat them in isolation. 2. On one occasion when David Friedlander asked Markus Herz to explain a passage in a Goethe poem, Herz told him to “go to my wife, she knows how to explain all kinds of nonsense.” This incident is frequently quoted, most recently in Wilhelmy, Salon, p. 50. Wilhelmy also quotes Markus Herz’s teasing remark to his wife, when the latter could not completely explain a poem by the Romantic poet Novalis, questioning whether Novalis

understood it either. ,

4. Meyer, Origins, p. 85. 3. Fiirst, Henriette Herz, pp. 117-118, 94, 95.

| 5. Among the men of the salons who were associated in part with Romanticism were

Julius Hitzig, Ludwig Robert, and Hermann Eberty (see Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 149150).

6. The differences are frequently ascribed to the disparity in women’s and men’s | education. This chapter will argue that the importance of educational differences has been exaggerated (see pp. 171-172). 7. One need only look at the way the relationship between Dorothea Mendelssohn and

her first husband, Simon Veit, is usually described. A similar image is given of Model and , his wife, Elisabeth, in Euchel’s play Reb Henoch.

: 8. If one counts illegitimate children with converted Jewish fathers or converted Jewish mothers, then the ratio of children of Jewish fathers to children of Jewish mothers is only 90 to 60. 9, As opposed to the ratio of 90 Jewish men to 53 women in the years 1780-1805, the proportions between 1806 and 1830 were 38 men to 39 women. If we include cases where we know the religion of one of the parents but not the religion of the other, the post-1806 , ratio becomes more heavily weighted toward the female (48 Jewish males and 79 females). 10. Some examples of long-standing out-of-wedlock relationships with many children involving Jewish men and Christian women are the merchant Joseph Riess and Caroline Friedericke Rosenblum (Christian despite her name)-——6 children The merchant Ludwig Arndt and Dorothea Meissel—3 children August Bernhard Wilhelm Brandes and Sophie Henriette Jordan—six children The innkeeper Wilhelm Franke and Wilhelmine Miillern—11 children

11. One example among many is the liaison between the Christian tailor Friedrich Wilhelm Grantzow and Braéunchen Moses (called Johanna Elisabeth Anspach after her baptism) who had 3 children before their marriage and 5 more afterward. 12. In some of these cases, the Jewish spouse was baptized before some or all the illegitimate children were born. These cases are not restricted to the years 1770-1806 but cover the entire period until 1830. |

Notes to pages 164-166 267 Converted Jewish women also outnumbered converted Jewish men among the parents of legitimate baptized children of mixed parentage. This would be another indication that Jewish women were more likely to marry their non-Jewish lovers than Jewish men were to marry their non-Jewish mistresses. It would also point to a higher rate of intermarriage for women than men. 13. Since these figures apply only to the years 1770-1805 but the figures for couples who legitimized their children apply to the years 1770-1830, the figures do not add up to

90 men and 53 women. ,

14. Orly 30 of the 211 newborn infants in the Judenkartei baptized between 1770 and 1805 were born within wedlock. Virtually none of these had a mother who was still Jewish at the time of birth. Babies under the age of two months made up 62.2 percent of all those listed in the Judenkartei for 1770-1805, but only 38.6 percent of those between 1806 and 1819 and only 27.3 percent of those listed between 1820 and 1830. The gender mix of these baptized infants shows a slight predominance of females before 1806 and a slight predominance of males after 1806. 15. If one breaks down the figures even more specifically, one finds that female predominance was most noticeable in the early period in the age group 20-24. Between 1770 and 1805, 34 women in that age group (72.3 percent) and only 13 men were baptized. (In the 1820s, men outnumbered women in that age group by well over two to one.) 16.

Age-Gender Breakdown of Those Baptized by Period

Under 2 2 months— Unknown M F M F M F M_ F M F M_ F

months old 15 years 16-19 20--29 30+ adult Absolute numbers

1770-1805 96 115 12 17 5 6 20 48 13 4 13 33

1806~1819 94 74 360335 13 13 53 49 49 28 37° 27 1820-1830 95 82 26 4340254 11 158 8679 78 32 24 9

1770-1805 54.5 58.6 54.5 70.6 23.5 71.7 1806-1819 44.0 49.3 50.0 48.0 36.4 42.2 1820-1830 46.3 56.7 16.9 33.3 29,1 27.3 |

Percentage female

17. The following women are known-to have had at least one illegitimate child before their baptism: Sophia Mendel (1773), Nucha Simonin (1783), Johanna Abraham (1788), Johanna Lehmannin (1789), Christiana Jacobin (1790), Christiane Feibel (1792), Carolina Heimann (1792), Christina Leberecht (1793), Friederike Leberecht (1798), Christiane Ernstin (1799), Breinchen Moses (1799), Henriette Langen (1804), Karoline Levi (1805), Wilhelmine Wolf (1805). This represents only a small proportion of the 91 women baptized during the period, however. At.least thirteen other women married the fathers of their children in the period from 1806 to 1830. Most of the Jewish mothers of illegitimate children in the period before 1806 did not

, convert.

18. Men marrying the Christian mothers of their children before 1806 included: Aaron Bloch (1803), Joseph Fliess (1804), Jacob S. Sussmann (1795), Joachim Simonsohn (1797), Johann Z. Michaelis (1803), Eduard Heymann (1796), Johann Berger (1788). At least sixteen other Jewish men married the mothers of their out-of-wedlock children between 1806 and 1830.

268 Notes to pages 166-170 19, Of 33 in the sample, ten married within three months of conversion. In each case the sample includes only those whose marriage dates and baptismal dates are both known. 20. See Chapter 8, note 15. 21. One of the brothers converted in 1804: the other had a child who was converted in

the same year. | 22. CAHJP—P 17/464 p. 3.

23. Werner Mosse, The German-Jewish Economic Elite 1820-1935. A Socio-Cultural Profile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), pp. 181, 183, 341-342. 24. If marriage alone could not acquire nobility for a Jewish man, ennoblement could.

, Several Berlin Jewish families were able to acquire titles of nobility after their conversion. Best known of these cases were the sons of the banker Martin Salomon Levy who became Barons Ferdinand and Louis Delmar in 1806 almost immediately upon conversion. Baron Ferdinand, a flamboyant and spendthrift character, also became a Berlin city councillor. Other ennobled Berlin Jews included Johann Leopold Michael Bresselau von Bressendorf (converted 1796, ennobled 1800) and Georg Moritz and Carl Daniel von Oppenfeld (orig-

inally Oppenheim, ennobled in the 1820s), .

25. The motivations of marriage and career advantage have already been mentioned. One additional piece of evidence that the motivation for conversion was more frequently related to acculturation than to piety is found in the names taken by the converts as indicated earlier (see Chapter 11, p. 125). 26. Before her second conversion she had written: “I am attentively reading both testaments and find, according to my own feeling, Protestant Christianity indeed purer and to be preferred to the Catholic. For me the latter bears too much resemblance to the old Judaism which I very much abhor.” On the death of her sister Recha she regrets that she died “alas, alas without being a child of the holy church” (Meyer, Origins, pp. 96, 97). 27. Henriette wrote in her testament: "I must blame myself if the Lord God has not vouchsafed unto me the Grace of drawing my family into the Catholic, genuinely saving Church. May the Lord Jesus Christ hear my prayer and enlighten them all with the light of his Grace. Amen.”

Philipp Veit, who was baptized while a teenager, had the following reaction to a

204, note 37).

discription of his grandfather Moses Mendelssohn’s strong rejection of Lavater’s call on him to convert: “Who knows what he must suffer because of this?” (Meyer, Origins, pp. 101, 28. Varnhagen, Denkwiirdigkeiten, vol. 1, pp. 338, 344. Varnhagen describes Neander’s conversion as follows: “dieser, ungeachtet alles Widerwillens gegen das Christentum, musste sich die Taufe gefallen lassen, zu der auch schon alles ohne sein Zutun eingeleitet war.” The patron of Mendel’s university studies and conversion was Dr. Stieglitz of Hannover who had himself converted in 1800 (Mendel converted in 1806). Stieglitz was married to

Jente Ephraim, the daughter of Benjamin Ephraim and granddaughter of Veitel Heine Ephraim. Neander was a resident of Hamburg, not of Berlin, before his conversion. 29. Of the 55 orthodox in the Jacobson’s pre-1813 marriage lists, there were 4 sets of fathers and sons and four sets of fathers-in-law and sons-in-law (that is one orthodox leader married to the daughter of another orthodox leader). In addition the mother-in-law of one of the orthodox later married another person on the orthodox list. There were six sets of brothers and four sets of brothers-in-law including one set married to two sisters. Among the 4 sets of uncles there was only one case of a brother of a father of other orthodox. In the other case the relationships were through female relatives. Similarly, most of the cousins were related at least to some extent through female lines (sons of two sisters, sons of

a sister and brother, a son of one brother married to the daughter of another brother or sister).

Notes to pages 170-173 269 30. Among the members of the reformed congregation there were eleven sets of father and son and 15 sets of father and daughter (and son-in-law). There were at least 23 sets of brothers and 37 sets of brothers-in-law, of which 16 were married to two sisters each affiliated with the reform service. Among sets of cousins, and uncles and nephews, the female line also predominated over the male line. 31. Within the orthodox leadership there were six sets of brothers and four sets of brothers-in-law. On the other hand, there were only five orthodox leaders who had brothers among the reformers as against nineteen who had sisters and brothers-in-law among the reformers. This would seem to be an indication that daughters were less likely to fol-

low the orthodox traditions of their parents than were sons. | 32. Among the reformers of the year 1818 it was more common for sons to convert , than for daughters (32 against 15). An even greater majority of males seems to be found

among the converts whose parents were orthodox. 33. Jacob Katz, Out of the Ghetto, p. 236, note 11, quoting Wolff Davidson, Ein

Wortchen tiber Juden. Veranlasst durch die von Herrn Friedlander herausgegebene Aktenstiicke (Berlin: 1792). Katz also quotes Ignaz Aurelius Fessler, a visitor to the home of the Ephraims and other wealthy Jews, who found: “The Jewess . . . to be highly cultured and excelling in the social graces while the men were still grappling with the first elements of secular education.” 34. Fiirst, Henriette Herz, p. 18. See also Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 187-190, for a similar argument against the exaggerated contrasts made between boys’ and girls’ education, as well as against the assumption that girls’ education was by nature superficial.

35. Jewish men do seem to have been excluded from all Berlin societies that were purely social (Resourcen) and therefore founded their own Resource der jiidischen Kaufmannschaft (later Resource von 1794). 36. The Chevras Noshim had been founded relatively recently (in the 1790s). One epitaph of a Berlin Jewish woman (Mirel, widow of Liebmann Alexander, who died in 1816) gives her the title “Gabbo’is deChevro Kadisho deNoshim” (Officer of the women’s burial society)—the only reference to a woman holding a title of honor that I have found. 37. The somewhat less modernist Magine Re’1m was another social and charitable organization with an exclusively male, unmarried membership.

, 38. CAHJP—K Ge 2/120. The Edel Rintel Stiftung, at least, had an exclusively male board of curators. 39. In a report to the government in 1812, David Friedlander listed 17 Jewish private schools in Berlin. Among these were three headed by women: the school of Bella and Juliane Lehndorff-——40 female students; Demoiselle Blume Aron—14 students (7 Jewish); and Demoiselle Helfft—8 students. (Moritz Stern, “Gutachten und Briefe David Friedlanders,” Zeitschrift fiir die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland 6 [1936], 117). In addition the address list of Berlin Jews of the same year lists the widow Valentin as another Schulhalterin.

40. Davidson, Birgerliche Verbesserung, p. 82. Anti-Jewish writers spoke of the | ostentation of Jewish women and girls as serving a useful purpose, since the women brought back to Christian society the money their husbands and fathers had wrung from it. In

, Euchel’s play Reb Henoch, on the other hand, the Jewish husband makes money selling jewels to the Christian army officer who then uses them to seduce the former’s wife. Ostentation was a subject of criticism of the non-Jewish population of Berlin as well as the Jewish population, but it was frequently used against the Jews. Wolff Davidson’s defense of the Jews talks about how the accusations against the Jews had changed. Formerly their frugality had led to accusations that they undercut their competition by their

270 Notes to pages 174-175 simple way of life and consequent cheap living. Now it was their high living that was being criticized (Davidson, Biirgerliche Verbesserung, pp. 78-82). The contemporary complaint (1798) was that the Jews were “unm§assig, verschwenderisch . . . und [haben] einen grossen Hang zu sinnlichen Vergniigungen und Aufwinde.” 41. In families with a General Privilege, the average age at marriage was twenty-seven for men and twenty-two for women, as against thirty-six for men and twenty-seven for women among the much less privileged Extraordinarii. 42. Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 193-194, 196-197.

43.

Correlation Between Early Marriage Age for Women and

| Later Divorce or Conversion

Later Divorced Later Converted

: Age at Marriage Yes No Yes No Before 21 9 (4.7%) 184 12 (6.2%) 181

214+ 20 (4.7%) 408 14 (3.3%) 414 Average Age at Marriage

Male Female

Later converted 26 (N = 36) 22 (N = 26) ,

Children later converted 29 (N = 104) 23. (N = 88) , No conversion in household 31 (N = 501) 25 (N = 500) 44. In the period 1770-1805 a total of 49 women converts (not counting newborns) were known to have been born outside Berlin and only six were definitely born in the city (the birthplaces of 40 are unknown). Of the known birthplaces of the women, 6 were from _ present day Bavaria and 13 from small central German principalities like Anhalt. Among male converts other than newborn there were only 21 known to have been born outside Berlin, 11 known to be native to the city, and 25 unknown. In the period 1820—1830, on the other hand, 179 male converts are known not to have been born in Berlin and only 65 are known natives with 91 uncertain (comparable figures for women were 60, 24, and 51). The places of origin of male converts included 35 from Silesia, 32 from the province of Posen, and 11 (or twelve) from Poland.

45. In at least one case, that of Felix Eberty the author of the memoirs Jugenderin- , nerungen eines alten Berliners, the motivation seems to have been rather unusual. We do not get any direct discussion of motivation by Eberty, who does not ever mention directly that his family was Jewish and who never even mentions his conversion. Still the memoirs give much indirect evidence.

, Eberty had a great deal of difficulty in school and eventually was forced to leave the Cauer Institute, where he was studying, because of a fight with a teacher. His parents had great difficulty finding a school for him, but finally settled on a school in Wittenberg. As it turns out, Eberty’s conversion (at the rather unusual age for conversion of 14) took place only a few months before he left for Wittenberg. It is easy to imagine that his baptism might have been a precondition for his acceptance at the new school. 46. According to Hertz, Jewish High Society, pp. 240-241, the proportion of women who “intermarried” (i.e., are listed in the Judenkartei for Christian marriages of persons of Jewish origin) was 39 percent of the total number who converted, while the proportion for men was only 13 percent. _ 47. Women, too, are listed among the participants of the reform service. However, they held no formal positions within the reform group and did not help to lead prayers.

Notes to pages 175-178 271 Most of the women listed as participating in the reform service were wives or daughters of

members. When it comes to those independent of another head of household, men far outnumber women among reform service participants. One hundred sixty-two unmarried male participants were listed as against a mere sixteen widows and twelve unmarried women (CAHJP—-K Ge 2/83). A few elite women were prominent as donors to Enlightenment and reform causes—most notably the salonieres Sara Levy and Amalie Beer (mother of Giacomo Meyerbeer). Both of these women were staunch opponents of conversion. |

There were other connections between women and early religious reform as well. A few of the traditional restrictions on women’s participation in the religious service were relaxed (a lowering of the physical barrier between the sexes; permission for women to sing in mixed choirs). Certain of the liturgical innovations of reform were also undertaken in part to appeal to female worshippers, among them the introduction of a vernacular sermon, greater attention to religious esthetics, and the use of the vernacular instead of Hebrew for some of the prayers. This latter innovation was considered to be especially appealing

, to women who were less likely to have studied Hebrew than men. Despite these numerous points in which religious reform may have been especially appealing to women, they do not change the fact that women played little role in the actual leadership of the movement - for reform but only a role as an “appreciative audience.” 48, Many of the early women converts were from outside Berlin. When these are excluded, the predominance of women over men in the baptisms before 1800 is greatly reduced. Of those over the age 13 who were baptized between 1770 and 1799, 69 were female

and only 32 male. Thirty-six of the women and 14 of the men are listed as coming from a specifically named place outside of Berlin. The remaining baptized individuals were 33 females and 18 males. Of these only seven males and one female are known to have been born in Berlin. The rest are uncertain. It is likely that many more female converts than male ones before 1800 came from outside Berlin. 49, On the question of whether women were more or less likely to further assimilation than men (in a later period) see Marion Kaplan, “Tradition and Transition. The Acculturation, Assimilation and Integration of Jews in Imperial Germany. A Gender Analysis,” Yearbook of the Leo Baeck Institute 27 (1982), 3-35.

Chapter 15 1, Heymann, Lebenserinnerungen, pp. 239-251. 2. The orthodox rabbis Oettinger and Rosenstein signed the document, dated December 3, 1829, which stated that the “Anstalt Eretz Israel” would no longer be one of the seven charities to divide the moneys collected at funerals. (The other charities were: Talmud Torah, Malbish Arumim [clothes for poor], Gemilut Chasadim [burial society], Hach-

nasat Kalla [dowries], Bikur Cholim [care of the sick], and Ner Tamid [Eternal light.]) | Instead, the one-seventh share would now go to the “Armen Anstalt Haspakat Ebionim.” The collections in the synagogue for the land of Israel would now also become collections for the poor relief institute. The money already collected for Israel as well as any future money expressly donated for that purpose would still go exclusively for the poor in Palestine.

It would seem that the justification for the change was the fact that the money could not be sent to Palestine (perhaps because of the war of Greek independence against Turkey). However, when similar circumstances had occurred in the eighteenth century, the

272 Notes to pages 178-181 community did not resort to “demoting” the charity for the land of Israel. In 1750 when it was impossible to send the money from the Eretz Israel fund for a lengthy period, it was decided that the communal treasury would borrow the 351 Reichstaler in the Eretz Israel fund. As soon as collectors from Palestine would come the loan would be returned. Between 1774 and 1785 the communal records list 16 visits by yerushalmim to Berlin and the donation of various sums (some large, many small) to these collectors. It seems clear that the reason for the change in 1829 was not merely convenience but a loss of belief in the value of donations to Palestine and in the Messianic promises of return to the Holy Land (Jacobson collection I 49, pp. 112a, 113; Pinkas, pp. 153-54, 412-

413). |

3. Geiger, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, vol. 1, p. 164. ,

4. Michael A. Meyer, “Ganz nach dem alten Herkommen? The Spiritual Life of Berlin Jewry Following the Edict of 1823,” in Marianne Awerbuch and Stefi Jersch-Wenzel, Bild und Selbstbild der Juden Berlins zwischen Aufkldrung und Romantik (Berlin: Colloquium Verlag, 1992), pp. 234, 238 note 30, 241. 5. Heymann, Lebenserinnerungen; Meyer, “Ganz nach dem alten Herkommen?” pp. 241. 6. Meyer, “Ganz nach dem alten Herkommen?” pp. 236-238.

men?” p. 232).

7. Among the persons consulted by the community were Lazarus Bendavid, Isaac

Auerbach, David Friedlander, and Leopold Zunz (Meyer, “Ganz nach dem alten Herkom-

8. Meyer, “Ganz nach dem alten Herkommen?” pp. 232-236. 9. Meyer, “Ganz nach dem alten Herkommen?” p. 236. 10. Meyer, “Ganz nach dem alten Herkommen?” p. 239-240. 11. Meyer mentions among the two dozen attendees, both the traditionalist Salomon Plessner and the converted Eduard Gans. 12. See Chapter 11, p. 126. Menes found that only 9 of 43 Jews who were baptized in Berlin in 1836 were natives of the city. 13. According to Menes the total number of conversions in Brandenburg province _ (whose chief city was Berlin) was as follows: Absolute Number Number Per Year

1812-21 323 32.3 1822-31 44] 44.1 1832-41 442 44,2 1842—46 228 45.6

Menes demonstrates that the wave of conversions was restricted mainly to Berlin, K6nigsberg and Breslau. Although only 6.5 percent of Prussian Jews lived in Brandenburg, 42 percent of the converts of 1812 to 1821 lived there (Menes, “Conversion Movement,” pp. 192, 194, 195). 14. Without a detailed look at the data upon which Menes and Hertz based their figures it is impossible to tell why Hertz finds a decline after 1835 while Menes finds only

a plateau. , |

15. See Herbert Seeliger, “Origin and Growth of the Berlin Jewish Community,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 3 (1958), pp. 162-163; H.G. Sellenthin, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin und des Gebdudes Fasanenstrasse 79/80 (Berlin: Jiidische Gemeinde,1959), p. 101; Geiger, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin, vol. 2, p. 245. Combining the figures given by these three authors we come up with the following statistics on Berlin Jewish population growth:

Notes to page 18] 273 1770 3,842 1837 5,645 1780 3,386 1839 6,028 1790 3,379 1840 6,456 1800 3,322 1843 8,351 1811 3,292 1846 8,243 1813 2,827 1849 9,595 1816 3,373 1850 9,446 1817 3,699 1852 11,840 1819 3,610 1855 12,675 1822 3,795 1858 15,491

, 1825 4,079 1861 18,953 1831 4,959 16. Acquiring citizenship in Berlin did not come any fixed number of years after migrating to the city. Not all Berlin Jews were eligible for or required to take citizenship. Generally building owners and independent businessmen (and more rarely independent businesswomen) became citizens. Berlin-born children of Berlin citizens were also inscribed as new citizens in adulthood, but not at any particular age. Despite the fact that the connection between the number of citizens inscribed per year and that of the total number of Berlin Jews is not related in a systematic way, it does seem to give some indication of the order of magnitude of growth. 17, The actual figures based on the Judenbiirgerbiicher by Jacobson are as follows:

1809 288 1830 40 1810 _— 1831 40

1811 16 1832 70 1812 26 1833 62 1813 30 1834 66 1814 71 1835 58 1815 121 1836 71 1816 42 1837 70 1817 46 1838 73 1818 42 1839 83 1819 27 1840 103 1820 48 1841 126

1821 35 1842 97

| 1822 28 1843 120 1823 58 1844 113

| 1824 39 1845 127

1825 49 1846 133 1826 40 1847 132

| 1827 51 1848 101 1828 38 1849 108 1829 65 1850 151

The figures on new citizens in Berlin seem to give a better idea of the growth of the Jewish population than do raw figures for Jewish births. Perhaps this is because many of the

274 Notes to pages 182-189 new migrants to the city were unmarried. In any case the total number of Jewish births annually in Berlin hovered between 60 and 90 for the entire period from 1813 to 1838 with the exception of the years of high births in 1817, 1819, and 1821 with 91, 94, and 94, respectively, and of low births in 1830, 1833, and 1834 with 55, 59, and 59. The number of births climbed sharply in the years 1839 and 1840 to 104 and 189, respectively (based on Jacobson collection I 42-43 in Leo Baeck Institute). 18. Based on the Judenbiirgerbiicher we have the following figures for birthplaces of new citizens:

Birthplace 1825 1830 1835 1845

Berlin 14 9 7 13 Brandenburg 12 8 9 19 |

. Pomerania 4 ] 2 4

Subtotal 30 (61%) 18 (45%) 18 (31%) 36 (29%)

Posen 4 3 14 34

West Prussia 4 6 9 18

| Subtotal 8 (16%) 9 (22%) 23 (40%) 52 (42%) Silesia 5 (10%) 7 (18%) 14 (24%) 22 (18%) All Others 6 (12%) 6 (15%) 3 (5%) 15 (12%)

Total 49 40 58 125

19. This figure is based on the fact that the Jewish population in 1850 was over three times what the Jewish population had been in 1817. The number of descendants of the pre1812 population is actually much smaller than one-third, because some of the original population (perhaps as many as 10 percent) converted to Christianity. Of new Jewish citizens listed in the Judenbiirgerbiicher in the 1840s, only about 10 percent were born in Berlin, and even some of those were the children of parents who had arrived after 1812. 20. There were a few prominent Berlin Jews of the mid and late nineteenth century who did have family ties to the old pre-1812 elite (or at least to Jews who had lived in Berlin before 1812). Among these were Moritz Veit, head of the Jewish community in the , middle of the century (son of Philipp Veit and nephew of Brendel Mendelssohn’s husband Simon Veit); Gerson Bleichréder, whose grandfather had come to Berlin in the eighteenth century; and Alexander Mendelssohn, the philosopher’s grandson and last Jewish member of the family. There were, however, no Itzigs, Ephraims, or Fliesses in communal leadership.

21. Among the leaders of the Reformgenossenschaft (reform society), which eventually became the Reformgemeinde (reform community), were Aron Bernstein of Danzig

and Sigismund Stern of Karge in Posen. The first rabbi of the congregation, Samuel

note 6. ,

Holdheim, also came from the province of Posen. On the conversion of the descendants of the eighteenth century elite, see Chapter 13,

Conclusion 1. See Chapter 13, note 23, . 2. Several cases can be mentioned in which the tolerance of supporters of the Enlightenment of their children’s failure to follow in their footsteps is evident. One involves Moses Mendelssohn who seems not to have prevented his oldest son from discontinuing his Jew-

Notes to pages 189-192 275 ish studies despite the elder Mendelssohn’s obvious belief in their importance. In the same family one can mention the famous letter of Abraham Mendelssohn on the confirmation of his daughter and the tolerant letter of Simon Veit to his converted son (see Katz, Out of

, the Ghetto, p.113; Meyer, Origins, p. 88). 3. One can see this attitude clearly in Wolff Davidson’s Biirgerliche Verbesserung. Every contribution of Jews to Berlin culture, even the most trivial, is recounted as a noteworthy and unusual event. Davidson not only recounts the considerable number of Jewish authors, the eight physicians, the Jews who had translated works from Hebrew or written textbooks of Polish and Italian. He also mentions every Jewish painter or sculptor, a Mechanicus (mechanic), an architect, and some composers, as well as a gardener and an inspector of mines (Hiitteninspektor). Besides the professional artists in the community he

, finds it worthy of notice that one Jewish woman’s embroidery resembles painting, that several Jewish women are talented amateur pianists or singers, and that Jews participated in the singing of “The Death of Jesus” at a performance in the Fasch singing academy.

Blank Page

Bibliography

Archival and Manuscript Sources Leo Baeck Institute, New York (LBD): Jacob Adam memoirs (Memoir #2 /M.E. 317 in Leo Baeck Institute). Itzig Family Collection (AR 114, no. 2)—autograph album of Rebecca Itzig. Jacob Jacobson Collection: I 20/21-—copies of Jewish epitaphs by Leiser Landshuth; I 37— _

| Quartierliste 1744; I 39—-Pinkas dechabura Kadisha Gomlei Chasadim Vekabranim , umevaker Cholim 1676-1813; I 42/43—Jewish births 1812-1840; I 49 eighteenth

century Berlin communal record book, including births, marriages, and deaths 1754— ,

, 1813; I 50—Alte Familienliste; 1 61—list of divorced Jews 1813-1847; I 80—list of family members included in Itzig naturalization 1802; I 82—typed copy of list , of all Jews in Berlin 1812; I 91—-minute book of the Gesellschaft der Freunde 1792-— 1793.

Bunette Oppenheim—autograph album (AR 1952). , Organisationen, Ressource von 1794—-membership lists 1814-1823. Valentin Collection (AR 3820) I 9-—Autobiography of Samuel Lippmann Loewen.

Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People (CAHJP): | Berlin Collection: K Ge 2/2—-Allerhand Bekanntmachungen 1809; K Ge 2/10—Minjanim usw. 1815; K Ge 2/ 13—Ubersetzungen; K Ge 2/18——-Gemeinde Steuern 1809-1810;

K Ge 2/65—-Takkanot Chevra Kadisha debachurim; K Ge 2/ 81(1) and (2)— Deutscher Gottesdienst; Synagogenbau 1818-1823; K Ge 2/83—(unlabeled) list of those affiliated with Beer-Jacobson temple; K Ge 2/89—-Bau-Angelegenheiten 1810— 1813; K Ge 2/118—-Synagogen Reparaturen 1819, 1823; K Ge 2/104—Gottesdienst usw. 1818; K Ge 2/119-—Korrespondenz 1813-1814; K Ge 2/120—-government in-

quiry on Jewish charities 1811; K Ge 2 /129—-Jewish communal elections 1814. Moritz Stern Collection and Ismar Freund Collection : P 17-451—-minutes of Berlin communal meetings 1809-1811; P 17-452 (2 vols.)—Judensachen von Berlin 16711856; P 17-453; P 17-454; Acta des Cultus-Ministerii- Judensachen von Berlin 1815—

278 Bibliography 1853; P 17-464—government records on requests for permission to convert to Christianity 1810—; P 17-466—Taxes etc. 1809-1814; P 17- 467—letter by Briiderverein

1814; P 17-468—Etablissement der Juden in der Stadt Berlin 1812; P 17-484— conditions made by communal elders for assuming office 1808; P 17-487; P 17508—list of all Berlin Jews by address 1812; P 17-522—-communal correspondence 1810-1811; P 17-523—correspondence 1812~—1813; P 17-524—correspondence 1814;

P 17-532—correspondence 1816; P 17-561—list of seats to be rented out in the synagogue 1825-1826; P 17-578—list of private Jewish religious services; P 17619; 17-624—-list of members of Briider Verein (mislabeled); P 17-639—notes on the Fliess family; P 17-641/642—files concerning tax exemption of the Itzig fam-

ily; P 17-642—transcriptions from record book of the burial society. ,

Freischule 1802-1803.

Microfilm HM 9879 (From Merseburg Deutsches Zentralarchiv)—report on Jtidische

Evangelisches Zentralarchiv - Berlin Fremdstdmmige Kartei (also known as Judenkartei) - Taufen.

Bibliographic Abbreviations Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums = MGWJ Yearbook of the Leo Baeck Institute = YLBI Zeitschrift fiir Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland = ZGJD

Printed Sources |

Press, 1973. | Buchhandlung, 1792. , ,

Altmann, Alexander, Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study. University of Alabama Ascher, Saul, Leviathan oder tiber Religion in Riicksicht des Judenthums. Berlin: Frankesche

Barzilay, Isaac E., “National and Anti-national Trends in the Berlin Haskalah,” Jewish Social Studies 21 (July 1959), 165-192. Eisenstein-Barzilay, Isaac, “The Treatment of the Jewish Religion in the Literature of the Berlin Haskalah,” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 24

(1955), 39-68. | , a

Bendavid, Lazarus, Etwas zur Characteristick der Juden. Leipzig: Joseph Stahel, 1793. ———Selbstbiographie. In Bildnisse jetztlebender Berliner Gelehrten mit ihren Selbstbiographien, Edited by Lowe. Berlin: 1806. Bodian, Miriam, “Hayazmim Hayehudim beBerlin, Hamedina Ha’absolutit ve ‘Shipur Matzavan Haezrachi shel Hayehudim’ bemachatzit hasheniya shel hameah ha-18,"

Zion 49, no. 2 (1984), 159-184. ,

Brunschwig, Henri, Enlightenment and Romanticism in Eighteenth Century Prussia. Translated by Frank Jellinek. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1974 (original title La crise de |’état prussien a la fin du XVIIle siécle et la genése de la mentalité romantique. Presses Universitaires de France, 1947]. Carlebach, Julius, “The Forgotten Connection. Women and Jews in the Conflict between Enlightenment and Romanticism,” YLBJ 24 (1979), 107-138.

Bibliography 279 Cohn, Warren I., “The Moses Isaac Family Trust. Its History and Significance,” YLBI 18 (1973), 267-279. Davidson, Wolff, Ein Woértchen tiber Juden. Veranlasst durch die von Herrn Friedlander herausgegebene Aktenstiicke. Berlin: 1792. ————Uber die biirgerliche Verbesserung der Juden. Berlin: Ernst Felisch, 1798. Eberty, Felix, Jugenderinnerungen eines alten Berliners. Berlin: Verlag fiir Kulturpolitik, 1925.

Eliav, Mordechai, Hachinuch Hayehudi Begermania biyemei Hahaskala ve Haemanizipatsia. Jerusalem: Jewish Agency, 1960.

: Ephraim, Benjamin Veitel, Uber meine Verhaftung und einige andere Vorfdlle meines Lebens. Berlin: 1807.

Euchel, Itzig, Toledot Harav Hakolel Hechacham Hachoker Harabani Moshe ben Menachem. 2nd ed. Vienna: Georg Holzinger, 1814. -_——“‘Reb Henoch,” In Arkhiv far der Geshikhte fun Yidishn Teater, Edited by Jacob - Shatzky. Vilna-New York: YIVO, 1930, pp. 94—146. Feiner, Shmuel, “Itzhak Euchel—Haya’azam shel tenuat hahaskala beGermania” Zion 52 (1987), no. 4, 427-469.

Freimark, Peter, “Language Behaviour and Assimilation. The Situation of the Jews in North- | ern Germany in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century,” YLBI 24(1979), 157— 177.

Freund, Ismar, Die Emanzipation der Juden in Preussen unter besondere Beriicksichtigung des Gesetzes vom 11. Mdrz 1812. Berlin: M. Poppelauer, 1912.

6 (1935), 77-92.

———-——“‘David Friedlander und die politische Emanzipation der Juden in Preussen,” ZGJD

Friedlander, David, Akten-Stiicke die Reform der jiidischen Kolonien in den Preussischen

| Staaten betreffend. Berlin: 1793. | -—-——Sendschreiben an Hochwiirden Herrn und Oberconsistorialrat und Probst Teller von einigen Hausvdtern jiidischer Religion. Berlin: 1799. ——-—Uhber die, durch die neue Organisation der Judenschaften in den Preussischen Staaten nothwendig gewordene Umbildung 1) ihres Gottesdienstes in den Synagogen, 2) ihrer Unterrichts-Anstalten, und deren Lehrgegenstinden, und 3) ihres Erziehungs-Wesens

liberhaupt. Berlin: 1812. (Reprinted by Moritz Stern in Beitrdge zur Geschichte der jiidischen Gemeinde zu Berlin. 6. Berlin: 1934.) Friedlander, Yehuda, Hebrew Satire in the Age of the German Enlightenment (also review by Meir Gilon in Zion 52, no. 2 (1987) and ensuing debate in Zion 52, no. 4.)

, Fiirst, J., Henriette Herz, Ihr Leben und thre Erinnerungen Berlin: Wilhelm Hertz, 1850. Geiger, Ludwig, Geschichte der Juden in Berlin. Berlin: J. Guttentag, 1871. --_-—-—“‘Ein Brief Moses Mendelssohns und sechs Briefe David Friedlinders,” ZGJD 1 (1887), 256-273. ————“Vor hundert Jahren, Mitteilungen aus der Geschichte der Juden Berlins,” ZGJD 3

(1889), 185-233.

-—_———-“Kleine Beitrage zur Geschichte der Juden in Berlin (1700 bis 1817),” ZGJD 4 (1890), 29-65. ——— Berlin 1688-1840. Geschichte des Geistigen Lebens der preussischen Hauptstadt. Berlin: Verlag der Briider Paetel, 1895. Gidal, Nachum T., Die Juden in Deutschland von der Rémerzeit bis zur Weimarer Republik. Giitersloh: Bertelsman Lexikon Verlag, 1988. Glatzer, Ruth (ed.) Berliner Leben 1648-1806, Erinnerungen und Berichte. Berlin: Riitten und Loening, 1956. Graetz, Heinrich, History of the Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1895, vol. 5.

280 Bibliography Grattenauer, K. W. F., Uber die physische und moralische Verfassung der heutigen Juden.

, Berlin: 1791.

Wilhelm Schmidt, 1803. ,

———Erkldrung an das Publikum tiber meine Schrift: Wider die Juden. Berlin: Johann Graupe, Heinz Moshe, The Rise of Modern Judaism, An Intellectual History of German Jewry 1650-1942. Translated by John Robertson. Huntington, New York: Robert

E. Krieger, 1978. ,

Guttmann, Jacob, “Lazarus Bendavid. Seine Stellung zum Judentum und seine literarische Wirksamkeit,’”’ MGWJ 25 (1917), 26-50, 176-211. Heine, Heinrich, The Complete Poems of Heinrich Heine. A Modern English Version. Translated by Hal Draper. Boston: Suhrkamp/Insel, 1982. Hertz, Deborah, Jewish High Society in Old Regime Berlin. New Haven and London: Yale

University Press, 1988. ,

Heymann, Aron Hirsch, Lebenserinnerungen. Edited by Heinrich Loewe. Berlin: 1909. Heyse, Paul, Jugenderinnerungen und Bekenntnisse. Stuttgart-Berlin: J. G. Cotta, 1912. Hubbard, William H., Familiengeschichte; Materialen zur deutschen Familie seit dem Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts. Miinchen: Verlag C. H. Beck, 1983. Jacobson, Jacob, “Aus David Friedlanders Mussestunden,’ ZGJD 6 (1935), 134—140. ————Jiidische Trauungen in Berlin 1723-1759. Berlin: Joseph Jastrow/ Jiidischer Verlag, 1938. ————‘“‘Some Observations on the Jewish Citizens’ Books of the City of Berlin,” YLB/ 1

(1956), 317-330. ,

—————“Von Mendelssohn zu Mendelssohn-Bartholdy,” YLB7 5 (1960), 251-261.

———Die Judenbiirgerbiicher der Stadt Berlin. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1962. ————-Jiidische Trauungen in Berlin 1759-1813. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1968. Wenzel, Stefi, Jiidische Biirger und Kommunale Selbstverwaltung in Preussischen Stddten

1808-1848. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1967. , Brandenburg. Berlin: Colloquium Verlag, 1978. .

Jersch-Wenzel, Stefi, Juden und “Franzosen” in der Wirtschaft des Raumes Berlin/

Jost, Isaak M., Geschichte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Maccabder bis auf unsre Tage. Berlin: Schlesingsche Buchhandlung, 1828. Kaplan, Marion, “Tradition and Transition. The Acculturation, Assimilation and Integration of Jews in Imperial Germany. A Gender Analysis,” YLBI 27 (1982), 3-35. Katz, Jacob, Out of the Ghetto, The Social Background of Jewish Emancipation, 1770-

1870. New York: Schocken Books, 1973. |

Kayserling, Meyer, Moses Mendelssohn. Sein Leben und seine Werke. Leipzig: 1862. Kedar, Benyamin Ze’ev, “Hemschechiyut vechidush behamara hayehudit beGermania shel . hameah hashmone-esre,” Festschrift for Jacob Katz. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1980. Knobloch, Heinz, Herr Moses in Berlin. Ein Menschenfreund in Preussen. Das Leben des Moses Mendelssohn. Berlin: Das Arsenal, 1982.

Landhuth, Leiser, Toldot Anshei Hashem, vol. 1. Berlin: 1884. } ———_—‘"Veitel Heine Ephraim als Anwalt des Judenbarts” [written, 1872], published by Moritz Stern in 1909 as the first of a never completed series Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Juden in Berlin. Lazarus, Felix, “Das K6niglich Westphalische Konsistorium der Israeliten,” MGWJ, neue

Folge, 22 (1914), 80-96, 178-208, 326-358, 454-482, 542-561. Lesser, Ludwig, Chronik der Gesellschaft der Freunde in Berlin. Berlin: 1842. Lewin, Reinhold, “Die Judengesetzgebung Friedrich Wilhelms II,” MGWJ, neue Folge, 21 (1913), 74-98, 211-234, 363~—372, 461-481, 567-590.

Bibliography 281

6 (1935), 92-112.

Littmann, Ellen, ‘“‘David Friedlanders Sendschreiben an Probst Teller und sein Echo,” ZGJD

| Lowenstein, Steven M., “Voluntary and Involuntary Limitation of Fertility in Nineteenth Century Bavarian Jewry,” In Modern Jewish Fertility, edited by Paul Ritterband. Leiden: 1981, pp. 94-111. ——_——“The Readership of Mendelssohn’s Bible Translation,” Hebrew Union College Annual 53 (1982), 179-213. ——_———“Jewish Upper Crust and Berlin Jewish Enlightenment—The Family of Daniel Itzig,”

In From East and West. Jews in a Changing Europe 1750-1870, Edited by Frances Malino and David Sorkin. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990, pp. 182-201. Mahler, Raphael, A History of Modern Jewry 1780-1815. New York: Schocken Books, 1971. Maimon, Solomon, The Autobiography of Solomon Maimon. Translated by. J. Clark Murray.

London: East and West Library, 1954. Meisl, Josef, “Der Berliner Judenkalender und die Kalendergelder,’” MGWJ, neve Folge,

, 35 (1927), 274-288.

——~——‘“Der Anteil der Berliner Judenschaft an der Kontributionen wiahrend der feindlichen Besetzungen der Stadt im siebenjahrigen Kriege,” MGWJ 72 (1928), 350-362. Mendelssohn, Moses, Gesammelte Schriften, Jubildumsausgabe. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag [Giinther Holzboog], 1977. Mendes-Flohr, Paul R., and Jehuda Reinharz (eds.) The Jew in the Modern World. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980. Menes, Abraham, “The Conversion Movement in Prussia During the First Half of the 19th Century,” Y/VO Annual 6 (1951) 187-205. Meyer, Michael A., The Origins of the Modern Jew; Jewish Identity and European Culture in Germany 1749-1824. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1967. ————